Sebelius: Well, yeah actually, ObamaCare is causing insurance premiums to rise

posted at 8:31 pm on March 27, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

As you might remember, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was largely sold to the American people on the premise that it would help to make health care and health insurance more… well… affordable. Au contraire, says yet another study fleshing out the practical effects of the ObamaCare mandate:

Under the Affordable Care Act, medical claim costs, the largest driver of health insurance premiums, are expected to increase by 32 percent for individuals, a new study by the Society of Actuaries finds.

Though some states might see declines in cost-per-person medical claims, the report found “the overwhelming majority will see double-digit increases in their individual health insurance markets, where people purchase coverage directly from insurers,” the Associated Press reports.

California’s claim costs are estimated to increase by 62 percent by 2017. In Ohio, it’s expected to be 80 percent. Florida costs are expected to grow 20 percent and in Maryland, 67 percent. The higher claim costs are related to the increase in sick people expected to join the pool, according to the report.

But that’s not really unexpected news, if you’ve been paying attention. The unexpected news is that HHS Secretary Sebelius admitted that these individual-insurance premiums are going to be going up, directly because of ObamaCare. Gasp:

Some people purchasing new insurance policies for themselves this fall could see premiums rise because of requirements in the health-care law, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters Tuesday.

Ms. Sebelius’s remarks come weeks before insurers are expected to begin releasing rates for plans that start on Jan. 1, 2014, when key provisions of the health law kick in. Premiums have been a sensitive subject for the Obama administration, which is counting on elements in the health law designed to increase competition among insurers to keep rates in check. The administration has pointed to subsidies that will be available for many lower-income Americans to help them with the cost of coverage.

The secretary’s remarks are among the first direct statements from federal officials that people who have skimpy health plans right now could face higher premiums for plans that are more generous. …

“These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” she said. “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”

Translation:

Dear Younger and Healthier People,

You will help shoulder the burdens and higher costs of ObamaCare — both through your taxes that go toward subsidies, and by paying for a particular health insurance plan that you yourselves might neither want nor need — and you will like it. You’re welcome.

Sincerely,

ObamaCare.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

It would also be good to let the IRS (or its citizen deputies) enter your houses without probable cause to see if you’re complying with ObamaCare. – Jimbo3

lorien1973 on March 27, 2013 at 8:35 PM

MiniTru releases press statement:

“Increasing cost of healthcare premiums was always a part of ObamaCare”

BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 8:36 PM


Dear Younger and Healthier People,

You will help shoulder the burdens and higher costs of ObamaCare — both through your taxes that go toward subsidies, and by paying for a particular health insurance plan that you yourselves might neither want nor need — and you will like it. You’re welcome.

Sincerely,

ObamaCare.

Shorter version: Dear Younger and Healthier People,

Thank you for your help in Royally screwing yourselves and your children and your grandchildren and…

NMRN123 on March 27, 2013 at 8:39 PM

It’s going to cost a hell of a lot more, but the more you find out about it, the more you’re going to like it.

Oh, and if you like your doctor, you really don’t want to keep him, because he’ll cost to much.

Curtiss on March 27, 2013 at 8:41 PM

I didn’t vote for Obama so I never screwed myself. Thanks for generalizing though. It’s good to know I get to pay for this and receive the blame at the same time.

RDE2010 on March 27, 2013 at 8:43 PM

Hey Sebelius:ESAD, patron of Tiller the Killer!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 27, 2013 at 8:45 PM

RDE2010 on March 27, 2013 at 8:43 PM

Shad up.

CW on March 27, 2013 at 8:46 PM

For your premiums to drop 3000% they have to go up 10,000%, what BHO meant to say.

RickB on March 27, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Just wait until the illegal alien amnesty hoard gets their comprehensive welcome package with directions on how to get Obamacare, food stamps and subsidized housing. Good night, sleep tight, the bed bugs are gonna bite.

Wigglesworth on March 27, 2013 at 8:47 PM

MD, OH, CA…schadenfruedeilicious…LMAO…

hillsoftx on March 27, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Sebelius: Well, yeah actually

…I’m a lying B!TCH…!!!!

KOOLAID2 on March 27, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Ps.

