Get PJ Media on your Apple

Belmont Club

Death Spiral

October 31st, 2013 - 2:31 pm

In Gottlieb’s view the president is basically busing high risk applicants into a lower risk pool. Those who can will flee the neighborhood. That will leave only those who have nowhere else to go stuck in it,  making Obamacare the health insurance equivalent of Detroit.

In the end, like Detroit, the Obamacre residual will be supported by public money and not by any sustainable actuarial risk sharing.  They inmates will be subsidized by the state, which always had to be the case and not by so-called “savings”. Megan McArdle writes that this was obvious to anyone who cared to look, but too many preferred to hear the lie.

Mathematically, two things must be true: There are some people in this country who are losing their current insurance and gaining better insurance at a lower cost, and there are some people in this country who are losing their current insurance and getting worse insurance at a higher cost. And there are some who are now getting insurance they couldn’t afford at all before. …

It’s absolutely true that every policy wonk who was writing or speaking about the law in 2009 and 2010 understood that it would mean premiums going up for at least some people, many of whom would lose insurance that they would have preferred to keep. Who it would be depended a bit on how the law unfolded, of course, but at a minimum, young, healthy people who made more than $46,000 a year could expect to pay higher premiums for the same level of coverage. They had to; mathematically, it was not possible for coverage to expand and everyone’s premiums to go down — not unless you spent more in premium subsidies than the government could afford.

But I think it’s also clearly true that the majority of the public did not understand this. In 2008, the Barack Obama campaign told them that their premiums would go down under the new health-care law. And the law’s supporters believed it.

And it remains so. Thus even though “top tech experts from Google, Red Hat, Oracle [have been] sent to save ObamaCare website” they can only tinker with the machinery of motion. They cannot alter the destination, which is Healthcare a la Detroit. At most the programmers can only efficiently implement a faster way of reaching a bad end.

It’s not insurance. It never was. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick offered what is probably the ultimate defense of Obamacare. “The thing to remember is that the ACA is not a website, it’s a value statement. It’s about whether we believe health is a public good.”

The presumption is that “if you build it they will come.” Unfortunately things don’t always work out that way. If the president’s Middle East track record is any guide, “if he builds it then you had better run“.

Did you know that you can purchase some of these books and pamphlets by Richard Fernandez and share them with you friends? They will receive a link in their email and it will automatically give them access to a Kindle reader on their smartphone, computer or even as a web-readable document.

The War of the Words for $3.99, Understanding the crisis of the early 21st century in terms of information corruption in the financial, security and political spheres

Rebranding Christianity for $3.99, or why the truth shall make you free

The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99, reflections on terrorism and the nuclear age

Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99, why government should get small

No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99. Fiction. A flight into peril, flashbacks to underground action.

Storm Over the South China Sea $0.99, how China is restarting history in the Pacific

Tip Jar or Subscribe or Unsubscribe

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
"I think it would have been more rational to segment the healthcare system into two parts: public and private. The public healthcare system should be undisguised welfare, while the private system should have remained real insurance. " - Wretchard

One of the problems with discussing the American health care system is that the conversation starts with a pro-government bias. Many of the problems with the system, like high insurance rates, high costs, and pre-existing condition coverage, was brought to us by (...drum role please ..."): GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION!!

I think I've told the story before about discussing Hilllarycare with my late father back in the 1990's, who was a pharmacist for over 40 years. I asked him why, in his opinion, costs were so high. I asked how people managed to cover health care costs when he was young. He said it was no mystery to him. He said that employer paid private health care insurance originated with the WWII wage and price controls, when employers couldn't offer higher pay as an incentive, so they threw in free health care, almost as an after thought. That established the third party principle, where the person receiving the care was not linked to the cost of the care. It was "I want the best health care at any cost", because people weren't paying the cost. Then he went on to add that prices started to skyrocket after implementation of Medicare/Medicaid. He said very few prescriptions, even custom formulations, were over a couple of dollars before the government established a "floor" price. Private costs of Rx and physicians were methodically 20% over the government floor, and the government floor rose higher than the cost of inflation for years.

