Huge Health Insurance Rate Increases

[Dan Conner]

Anthem Blue Cross of CA recently announced a 39% rate increase in health insurance in CA. I understand that followed an approximate 68% increase from the year before. While dramatic increases in the cost of business could be seen to justify that, it was reported that profits for Anthem increased 800%. This appears to be price gouging to me. How do others feel about it?

[Bob Jentges]

People may be justified in their concern over the title of this thread i.e. "Huge Health Insurance Rate Increases". But neither the present House or Senate proposal's will reduce health insurance/care costs, according to the CBO---they are not buget neutral!

In this mornings Washington Post Paul Ryan (D WI) has an Op-Ed indicating the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently scored the "new" House proposal to be sent to the Senate for reconcillation purposes, in the event the House eventually passes the current Senate bill as is and it is signed into law. According to CBO the "new" House legislation would result in a situation where "...famlies' premiums could rise 10 to 13 percent;...".

The Op-Ed discusses other defencies that Representative Ryan sees in the "new" House legislation if anyone is interested in reading about them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/14/AR2010031401388.html

[Ben Willaert]

Anthem Blue Cross of CA recently announced a 39% rate increase in health insurance in CA. I understand that followed an approximate 68% increase from the year before. While dramatic increases in the cost of business could be seen to justify that, it was reported that profits for Anthem increased 800%. This appears to be price gouging to me. How do others feel about it?

If that is true, I can absolutely see how that could be price gouging. I suppose though, why wouldn’t health insurance companies try to maximize profits right now? They are about to land the biggest cash cow of them all, the government. This legislation is playing right into their hands. It is going to be law that everyone purchase their product, and when the price is too high, the government will pick up the tab.

You know if Obama would focus on creating jobs (like he said he was going to do) this price gouging may not be a problem. Get people employed. Businesses are switching to more affordable HSA’s (Health Savings Account) for their employees. HSA’s make employees become more involved in reducing health care costs because of the high deductibles. Employees also gain another method of saving for retirement. Businesses actually spend less money, even with their matching contributions, because of significantly lower premiums. If we can get people involved in actually paying for health care, instead of just paying a premium, costs will come down.

[Dennis Mikkelson]

I wonder how many small firms will shut the door if they have to buy ins. for employees? Govt. does not understand that costs can not always be passed on.

[Dan Conner]

If that is true, I can absolutely see how that could be price gouging. I suppose though, why wouldn’t health insurance companies try to maximize profits right now? They are about to land the biggest cash cow of them all, the government. This legislation is playing right into their hands. It is going to be law that everyone purchase their product, and when the price is too high, the government will pick up the tab.

You know if Obama would focus on creating jobs (like he said he was going to do) this price gouging may not be a problem. Get people employed. Businesses are switching to more affordable HSA’s (Health Savings Account) for their employees. HSA’s make employees become more involved in reducing health care costs because of the high deductibles. Employees also gain another method of saving for retirement. Businesses actually spend less money, even with their matching contributions, because of significantly lower premiums. If we can get people involved in actually paying for health care, instead of just paying a premium, costs will come down.I'm afraid price gouging if everyone had 3 jobs. The percentage of GDP spent on health care costs have risen steadily over the last many many years. Currently, about 17% of our GDP is spnt on health care costs. The is expected to climb to over 20% of GDP in the not very distant future.

The rate of increase in health care costs is expected to rise to 1/2 of GDP in the distant future. Having or not having a job has not affected the rise in health care costs. In facts the accelerating costs of health care is expected to stunt economic growth in the future. Consequently, if you want to increase job availability, you would support the decrease in health care costs. Lowering health care costs will increase the number of jobs.

[Ben Willaert]

I agree something has to be done about rising health care costs. That is exactly why I like the high deductibles of HSA's. What I am getting at is that most people are not concerned about how much their actual health care costs, because their insurance picks up the bill. Sure premium will get raised in the future, but we just complain it is gouging by the insurance company when that happens. In reality, we expect no expense to be spared when we are in medical need. And the health care providers aren't kept accountable by the patients because they figure insurance is paying for it.

I know a few people that now have HSA's. They have all become much more involved in the price of their health care. They check their bills for inaccuracies more now then they did before (and they all have found overcharges). They turn down unnecessary medications and procedures more now as well. Their efforts have reduced how much their health care costs.

I am guilty of the pay the premium and forget it lifestyle. My medicine cabinet has many prescriptions that were used once and never touched again. I've agreed to $1000 cat scans when all I needed to do was increase the amount of over the counter ibuprofen to get rid of my headache. My health care costs are higher than they should be.

I think we need people to be more active in how much their health care costs. High deductibles do that. Actually paying the bill makes a person examine it a lot more closely. In no way is the current legislation going to do anything to curb spending on health care. It's just using tax payer dollars to help people pay for the rising premiums. With that plan we will get gouged on premiums and gouged on taxes.