Hey kid! I know it is too late for you. Your royally screwed. But at least take the first step toward redemption.

kurtzz3 on March 27, 2013 at 8:52 PM

I will go to the ICU and oncology wards once this thing gets going and pass out I’m really sorry you were duped by the democrats balloons to all who are perishing as a result of this.

tom daschle concerned on March 27, 2013 at 8:53 PM

So, as it turns out, you really didn’t want to keep your health care plan anyway.

Curtiss on March 27, 2013 at 8:53 PM

*You’re*

kurtzz3 on March 27, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Doesn’t matter. First open enrollment after it passed I lost my coverage. So I welcome the asshats that supported it to my suffer club.

Enjoy.

wolly4321 on March 27, 2013 at 8:55 PM

My health insurance premiums have almost tripled since ObamaCare passed.

Every single month when I pay my premium, I get really angry at my friends who voted to re-elect Obama.

wren on March 27, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Lying sons of a bitches from the word oink.

Mason on March 27, 2013 at 8:58 PM

We must pass this bill to see how much you will get screwed”

Electrongod on March 27, 2013 at 8:58 PM

My health insurance premiums have almost tripled since ObamaCare passed.

Every single month when I pay my premium, I get really angry at my friends who voted to re-elect Obama.

wren on March 27, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Two-fer for the luciferians trying to destroy the us. I can’t blame you though. I’ve ridiculed the piss out of all my liberal friends since nov 6 2008. A few told me to piss off, a few have woken up.

Total f**** given?

0

tom daschle concerned on March 27, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Sebelius: Well, yeah actually, ObamaCare is causing insurance premiums to rise

Huh. No s***?

Seems like someone could have said something before.

Axe on March 27, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Frau Sebelius is not amused.

Stu Gotts on March 27, 2013 at 9:01 PM

northdallasthirty had this in the headlines on the STD epidemic:

Both are startling. In 2008, there were 20 million new incidents of infection in the United States, and a prevalence (new infections plus ongoing infection) of 110 million, according to CDC estimates. (Because one person may have more than one infection, the 110 million figure does not mean 110 million people have a sexually transmitted disease.) As a result, the United States incurred estimated direct medical costs of nearly $16 billion……

Although people age 15-24 account for only 25 percent of the nation’s sexually experienced population, Satterwhite’s study estimates they account for about half of all sexually transmitted infections.

So is Sebelius going to start talking about abstinence and fidelity as a means of saving money on healthcare?

That might help with ObamaCare premiums.

INC on March 27, 2013 at 9:02 PM

“You fuc%ed up…

… you trusted us.” - Exempted self from Obowmacare

Seven Percent Solution on March 27, 2013 at 9:04 PM

So is Sebelius going to start talking about abstinence and fidelity as a means of saving money on healthcare?

No, she’ll just institute a tax on unprotected sex.

BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 9:06 PM

CDC: 110,197,000 Venereal Infections in U.S.; Nation Creating New STIs Faster Than New Jobs or College Grads

This new secular humanistic America is going to be great! It may not last moe than a few decades, but damn!

tom daschle concerned on March 27, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Really wondering if these people really believe the horse$hit they’re spewing or if they’re actually lying out of their a$$es from the git go…

My bets are on the latter…

BigWyo on March 27, 2013 at 9:08 PM

No, she’ll just institute a tax on unprotected sex.

BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 9:06 PM

lol — well, as long as it’s a tax.

Axe on March 27, 2013 at 9:10 PM

Hmmmmmmm……..

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense officials say the Pentagon will sharply cut the number of unpaid furlough days civilians will have to take in the next several months from 22 to 14, reducing the financial impact of the budget cuts on as many as 700,000 workers.

Officials say Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel made the decision Wednesday. Military and defense leaders continue to work through the details, trying to decide how to allocate the more than $10 billion Congress shifted to operations accounts. Officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Bluff called, Obama loses.

BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 9:11 PM

ObamaCare will save money in the long run as about half the population will die off because of it.

VorDaj on March 27, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Under ObamaCare living to 60 will be the new 80.