So, to really reform the American health system, we need to go back to basics, and strip away the government regulation and mandates that have already crippled the private health care system:

* Give individuals the same tax benefit and bargaining power that corporations and employers have; Tie a person's health insurance to him. In the same way I purchased a 15 year term life insurance, with fixed benefits and no price increase for the life of the policy, a person should be able to keep his policy for his lifetime, if he/she wants. The insurance company can create it's own incentives (i.e. weight control, healthy living), restrictions (drug abuse, risky sexual behavior), gender specific coverage, and copay/deductables. When the consumer is the driver's seat, he is more responsible about expenditures, and insurance companies will compete to pry him away from his current insurer.

* MSA/HSA's; Allows the consumer to build permanent, transferable equity, while assuming higher levels of risk (i.e. higher out of pocket or deductables).

* EVERYBODY must pay something. Why in the world should a poor person pay ZERO for anything he or she receives? For example, how much food stamp abuse would be eliminated if the recipient had to pay, say $25 for a $100 card, and the eligible items were only food staples, and nothing more. Even if a person receiving welfare has to pay a $10 co-pay per visit out of his meager welfare funds, it still requires him or her to manage their own financial affairs, and to better appreciate the services they are receiving. Even a poor person could afford $35 a month for insurance, with $10 copay per visit, $25 copay for "urgent care", and $50 copay for an ER visit - much less than a private plan, but not enough to keep truly sick persons from using the insurance and seeking medical care.

* Re-bill Mexico for some portion of health care of Mexican illegal aliens. Treat them? Of course. Give them a bill free health treatment? Now. If Mexico won't pay, then there should be some very ugly border scenes with American ambulances pushing Mexicans out of American treatment and into Mexico. That applies to just about everyone. LEGAL immigrants should have a health care insurance with their visa when they arrive, and failing to keep that current voids their visa.

* Peel back the nutty government regulation. If you're going to regulate, limit it to an honest check list of "coverage areas". Do I want mental health coverage? Pregnancy? STDs? Check the box and pay the fees. If not, don't buy it. Government mandates are the opposite of FREEDOM, damn it. If I wanted to be a Nazi, I'd wear brown shits and sing "Heil Obama". I'm an American, and expect to be treated as such.

I agree that some sort of government "safety net" will always be required. However, there must be reasonable incentives for people to manage their own financial affairs, whether insured privately or publicly, and for people to seek reasonable cost treatment and insurance options. Anything "free" will both abused, misused, in short supply, and in the end, rotten to the core.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It may be a golden opportunity to outlaw health insurance entirely.

You pay for services you use. It worked as recently as the 50s.

How is that possible? It's because medical care is non-transferrable. The price charged is what the patient can afford. The rich support the poor with the doctor as mediator.

Private charity is hard to game but is very responsive.

And good character is hoist into public view instead of bad character.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I think it would have been more rational to segment the healthcare system into two parts: public and private. The public healthcare system should be undisguised welfare, while the private system should have remained real insurance.

Health care reform could then be similarly targeted. Reforming private insurance would consist of rationalizing torts, increasing the supply of medical practicioners, ungumming the drug certification bureaucracy, increasing competition.

Reforming public health would have consisted of enrolling the uninsurables in the straight public health system and getting competent bureaucrats to run it well.

I have access to two systems in Australia. I pay a Medicare levy -- which goes to support the public system. But I also have private insurance. You will want to charge any real interventionary care to the private cover if you can, because you get faster and better service.

This unloads the public system and leaves it, as a practical matter, to the poor and aged for full spectrum care and to maintenance and classic public preventive health for the general population.

Thus a friend of mine who had a heart attack had himself admitted to a private hospital and was under the knife literally as soon as they could prep him. If he not been critical and wanted to simply see how his blood pressure was going he might have gone to a public GP.

But if he were a poor man he would have gone to the public hospital for heart surgery, though by some doctor he didn't know, subject to the availability of resources. However, since the public system is unloaded by the private system it is not unduly blocked up. Chances are the poor man would have been treated quite adequately and quickly. If there were no private system to offload onto, the public system would be hard pressed to serve everyone.

The well off leave it to the poor and the poor get pretty good service because they have it mostly to themselves.

The segmentation also happens across procedures. You might see a public GP (waiting up to 4 hours) but one needed specialist from a GP referral you would most likely want private cover to get those "extra" services quickly and from an MD of choice. This creates the incentive to obtain marginal services from the real insurance and leave basic, "public health" to the government.