[Dan Conner]

I agree something has to be done about rising health care costs. That is exactly why I like the high deductibles of HSA's. What I am getting at is that most people are not concerned about how much their actual health care costs, because their insurance picks up the bill. Sure premium will get raised in the future, but we just complain it is gouging by the insurance company when that happens. In reality, we expect no expense to be spared when we are in medical need. And the health care providers aren't kept accountable by the patients because they figure insurance is paying for it.

I know a few people that now have HSA's. They have all become much more involved in the price of their health care. They check their bills for inaccuracies more now then they did before (and they all have found overcharges). They turn down unnecessary medications and procedures more now as well. Their efforts have reduced how much their health care costs.

I am guilty of the pay the premium and forget it lifestyle. My medicine cabinet has many prescriptions that were used once and never touched again. I've agreed to $1000 cat scans when all I needed to do was increase the amount of over the counter ibuprofen to get rid of my headache. My health care costs are higher than they should be.

I think we need people to be more active in how much their health care costs. High deductibles do that. Actually paying the bill makes a person examine it a lot more closely. In no way is the current legislation going to do anything to curb spending on health care. It's just using tax payer dollars to help people pay for the rising premiums. With that plan we will get gouged on premiums and gouged on taxes.I understand what you are saying about HSA's, but their cost has been rising as fast as other health care insurance. In fact, there are many anecdotal stories about people who have been continually increasing the deductibles to keep their premiums down, but that the premiums costs still buried them. In fact, Obama just gave a speech in Ohio yesterday, about a self-employed lady who had a HSA policy. She kept increasing the deductible and the premium kept increasing, as well. Finally, the premium got so high, she could not longer afford the policy and had to drop it. Then, she came down with leukemia. Statistics show that thousands and thousands of people are losing health insurance each month because they can no longer afford the premium increases, whether they be HSA policies or not.

[Ben Willaert]

Yes, the premiums are still going up. I am suggesting that if HSA’s become more wide spread, more people will lower the cost of their own health care. If the majority of people can lower the amount of their health care, premiums will come down. High deductibles are a tool for getting people more involved in cutting the cost of health care. Get people in jobs, so they can get into HSA’s.

Capping malpractice lawsuits could also reduce health care costs. This would lower the amount of insurance health providers would have to carry to protect them. Health care providers could lower what they charge patients as a result.

Another thing I think would help a lot is having the government keep a central data base of everyone’s health records. This would make it more difficult for people to abuse the system by getting multiple prescriptions from multiple doctors and pharmacies. Health care providers would also save the expense of maintaining the records themselves.

Bottom line is that the government is doing nothing to lower costs. They are just going to pay for the higher costs with tax payer dollars. That isn’t a solution. We all need to lower the cost of health care (the government can help us, but they’re not right now). That will bring premiums down.

[Ben Willaert]

I have been noticing that stocks for health care companies continue to go up. Apparently health insurance companies are licking their chops awaiting the passage of the health care reform. Isn't ironic that the very companies Obama says are out of control, are the ones that will benefit the most from this "reform".

[Dan Conner]

Yes, the premiums are still going up. I am suggesting that if HSA’s become more wide spread, more people will lower the cost of their own health care. If the majority of people can lower the amount of their health care, premiums will come down. High deductibles are a tool for getting people more involved in cutting the cost of health care. Get people in jobs, so they can get into HSA’s.

Capping malpractice lawsuits could also reduce health care costs. This would lower the amount of insurance health providers would have to carry to protect them. Health care providers could lower what they charge patients as a result.

Another thing I think would help a lot is having the government keep a central data base of everyone’s health records. This would make it more difficult for people to abuse the system by getting multiple prescriptions from multiple doctors and pharmacies. Health care providers would also save the expense of maintaining the records themselves.

Bottom line is that the government is doing nothing to lower costs. They are just going to pay for the higher costs with tax payer dollars. That isn’t a solution. We all need to lower the cost of health care (the government can help us, but they’re not right now). That will bring premiums down.You might be right, factoring in only the hypochondriacs, but I believe the vast majority of people having these disastrous problems are the ones facing life-threatening health problems. The person needing an appendectory, the person needing a heart by-pass, the person needing emergency stroke treatment, the person needing emergency cancer surgery, the person needing emergency traumatic injury surgery.

I'm sure there are those who abuse the system. There always will be, no matter what system is devised. It's the good people playing by the rules who end up being hurt. It's not just people, and poor people in particular, that "game" the system. If we've learned anything, we've learned there are extremely rich people who gamed our financial system and almost brought it down. There were brokers that cheated investors out of tens of billions of dollars, CEO's that illegally polluted or illegally sold harmful products with full knowledge of that.