VorDaj on March 27, 2013 at 9:15 PM

The unexpected news is that HHS Secretary Sebelius admitted that these individual-insurance premiums are going to be going up, directly because of ObamaCare. Gasp:

Wow, how about a press conference.

‘Madam Secretary, have you been lying for the last 3 years or are you really that stupid??’

BigWyo on March 27, 2013 at 9:15 PM

You will help shoulder the burdens and higher costs of ObamaCare — both through your taxes that go toward subsidies, and by paying for a particular health insurance plan that you yourselves might neither want nor need — and you will like it. You’re welcome.

Sincerely,

ObamaCare.

Shorter version: Dear Younger and Healthier People,

Thank you for your help in Royally screwing yourselves and your children and your grandchildren and…

NMRN123 on March 27, 2013 at 8:39 PM

The initial consequence of allowing all Americans to buy affordable health insurance is higher rates. For those with pre-existing conditions, your health premiums will, for the first time, be affordable on a middle class income.

As for the long-term, rates will go down. This model is proven in Germany, Australia, and other countries with far, far lower insurance costs yet high quality of care.

Conservatives should stop playing the role of dead-enders and start proposing ways to improve US healthcare. There’s an incredible wave to tech innovation going on today that will transform the way healthcare is purchased and delivered over the next 10 years, and it’s much more consequential than reform directed from the top down.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Just like Romneycare so why worry…All 20,000 pages of regulations of it.

But we where sure to dodge that crazy Mitt who would have told he HHS by executive order to suspend all activity in the creation and implementation of Obamacare until the replacement that removes all federal oversight in health care including the type of insurance and what it covers.

tjexcite on March 27, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Conservatives should stop playing the role of dead-enders and start proposing ways to improve US healthcare.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Abolish ObamaCare.

VorDaj on March 27, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Affordable Care Act LOL
It’s really the Unaffordable Care Act (AKA Obama Doesn’t Care)

J_Crater on March 27, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Dear young:

You will be screwed by government-issued student loans, which are inflated, due in part to the tax we added because of the ACA.

You will have to get first-dollar insurance, even though you are young and healthy and really only need major medical.

You will have to shoulder the costs of older people, who are wealthier than you and have more assets than you.

You will not be able to get a loan to buy a house, in part because the money you were going to use for your mortgage will now go to pay for health care you won’t actually use.

Because the ACA will add so much to our debt, we’re going to keep on “monetizing” it. What’s that? Well, it’s a fancy way of saying the dollar will be inflated to oblivion, so when you’re working for the new minimum wage of $50/hour at Starbucks, that will only buy you a cup of coffee. Of course, after all the taxes your bankrupt federal, state, and city governments are going to be collecting from you, you’ll actually have to work two hours to buy that coffee. But get one for me too, please!

Did I say working? Good luck finding a job!! Haa haa haa. Here, I’ll help you find a doctor who will sign a few forms so you can go on disability instead.

Next stop, the food stamp program!

HakerA on March 27, 2013 at 9:20 PM

So is Sebelius going to start talking about abstinence and fidelity as a means of saving money on healthcare?

No. That’s the holy grail. They will, however, gladly take your Twinkies and Big Gulps.

My body, my choice and all that.

englishqueen01 on March 27, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Dude! I thought this was only going to screw stingy old Republicans…

claudius on March 27, 2013 at 9:21 PM

There’s an incredible wave to tech innovation going on today that will transform the way healthcare is purchased and delivered over the next 10 years, and it’s much more consequential than reform directed from the top down.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 9:16 PM

What is coming from the top down is not reform, it’s crap.

VorDaj on March 27, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Under the Affordable Care Act, medical claim costs, the largest driver of health insurance premiums, are expected to increase by 32 percent for individuals, a new study by the Society of Actuaries finds.

Then it’s not “affordable” is it.

If this was a clean water act.. and they discovered it actually caused dirty water… would that be grounds to repeal it?

It is a fraud. The Affordable Care Act is not affordable. It is a lie. It is a fraud.

JellyToast on March 27, 2013 at 9:23 PM

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 9:16 PM

10 Goto http://www.market-ticker.org
20 Search “Health Reform”

Assuming you have a modicum of integrity or intellectual sincerity, you will learn something.

tom daschle concerned on March 27, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Under ObamaCare living to 60 will be the new 80.