Another way to think of it is that I have purchased low-cost catastrophic health insurance from the government with the Medicare levy. I would prefer to treat myself via private insurance, but my Medicare levy pays for the option to throw myself on the state if I should be in a tight spot.

To the poorer man it is his comprehensive system. I would look on the Australian medicare system as a base on which to build private insurance. But low income people see it as the complete system. However the only reason they can see it as a complete system is because those who can afford private are encouraged to buy real insurance.

The danger of Obamacare is that it may wreck both. If you can't buy real insurance in Obamacare, then you are neither fish nor fowl. The net result, I think is that Obamacare will wind up like the Detroit pensions, good on paper, but unable to pay in practice.

The basic approach to health care should have been, as in most things to do it with the market mostly and let the government intervene only in cases of market failure or a clear public need. They've forgotten that distinction and created a monster.
(show less)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (50)
All Comments   (50)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Death spiral??

For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Wretchard: "... a technologically advanced society would naturally spend more and more money on health care ..."

Indeed! What better thing on which to spend one's excess resources? One of the problems with HillaryCare and now with ObamaCare is that they are ALL about money, not about health care. There is a moral dimension to health care which the usual suspects have completely ignored -- since for them, it is all about money and power over other human beings.

We all die. We already have the capability to extend life by days, months, years -- but not necessarily to extend quality living. Most of us have seen the personalities of elderly relatives drain away, while the body is heroically kept alive. Some of us have seen sick people kept alive for days or months while in pain. Is that a prudent use of resources, or a moral act?

Those are decisions which properly belong to the individual. Anyone can spend his resources whatever way he chooses. But should he be allowed to spend other people's resources?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Successive Obama administrations are looking a lot like happened in Detroit.
The number of affirmative action minorities in key positions is a harbinger of failure.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Earlier this year my Mom fell and suffered a deep cut along her eyebrow. That required a 911 call and trip to the local emergency room, an adventure which lasted about 7 hours.

She has both Medicare and supplementary insurance. A few months later we received a letter from the supplementary insurance company saying that she was liable for $9,200, and detailed the charges.

My investigation showed that the claim had indeed been paid, my Mom owed nothing else, and indeed the letter from the insurance company even showed those payments as being made. I asked a quite lovely young lady at the local health provider about the $9,200. Why did the summary of charges and payments show that much difference?

Her answer was that they are forced to give a “discount” to such cases. In other words, Medicare combined with the insurance will not pay them what they ask for their services.
They want $12,000 and get $2,800.

This occurs in other ways as well. If a person with Medicaid goes into a private pharmacy and gets a prescription filled, the Pharmacy hands out the drugs and bills Medicaid, say, $12.00. The drugs cost the pharmacy $10.00 to buy. Medicaid only says it is only going to pay $9.50.

Now what happens when someone not on Medicaid comes in to get the same drug, paying out of his own pocket? The same drugs cost him $60.00, as it did me on one memorable occasion.

This is the hidden side of health care costs and what Obamacare is really all about – getting someone to pay for the things the Feral Govt will not.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What I would like is an insurance system that attached entirely to the individual, portable wherever he may go, across state or national boundaries. It would be ideal if you had a base policy you could add to or reduce like a Lego set, funded if necessary from variadic sources.

At one end of the continuum a financially independent person he may pay healthcare insurance in its entirety. Single funding source, himself.

At the end of the spectrum a destitute person can also acquire this personal portable insurance. The difference is that the sole source of funding is the government paid in as welfare.

If he later gets a job, he can add to the plan from his own or company contributions. Because it is funded variadically, he now has more than one source of payments, some government and some private, enabling him to afford supplementary care so that if he breaks a leg he can get a little bit better service.

Otherwise the destitute person will get only the payout the government provides. This means a destitute person will probably stay close to the federal or state facilities or private hospitals that guarantee to take him in on whatever his welfare insurance provides. The service may not be the best, but if efficient it can be designed as adequate.

At least nobody will die in a gutter. This will split up the product into two distinct components. Private insurance and welfare. It will also create by design, a multipayer variadic system. At the lower limit of poverty you get a single payer, the government. At the other extreme you get a single payer -- yourself. In between you can have a variety of other funding sources. Company, project, or even religiously or civically augmented insurance.