I think we need to spend less time judging the lesser among us, until we see that the top of the financial ladder is accountable first. Isn't that what the rich usually say?-- They get paid all that money because of their awesome responsibility? Well, then why aren't they acting responsibly? There is a famous quote that goes something like, "I can tell about the character of a nation by the way they treat the lesser among them." Maybe we should be looking at the lesser among us and better understand them, instead of judge them. However, if we insist on judging, then start at the top of the economic food chain and make sure they are setting the appropriate example and fulfilling their awesome responsibility.

And cost of healthcare. Then what about CEO health plans that cost $30,000/yr. and furnish the most lavish care possible. Aren't they contributing to unnecessary increases in cost? I think we are kicking the wrong end of the food chain here. The wealthy elite have been on easy street too long.

[Ben Willaert]

See here is the problem. So many people are so blindly placing the onus on the wealthy out of some type of revenge factor. I mentioned on another thread of Obama's repeated rally cry about bringing down the health insurance fat cats. Right now, health insurance stock is rising on the anticipation that this reform passes. They will make more money because nothing is being done to cut costs, it is only adding another pocket to get money from. Isn't it ironic that the very reform to get 'em is going to make them more money.

This isn't an issue about rich and poor. This is an issue of rampant spending on health care. The people that have health insurance insist no expense is too much, so premiums have gone up to meet those expectations. That is how health insurance becomes too expensive for some people.

If everyone, rich or poor, was more concerned with how much their personal health care cost, we could bring down those costs. That would make it more affordable for everyone.

[Dan Conner]

See here is the problem. So many people are so blindly placing the onus on the wealthy out of some type of revenge factor. I mentioned on another thread of Obama's repeated rally cry about bringing down the health insurance fat cats. Right now, health insurance stock is rising on the anticipation that this reform passes. They will make more money because nothing is being done to cut costs, it is only adding another pocket to get money from. Isn't it ironic that the very reform to get 'em is going to make them more money.

This isn't an issue about rich and poor. This is an issue of rampant spending on health care. The people that have health insurance insist no expense is too much, so premiums have gone up to meet those expectations. That is how health insurance becomes too expensive for some people.

If everyone, rich or poor, was more concerned with how much their personal health care cost, we could bring down those costs. That would make it more affordable for everyone.There is no revenge factor here. It is that it is time they do their share. They have been exceedingly fortunate and lucky to have financially benefited in our country that they should cheerfully return some ot their fortune back to the society that enabled it. You see, I believe the rich should have additional responsibilities the "man-on-the-street" doesn't. They have repeatedly said so themselves. However, that responsibility shouldn't be one that means continually lining their own pockets at the expense of everyone else.

As far as placing the onus on the wealthy...when a 1% group of people control over 30% of our country's wealth, a very significant onus should fall on them.

As far health insurance companies...the new health reform legislation is going to curtail most of the practices where they have cheated people out of coverage through recission, pre-existing conditions, etc. There is going to be an exchange for people who can't afford health insurance. If the insurance companies persist in making themselves more and more unaffordable then more and more people will be driven to the exchanges.

Also, a key element in the health care reform plan is that it will continue to be "tweaked" over time, just like Social Security and Medicare. Gradually, over time, it will be improved to better serve the public.

I think it is key to remember that if only perfect legislation were to be passed, we would have no legislation. This health care reform is but a start. Ther is a famous quote that goes something like,
"You can judge the character of a nation by how they care for the lesser among them." If think we have woefully fallen short on that mark, and the rich have the real capacity to help instill more character in our nation.

Our future as a nation isn't about spending. The Declaration of Independence doesn't deal with that. It's about people and their rights. And everyone has the right to live. Certainly, we don't have the right to pronounce who lives and dies. Neither the Constitution or Declaration of Independence doesn't put a price on the right to live.

Another thing for you to consider is that health care reform is proposed to reduce overall spending on health care. In fact, the legislation is expected to generate over a $1.3 TRILLION dollar surplus over the next 20 years. The Republican plan would cost. Health care in the US is gobbling up an increasing share of our GDP, sapping the productive capacities of the country. It has led to greater unemployment and an ever increasing financial burden for individuals and businesses. Health care refrom will be the start to help reduce that. Doing nothing is not an option!

[Ben Willaert]

Health care in the US is gobbling up an increasing share of our GDP, sapping the productive capacities of the country. It has led to greater unemployment and an ever increasing financial burden for individuals and businesses. Health care refrom will be the start to help reduce that. Doing nothing is not an option!

Ok, but this reform does nothing to curb how much health care costs. It is just going to pay for the high costs with tax dollars in addition to premiums. Adding 30 million (or whatever) new people to health care is only going to increase the GDP even more. I think you are fighting for a bill that doesn't do what you think it does.