VorDaj on March 27, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Stealing that right now. :)

There. :)

My majectic army of seven followers might enjoy that. :)

Axe on March 27, 2013 at 9:24 PM

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 9:16 PM

you sound like a troll

Jocelyn on March 27, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Conservatives should stop playing the role of dead-enders and start proposing ways to improve US healthcare.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Abolish ObamaCare.

VorDaj on March 27, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Yes, return to a healthcare model designed specifically for employer sponsored healthcare when 40% of the nation’s population will be self-employed by 2020.
And continue down the path of shielding individuals from participating in decisions to reduce costs, while the biggest US rivals have far more efficient healthcare systems that reduce their manufacturing and labor costs. If you don’t want to be an agent of change, at least give the market and technology-driven change an opportunity to succeed.

Healthcare 2.0 is arriving and conservatives need to find ways to encourage and support change instead of yearning for an unaffordable and inefficient past the excluded far too many Americans from reasonably priced healthcare.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 9:25 PM

The initial consequence of allowing all Americans to buy affordable health insurance is higher rates.

So the plan is to make unaffordable healthcare insurance more expensive so people who can’t afford it now can buy it?

Is that right?

C’mon, Bayam. You’re really Al Gore in disguise, aren’t you? That statement could only be produced by the man who said “cooler temperatures are a sign of global warming”.

Well, you could be Gore, or Yogi Berra.

“Its so crowded there, no goes there any more”

But please, explain the mechanism that will lower the cost of premiums, outside of reducing coverage and restricting access.

BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Just another golden opportunity handed to the Republican leadership on a bright shiny silver platter to expose the lies of the left….. and yet nothing but the sound of crickets.

JellyToast on March 27, 2013 at 9:27 PM

I’m telling ya, that’s a face which you can imagine saying “Liquidate 20,000 more units, we can’t afford to keep them any longer”.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 9:28 PM

the report found “the overwhelming majority will see double-digit increases in their individual health insurance markets

YA MEAN TO TELL ME THAT “FREE” DOESN’T MEAN “FREE”?

Now who in their right mind would have guessed that?

GarandFan on March 27, 2013 at 9:28 PM

And continue down the path of shielding individuals from participating in decisions to reduce costs, while the biggest US rivals have far more efficient healthcare systems that reduce their manufacturing and labor costs.

Agreed, though China does benefit from being able to sell the organs of people they execute in their gulags.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 9:30 PM

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Do you have the ability to not speak in generalities, unfounded accusations, and appeals to authority?

tom daschle concerned on March 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Healthcare 2.0 is arriving and conservatives need to find ways to encourage and support change instead of yearning for an unaffordable and inefficient past the excluded far too many Americans from reasonably priced healthcare.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Support this kind of change? Obama change? The man is a total quack and ignoramus and and very destructive to health care and pretty much everything else he touches. And he’s all yours.

VorDaj on March 27, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Agreed, though China does benefit from being able to sell the organs of people they execute in their gulags.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Its marketed as “Chin Chow Mein”

BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 9:33 PM

And the British healthcare system, their patients recover more quickly because they have to clean their own bedpans and rooms, and change their own bedding. Exercise helps recovery.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Conservatives should stop playing the role of dead-enders and start proposing ways to improve US healthcare…
 
bayam on March 27, 2013 at 9:16 PM

 
You won’t listen.
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/08/onward-obamacare/comment-page-5/#comment-6493691

 
You
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/09/video-obama-supporters-stumped-on-why-government-should-pay-for-birth-control/comment-page-3/#comment-6120726

 
Never
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/14/andrea-mitchell-lets-face-it-dianne-feinstein-pwn3d-ted-cruz-in-that-exchange-on-the-second-amendment/comment-page-3/#comment-6809505

 
Do
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/24/federal-govt-hey-green-jobs-didnt-work-out-but-maybe-green-education-will/comment-page-2/#comment-5772869

 
You will, however, flee the thread when you can no longer touch bottom.
 