I think it is right to have smoothly adjustable insurance. In this day of global labor mobility, I don't see why people should have health policies that are tied to any particular locality or job or stuck on any one groove. Insurance should not in principle be fixed. Risk is not fixed. It ought to be something you can top up or ease up on, like when you are taking a trip, or not taking a trip, which changes your current risk profile.

Someone, I forget who, argued that a technologically advanced society would naturally spend more and more money on health care, because a technologically advanced civilization would consume a declining percentage of its total income on food, shelter and clothing. Hence, there was nothing essentially wrong with a future devoted increasingly to life extension technologies.

But it is difficult to imagine such a long-lived civilization evolving under a government health system. I think Dr. Batman argued that any predominantly public system would eventually be a stagnant system. Only if healthcare were liberated from politics and opened to innovation would a dynamic health system emerge.

I think the most perverse concept in Obamacare is the idea that the government provides your healthcare. You will never own it because it is always exogenously derived. Maybe the very poor cannot, but they should be the provided exception not the normative rule. The rest should be allowed to control as much of their own healthcare as they can afford. And that means it should be as much my property as the toothbrush in the bathroom. Provided if absolutely necessary, but in principle, mine to lug around.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yesterday I spent a half hour or so talking to an insurance agent who had set up a table at a local supermarket to sell Medicare Advantage policies from her company. For non-Americans, this is a policy to cover what Medicare [mandatory health insurance for those 65 or older] does not cover.

I admit to starting off a bit sarcastic, noting that by the end of next year there may not be a Medicare, an Advantage program, or even health care available. She agreed completely, and said that she only tells clients that after 2014 all bets are off. And she agreed that the Obamacare system is so insecure [there are no computer security provisions in the rollout version] that setting up an account is voluntarily giving all your personal and financial information to gangsters.

In passing, the insurance plan that her own company offered its employees, and this is one of the larger insurance companies in the country; was declared illegal by Obamacare and they were forced to get coverage from Blue Cross/Blue Shield which is the only company that she absolutely will not recommend to clients. She said that was a matter of conscience.

In any case, we had a fairly loud discussion [and we were NOT disagreeing] that drew a crowd, so I considered it to be public education. In a matter of a few minutes we sorted out an alternate system of changes to health insurance in this country that would sort out the problems of pretty much all those except the absolute poorest, who would be on Medicaid. But Medicaid could be adjusted to be less costly and provide better service. All by lessening the role of government.

If we could do it, how come the Congress and/or the regime can't? Because they do not want to and their goals have nothing to do with health.

In any case, as I left I tossed off a comment that the agent agreed with and had her making notes in her pad furiously as I left.

Obamacare is entirely state based. The wall for interstate coverage is maintained from the old system as a matter of faith. If you move from state to state, you will have a break in coverage for you and your family, that will last as long as it takes the bureaucrats to sort it out.

Anyone here ever tried to deal with Medicaid or the Social Security Disability System to get something out of them? It takes no less than 6 months to get an answer out of Social Security Disability, and the answer may not be to the question you asked. Obamacare has a worse bureaucracy.

If you are offered a promotion by your job that involves moving across state lines, do you take it if it means no insurance for your family for an indeterminant length of time? Do you take a transfer? If you are unemployed and on the Medicaid part of Obamacare, do you take the risk accepting a job across state lines, or do you stay put on welfare? If you are a company, and know the problems, do you expand your business across state lines, or invest outside the country? If you are a company that wants to move from a high regulation, high tax blue state to a state that is still part of America, does this act as a disincentive? [which is a feature and not a bug to the Federal government]

Q.v.- "Villein"

Subotai Bahadur
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Agree with you on most of this, but one nit:

"Otherwise the destitute person will get only the payout the government provides.... At least nobody will die in a gutter." Wretchard

We need to be careful here, Richard. While it sounds heartless to say, in fact, some people will die in a gutter because they don't want to live anywhere else. For whatever reasons, they make poor decisions, and those decisions have consequences they can't be saved from. If we set as an a priori goal "Universal Coverage" and "Universal outcomes", the system design will fail, because human nature intervenes.