…there’s no depth or real substance to the debate. It’s really unfortunate.
 
bayam on November 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM

 
Hilarious.

rogerb on March 27, 2013 at 9:38 PM

And the British healthcare system, their patients recover more quickly because they have to clean their own bedpans and rooms, and change their own bedding. Exercise helps recovery.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 9:36 PM

That’s health care 2.0 per bayam.

tom daschle concerned on March 27, 2013 at 9:38 PM

It was all part of the plan, comrades.

Philly on March 27, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Did anyone seriously believe that getting the government involved would result in insurance being less expensive?

Nomas on March 27, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Hey, I have an idea.

If a doctor wants to see a patient and treat him or her.. and the patient wants to see the doctor and pay for their own care… why not just let them?

You have an insurance company, a doctor and a patient… and all three are happy with the relationship then what right does the government have to interfere? The doctor is happy with the pay he receives.. the patient is happy with his doctor and the coverage and the insurance company is happy with their client.

But no…. the government has to step into this relationship and say “You can’t be happy! You can’t receive that treatment or charge that payment!” This whole thing is freaking insane!

JellyToast on March 27, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Then there’s the French healthcare system. Their old folks homes have built-in saunas…well ok not really, but when 20,000 seniors died of heatstroke a few years back they did so after losing a few pounds of unneeded water weight, and that’s pretty cool, yes?

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Yeah, us dumb, lying, hillbilly ‘rethuglicans’ already knew that, but thanks for sharing, Kathleen.

Funny how us dumb folk keep being proven correct about such matters.

tdpwells on March 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Thanks for confessing with your silence bayam.

tom daschle concerned on March 27, 2013 at 9:48 PM

And the British healthcare system, their patients recover more quickly because they have to clean their own bedpans and rooms, and change their own bedding. Exercise helps recovery.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 9:36 PM

That’s health care 2.0 per bayam.

tom daschle concerned on March 27, 2013 at 9:38 PM

I don’t know any American politicians calling for the implementation of a system even remotely resembling the British model. Although it’s a great scare tactic.

The real debate should focus on the merits of keeping the insurance system privately held as opposed to a single payer model. Germany has kept their system entirely privatized and the health insurance industry is insanely price competitive.

But please, explain the mechanism that will lower the cost of premiums, outside of reducing coverage and restricting access.

BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 9:26 PM

The same mechanisms you find in France, Germany, and Japan that results in national healthcare that consumes a far lower percentage of GDP.
I’d recommend any number of books that cover the topics in more detail, such as The Healing of America.

The belief in American healthcare superiority is simply wrong. The US deserves something better than a second-rate healthcare system.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Yes, return to a healthcare model designed specifically for employer nsored healthcare when 40% of the nation’s population will be self-employed by 2020.

yes, this precisely. Nancy P promised the world that no one would have to be in job-lock because of h/c. that is, we can all follow our must, self-employed artists, musicians, street jugglers, petty criminals, etc….all will have healthcare.

Oh, i smell the utopia now. But of course, people will be self-emplo9yed independent contractors…because no Company can afford to pay their h/c….Moron

they build them stupid nowadays don’t they?

r keller on March 27, 2013 at 9:54 PM

The same mechanisms you find in France, Germany, and Japan that results in national healthcare that consumes a far lower percentage of GDP.

Please, summarize them for us. How about just three of the top 10 methods.

So far all you’ve offered is platitudes.

BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 9:57 PM

“These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time,

Yeah, because some 70-year male really needs his insurance to cover contraceptives and now thanks to ObamaCare, HE’S FULLY INSURED

(though it’ll cost him more)

PackerBronco on March 27, 2013 at 9:57 PM

And the British healthcare system, their patients recover more quickly because they have to clean their own bedpans and rooms, and change their own bedding. Exercise helps recovery.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 9:36 PM

The intake forms have a section that says, in no uncertain terms, that the longer you’re a patient in the hospital, the more likely you are to die. So get well soon.

BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 9:58 PM

When politicians fail at predicting the future, they begin to rewrite the past.

PackerBronco on March 27, 2013 at 9:59 PM

The belief in American healthcare superiority is simply wrong. The US deserves something better than a second-rate healthcare system.
 
bayam on March 27, 2013 at 9:49 PM

 
Anyone else remember when their teenagers would say things like this?

rogerb on March 27, 2013 at 10:00 PM

Yeah, because some 70-year male really needs his insurance to cover contraceptives and now thanks to ObamaCare, HE’S FULLY INSURED

(though it’ll cost him more)

PackerBronco on March 27, 2013 at 9:57 PM

As soon as I’m covered by and paying for ObamaCare, I’m going to demand my annual pap smear and mammogram. I don’t have a pap, but I’m entitled to have it smeared anyway.

BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 10:00 PM

I dig it when libs talk about GDP in relationship to me having a doctor. Especially as it shrinks and gubmint sucks up more of less of it.

Glad those 15 IPAB are elected.

wolly4321 on March 27, 2013 at 10:01 PM

The same mechanisms you find in France, Germany, and Japan that results in national healthcare that consumes a far lower percentage of GDP.

 
Please, summarize them for us. How about just three of the top 10 methods.
 
So far all you’ve offered is platitudes.
 
BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 9:57 PM

 
Tax rates for each country too, please.

rogerb on March 27, 2013 at 10:01 PM

All my liberal family and friends and I argued over it on Facebook during the SCOTUS arguments last year.

I posted a link to this news this morning … and I haven’t heard a single peep.

aunursa on March 27, 2013 at 10:05 PM

I don’t know any American politicians calling for the implementation of a system even remotely resembling the British model. Although it’s a great scare tactic.

Ooohhhhh…so we’re only going to keep the good stuff and never develop any of the bad habits, systems, and programs.

Huh. You would think the British might have it figured out by now after 50 years. Then again our socialists are much smarter than European socialists, just look at their success with the economy.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 10:06 PM

The same mechanisms you find in France, Germany, and Japan that results in national healthcare that consumes a far lower percentage of GDP.

Please, summarize them for us. How about just three of the top 10 methods.

So far all you’ve offered is platitudes.

BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Hard to understand why you’re so persistent in hearing details. Read a book.

1. Healthcare payments tied to patient outcomes as opposed to per service fees
2. Streamlined model for billing and standardized costs to drastically reduce administration costs
3. Advanced, complete, and automated record keeping to ensure proper treatment and avoidance of duplicate tests (both France and Germany give everyone a healthcare card holding all details)

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM

The belief in American healthcare superiority is simply wrong. The US deserves something better than a second-rate healthcare system.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 9:49 PM

must be nice to be young and healthy….read a book by a left wing journo and become an expert overnight. Easy.

btw, the author disses for profit medicine. Sweet. So he lives off of profits from his book and journo career…but Docs…not so much. The creep is not to good at predicting things either, since one of his books is

United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy.

Bayam, you are a fool.

r keller on March 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM

Some companies self insure, so how about individuals? It looks like that is better now than having a plan at a company like Blue Cross. So, individuals might want to operate as an self insurance entity, with your self employed friends, it can even be a non profit. There has to be a work around! Maybe some of the companies that help you set up your self insurance can help individuals do it too. Or, maybe you pay the fine and then self insure at the level you are comfortable with, like hospitalization and a health savings account (not tax free though.) And maybe you join an out of insurance network private doctors office like an HMO, but not insurance, and pay the fine, and pay your own expenses there.

I am waiting for the Obama Care workarounds. They have to be legal, and they have to save you money.

Fleuries on March 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Go to hell you lying sack of shit.

tom daschle concerned on March 27, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Huh. You would think the British might have it figured out by now after 50 years. Then again our socialists are much smarter than European socialists, just look at their success with the economy.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 10:06 PM

That’s really sad, your insistence that every healthcare system in Europe is similar to the British model when noting could be further from the truth.

How does the German system mirror to that of the UK?

Tax rates for each country too, please.

rogerb on March 27, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Germany is known for its superior healthcare quality and far shorter waiting times than is typical for patients in the US. Yet its healthcare system consumes 11% of GDP compared to 18% for the US.
So your suggestion that costs are higher is simply unfounded.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Germany is known for its superior healthcare quality and far shorter waiting times than is typical for patients in the US. Yet its healthcare system consumes 11% of GDP compared to 18% for the US.
So your suggestion that costs are higher is simply unfounded.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:12 PM

We also are 5 times the population of Germany and 10 times the GDP, but no you keep comparing apples to oranges.

nobar on March 27, 2013 at 10:14 PM

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM

so you believe that Drs. are stupid, incompetent, take too much risk? What? Obviously you have no knowledge of medicine…and the myriad conditions that people have (and, no, please don’t trot out ‘let’s move’..ok?)