Also, in the midst of all the technical and policy reasons that Obamacare will fail, the biggest is that the highest cost services in the world will always be government provided or controlled services. That's not a political statement; it's the nature of the beast. No matter how "good" government gets at delivering services, both history and common sense should make clear that government is an inferior service provider. Government service delivery is at best, a necessary vice.

Insurance coverage under Obamacare will be massively expensive because of the 100,000 new government jobs and 250,000 new government contractors who will eventually be required to support the system. The health insurance companies will be defacto government controlled utilities, which will make them the most expensive insurance providers in the world.

After Obamacare, whats next? Government controlled farms and food producers? If healthcare is a new progressively mandated "right", what is food? Can't Obama claim that he can save the food stamp program (which has doubled in size under his watch) by controlling the food producers and distributors? Where does it end? It never does. Everything is a "right", as long as a Democrat politician can point to anyone who'd died in the gutter due to lack of health care (and Thunderbird wine), or to any child who is unhealthy and suffering because Dad is MIA and Mom forgot to feed the kids while she was tripping on crack.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It is true that some people will die in a gutter no matter what. But things should be arranged so anyone halfway sane can avoid it. Government healthcare will be the ersatz product for those who fail, for lack of character or cruel fate to make their way in the world, for there will always be those.

It will be inferior and ironically it should be to keep free riders off it. The only reason people will save for private care is if it government care can be bettered. However, as you point out, government by its nature will ensure the public product remains relatively inferior, so that will take care of itself.

Ultimately it is all about input-output. And the only way to get efficiency is to introduce competition where applicable. There is too often a tendency to confuse competition with privatization. The bigger the state, the less efficient the private sector that serves or is regulated by it because they capture or are captured by the bureaucracy.

Thus supposed privatization often amounts to replacing one monopoly by another and nationalizaton does exactly the same, just going the other way.

Reform should be about getting competition in the private parts of the system, and civil service efficiency from the public parts. Turning it all modally public in and of itself addresses none of these factors.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Prior to Obamacare, an acquaintance in another state was unemployed. He'd previously been a skilled carpenter but, with the downturn in the economy, he lost his job as construction and remodeling jobs dried up, then his house, then his vehicle which by that time he was living in. After that, he worked odd jobs and manual labor, whatever he could, that was within walking distance of whichever place he was staying when he could afford to rent a room.

He was over 50 years old, and the manual labor left him with a hernia which was getting increasingly worse. Being a male without dependent children, he wasn't eligible for medicaid. He was also not eligible for food aid. He lost another 50 lbs. off an already slim frame.

He was sharpening his tools for cutting up firewood and got a large metal splinter in his eye. He was transported to an emergency room, and the best eye surgeon in the state was called in to examine him. He told the surgeon in embarrassment that he could not afford to pay him for he had no job and no assets. The surgeon told him not to worry about it, operated on the eye, and arranged for his hernia to be fixed.

Now, Obamacare was supposed to be to help the uninsured; however, this person with low to no income would be put onto Medicaid which according to his state laws he would be ineligible for, so under Obamacare, he would be no better off than before.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment

(final update to myself) I wonder if the Republicans could put together a good proposal along these lines and push that as Obamacare reform/repair/repeal?better, only it utterly fails to do so.<<<

The Institutional Republicans *could* put together a good proposal that was better. Today in a short conversation with an insurance agent at the store, we sorted out the outlines of a system that would be better and far cheaper than Obamacare. The question is, do the Institutionals *want* to put together such a proposal? Given that most of them really are Democrats at heart, or at least Statists who want the power held by a State that they have a hand in controlling [as junior partner, the Democrats' Second String]; the answer is a fairly obvious no.

I could see the Australian system as a reasonable starting point, at least for discussion and probably more.

Moving back to the start of the post, there is this:

>>>The United States, he declared, would focus on negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran<<<

That one, he will probably get. However, it is not the deal that people think. The real terms of the deal will be something along the line of, "Iran can build a bomb without any US interference, so long as it uses it on Israel, and promises not to use it against us.". They will ignore the details that Iran refers to us as the "Great Satan" and Israel as the "Lesser Satan". Also, that Iran intends to lead the *Ummah*, whether the *Ummah* wants it or not. Shiites being expendable and surplus in their reckoning.

When I was younger, I never thought that I would be in a position of wishing that the President had a little attachment to the United States.