1. Healthcare payments tied to patient outcomes as opposed to per service fees

r keller on March 27, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Tax rates for each country too, please.
 
rogerb on March 27, 2013 at 10:01 PM

 
Yet its healthcare system consumes 11% of GDP compared to 18% for the US.
 
So your suggestion that costs are higher is simply unfounded.
 
bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:12 PM

 
As is your response. Where did I ask for GDP?
 
Tax rates for each country too, kiddo.
 
Before you run away.

rogerb on March 27, 2013 at 10:16 PM

btw, the author disses for profit medicine

No he doesn’t. In fact, he champions the completely privatized systems found in Germany and many Asian countries.
You don’t have to read that book. I’m simply saying that you’re not going to see the full picture if you only read left wing or right wing blogs.

Many on the left assume that the single payer model is the only path to better cost control, and I disagree with that viewpoint just as adamantly.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:16 PM

As is your response. Where did I ask for GDP?

Tax rates for each country too, kiddo.

Before you run away.

rogerb on March 27, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Those countries have higher tax rates, but you seem to be confusing causation and correlation. But please, help us grasp your point kiddo.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:17 PM

Germany is known for its superior healthcare quality and far shorter waiting times than is typical for patients in the US. Yet its healthcare system consumes 11% of GDP compared to 18% for the US.
So your suggestion that costs are higher is simply unfounded.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:12 PM

i realize that all this is wasted…but seriously…why have the pols from the Canadian provinces come here…rather than fly to Germany.

see, you assert things without any evidence whatsoever. (i’m waiting for you to cite the WHO data, tick tock)

r keller on March 27, 2013 at 10:19 PM

1. Healthcare payments tied to patient outcomes as opposed to per service fees

Assumes doctors are naturally infallible, and only intentionally screw up (to increase profits). Here’s a tip: Human mortality rate = 100%

2. Streamlined model for billing and standardized costs to drastically reduce administration costs

Name a single government agency who has ever succeeded with streamlining itself, or reducing its cost. Just one. Based on the incompetence of government, why should any faith be placed in this?

3. Advanced, complete, and automated record keeping to ensure proper treatment and avoidance of duplicate tests (both France and Germany give everyone a healthcare card holding all details)

Consider this carefully. Up until ObamaCare, if the government wanted your medical records, they had to get a search warrant. Now, you applaud as you hand every bit of it over to them. Do you see a problem with this?

BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Old/busted:
 

As for the long-term, rates will go down. This model is proven in Germany, Australia, and other countries with far, far lower insurance costs yet high quality of care.
 

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 9:16 PM

 

New hour-later hotness:
 

Those countries have higher tax rates, but you seem to be confusing causation and correlation.
 

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:17 PM

rogerb on March 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:16 PM

here…read this

Frontline asked Reid to follow up with a companion documentary, Sick Around America, which aired March 31, 2009, on PBS. However, Reid parted company with PBS before the film was finished[9] when his conclusion, quoted by Russell Mokhiber in CounterPunch that “You can’t allow a profit to be made on the basic package of health insurance,” was omitted from the program.[10] Instead, Reid argued that the film came off as supporting mandated private-insurance coverage.[9] Reid was quoted as saying “…mandating for-profit insurance is not the lesson from other countries in the world. I said I’m not going to be in a film that contradicts my previous film and my book.” PBS responded to these criticisms, stating that “Frontline takes a strongly different view of the characterization of its editorial disagreement with T. R. Reid as presented by Reid and Russell Mokhiber.”[11] It argued that Reid had misrepresented the role of a key respondent in the film, the extent of Reid’s role in making the film, and the balance PBS had sought to present. Reid used his right of reply to challenge PBS’s characterization of their and his own position.[11]

r keller on March 27, 2013 at 10:24 PM

rogerb on March 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Careful there, Roger. He may be forced to nuke you with the level playing field, a fair shot, and the ultimate argument…pay your fair share.

BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 10:24 PM

link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.R._Reid

now, please post link wrt German medicine being so much superior.

r keller on March 27, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Just wait until Germany’s graying population has to be medically supported by a shrinking youth demographic. Considering the $15 billion shortfall they suffer every year NOW, things should get mighty interesting.

Maybe those special trucks the Einsatzgruppen used are still in storage somewhere.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 10:25 PM

2. Streamlined model for billing and standardized costs to drastically reduce administration costs

Name a single government agency who has ever succeeded with streamlining itself, or reducing its cost. Just one. Based on the incompetence of government, why should any faith be placed in this?

Government shouldn’t run healthcare, just provide a reasonable playing field for competition and the delivery of services.
The playing fields set up in many countries, such as Germany, result in far lower prices and superior results without excluding those with pre-existing conditions.

Now, you applaud as you hand every bit of it over to them.

Your entire response is a repetition of conservative paranoia about the government.
Joe the Plumber isn’t being held back by the government- his lack of education and inability to compete with his peers in the global economy is the real issue.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Now, for all of the perks of the German model, there are distinct drawbacks and flaws. One is that the discrepancy between the privately insured and everyone else has grown ever larger over the years, creating a de facto two-class system. Thus, the better off do in fact receive better care — exactly what is not supposed to happen in Germany’s great social welfare state. Also, many freelancers (that is, if you do not qualify as an “artist”) fall through the cracks. This pool of people, which has been steadily growing, is forced to buy private insurance, which is extremely expensive.

But don’t worry, everyone here in America will be equal. In fact Bayam might just find himself in the waiting room right next to Al Gore and Bloomberg, all of them patiently waiting for the next available doctor.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 10:29 PM

rogerb on March 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM

 
Careful there, Roger. He may be forced to nuke you with the level playing field, a fair shot, and the ultimate argument…pay your fair share.
 
BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 10:24 PM

 

Government shouldn’t run healthcare, just provide a reasonable playing field for competition and…
 
bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:25 PM

 
Not even a minute apart.
 
Hilarious. BobMbx for the win.

rogerb on March 27, 2013 at 10:30 PM

New hour-later hotness:
Those countries have higher tax rates, but you seem to be confusing causation and correlation.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:17 PM
rogerb on March 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM

You’re hilarious. Yes, Germany has higher taxes and that explains the higher consumption rate of bratwurst in that country.

Can you provide a single fact that proves the cost of German healthcare is higher than that of the US?
You seem incapable of admitting that a healthcare model that provides extensive and universal coverage, coupled with low wait times and high quality service, could actually cost less than the US healthcare system.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:16 PM

here…read this

Yes, let’s avoid the facts and attack the messenger.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Government shouldn’t run healthcare, just provide a reasonable playing field for competition and the delivery of services.
The playing fields set up in many countries, such as Germany, result in far lower prices and superior results without excluding those with pre-existing conditions.

You forgot “fair shot” and “paying a fair share.”

Your entire response is a repetition of conservative paranoia about the government.

bayam on March 27, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Really? Do you agree or disagree that government should have total access to your health history? Government includes law enforcement, the death panel, IRS, local mental health officials, DMV, etc.

Its not paranoia. Its a fact. You seem to be willing to be smothered by the goodness of government when all around you are the monuments to its incompetence.

BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Now all you have to do is define “reasonable”; it might be in the dictionary next to “Fair Share”.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Laughing at comically predictable canned “playing field” posts aside, now for my original response:
 

rogerb on March 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM

 
Careful there, Roger. He may be forced to nuke you with the level playing field, a fair shot, and the ultimate argument…pay your fair share.
 
BobMbx on March 27, 2013 at 10:24 PM

 
Or just flee the thread when he can’t touch bottom.
 
Like he always does.
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/14/andrea-mitchell-lets-face-it-dianne-feinstein-pwn3d-ted-cruz-in-that-exchange-on-the-second-amendment/comment-page-3/#comment-6803991

rogerb on March 27, 2013 at 10:32 PM

I shit things with more substance than bayam.

tom daschle concerned on March 27, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2