Subotai Bahadur

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
House Republicans don't have to repeal Obamacare. They can create a parallel system with tort reform and other changes that improve the Market. Anyone who buys a basic insurance policy and opens a health savings account can enter the Obama Free Health Zone. Lower income workers can get a tax credit equivalent to the Obamacare subsidy. It will be a "let people choose" issue. You don't have to defund Obamacare because everyone will leave. Of course the Democrats in the Senate won't vote on it because if they did it would pass. It would be an issue that would bring Republicans voters to the polls. Hell, anyone watching "Fiasco Care" make its debut should want a choice.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Hi Diddle Dee Dee an actor's life for me...

I'm off to Pleasure Island

Where ObamaCare is FREE!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The one year "reprieve" given to businesses before they have to comply with the mandate insures that nearly every employer-provided plan will fall outside of the "grandfather" provision. Nearly every one of these insurance plans will have substantial increases foisted on them as a side effect of the ACA because nearly all of these insurance providers are participating in obamacare(in some capacity) and will have to raise rates. Even a $5.00/year increase in your group rates will make your plan unlawful under obamacare so you will get a cancellation notice and be FORCED to purchase insurance through the exchanges. PRESTO, another 10 to 20 million people forced into obummercare (or pay the percentage of your gross pay as a penalty/tax). This penalty will be much more than the $95.00 we are being led to believe. The key word here is FORCED!! Our government has become miserable scum right in front of our eyes.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There are quite a few liberals who support Obamacare not because it works but precisely because they know it won’t work. The idea, in their minds, is to wreck the present system and then propose socialized medicine (like the United Kingdom’s National Health Service) as an improvement over Obamacare – they intend to block any repeal of Obamacare so that conservatives are forced to choose socialized medicine as the lesser of two evils.

Not only do I regard such a strategy as morally wrong, but it is self-defeating. Using Obamacare as a wrecking ball on a system one doesn’t like in order to force people into an idealized utopia won’t bring utopia, but it will anger people who will blame the reformer for wrecking an imperfect but workable system.

The institutional Left has become so enamored of angering right wingers that its nastiness has become an end in and of itself. Creating a workable system seems to have become irrelevant to them.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Perhaps I'm totally off base here but Obamacare could easily be turned into the functional equivalent of a single payer system by merely adjusting the system of subsidies. At the extreme edge everybody would be eligible for a subsidy of 100% of the cost of their insurance. It would be single payer in substance even if it was not in form. The insurance companies would essentially be administrative contractors for the government. The taxpayers would be footing the entire bill.

I imagine that is the plan. Look for the Democrats to "fix" the sticker shock by altering the subsidy structure which will entail the government picking up more and more of the total cost over time. Eventually it will essentially be a single payer system for all practical purposes. We just won't be able to call it that.

Always look at the underlying functionality. The labels usually just get in the way.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Just as you say.

But apparently the sub-geniuses who structured this disaster made an itsy-bitsy (gigantic) error or six in the optics. First, of course, that the number with pre-existing conditions who have been waiting for policies, is miniscule. No land rush #1. Second, those at or near the poverty line who don't already have policies, also don't want to add even a small monthly payment to their budgets. No land rush #2. Third, those at or *below* the poverty line are rudely and crudely still barred from the system and thrown into the Medicaid pit, which is not only no change but is a slap in the face, and therefore no land rush #3. Fourth there is no sex appeal to this to the common citizen who thanks to the complex subsidies he doesn't understand might save $100/month over his present situation, no land rush #4. Finally quash any positive momentum with the web site problems, and no land rush for YOU, Mr. Obambus, or YOU, Madame Pelosi.

I've never quite understood why the insurance companies held still for all this, even if it is a trillion dollar bribe to them over ten years, they never heard the phrase, "We're from the government and we're here to help!"?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I think you make a very good point. Almost everyone, including the indigent poor are happy with the health care they have and see little reason to rush off and signup for Obamacare.

Only those who have lost their current policies are in a bit of a fix, but when you get down to it, even the gold plated policies of Obamacare are suspect,so even then there is little incentive to join Obamacare.

The good and bad news of that situation is that it could take a lot longer for the horrendous economic consequences of Obamacare to show up and be felt.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All