I don't want us to do nothing. I want everyone of us to step up as citizens and do our part to reduce health care costs. We have done it before. Look what happened when oil prices went through the roof a few years back, we reduced our consumption. Or what about our landfills many years ago. Now most households recycle. We can make a difference.

[Dan Conner]

Ok, but this reform does nothing to curb how much health care costs. It is just going to pay for the high costs with tax dollars in addition to premiums. Adding 30 million (or whatever) new people to health care is only going to increase the GDP even more. I think you are fighting for a bill that doesn't do what you think it does.

I don't want us to do nothing. I want everyone of us to step up as citizens and do our part to reduce health care costs. We have done it before. Look what happened when oil prices went through the roof a few years back, we reduced our consumption. Or what about our landfills many years ago. Now most households recycle. We can make a difference.You're partially right. Much of the reason for astronomical costs in health care is because people with insurnace coverage have been paying for the more expensive emergency care received by people who are not insured. If everyone is insured, we all split the costs. Then, we won't have to pay for people who aren't paying. As an example, my daughter just gave birth to her first baby on 1/4/10. She lives in Oakland, CA. She was in the hospital for 3 days, along with her new baby. The hospital and doctor costs were $66,000. Since they have a $2,000 deductible her hospital stay cost $4,000 (for her and baby). That's alot of money fro a young couple. It's no wonder people are going bankrupt over medical care. I think you have to have some faith the the Congressional Budget office (non-partisan). They said the health care reform legislation will save $1.2 TRILLION over the next 20 years. That's not a cost. That's savings.

There are even more effective ways to hold medical care costs down, but you probably won't like the solution. It is single-payer.

[Ben Willaert]

You're partially right. Much of the reason for astronomical costs in health care is because people with insurnace coverage have been paying for the more expensive emergency care received by people who are not insured. If everyone is insured, we all split the costs. Then, we won't have to pay for people who aren't paying. As an example, my daughter just gave birth to her first baby on 1/4/10. She lives in Oakland, CA. She was in the hospital for 3 days, along with her new baby. The hospital and doctor costs were $66,000. Since they have a $2,000 deductible her hospital stay cost $4,000 (for her and baby). That's alot of money fro a young couple. It's no wonder people are going bankrupt over medical care. I think you have to have some faith the the Congressional Budget office (non-partisan). They said the health care reform legislation will save $1.2 TRILLION over the next 20 years. That's not a cost. That's savings.

There are even more effective ways to hold medical care costs down, but you probably won't like the solution. It is single-payer.

First off, I am assuming by the later math that the $66,000 is really $6,600, otherwise we have a major problem.

Has your daughter checked her bill? I know of 3 different women that have given birth to children in Minnesota, and they had extra charges on their bills. Procedures and medications always seem to show up in error. Patients need to be on the watch for them.

I'm also surprised your daughter stayed 3 days. It must have been a c-section, because most natural births get out much sooner. Many women are electing to go to mid-wives as well.

With my last son, my wife even declined prescription pain medication (with a c-section!). She knew she wouldn't use them, so why have the insurance pay for them?

Sure none of these savings would cut into the $2000 deducible, but they do lower the cost to the insurance company, which means their premiums can go down.

The trillions of savings aren't cutting health care costs. The gov. is cutting the deficit, not health care costs. They are doing so by taking in more taxes and cutting other programs more than what they will spend on the new bill.

Would a single payer system bring down costs? I suppose if the single payer forced its way on both providers and patients. You're right, I don't think most people want the government telling them what procedures they can and can't have done.

[Dan Conner]

First off, I am assuming by the later math that the $66,000 is really $6,600, otherwise we have a major problem.

Has your daughter checked her bill? I know of 3 different women that have given birth to children in Minnesota, and they had extra charges on their bills. Procedures and medications always seem to show up in error. Patients need to be on the watch for them.

I'm also surprised your daughter stayed 3 days. It must have been a c-section, because most natural births get out much sooner. Many women are electing to go to mid-wives as well.

With my last son, my wife even declined prescription pain medication (with a c-section!). She knew she wouldn't use them, so why have the insurance pay for them?

Sure none of these savings would cut into the $2000 deducible, but they do lower the cost to the insurance company, which means their premiums can go down.

The trillions of savings aren't cutting health care costs. The gov. is cutting the deficit, not health care costs. They are doing so by taking in more taxes and cutting other programs more than what they will spend on the new bill.

Would a single payer system bring down costs? I suppose if the single payer forced its way on both providers and patients. You're right, I don't think most people want the government telling them what procedures they can and can't have done.Nope, the bill was $66,000 (sixty-six thousand dollars). I saw the bill. She did not have a C-section, but she was in hard labor for over 48 hours.

I think you assume too much about single-payer. In almost all European countries there is no control about treatment. If the doctor recommends it, it is given. I think people here have been stuffed with too much BS to know the truth any longer. I have a cousin living in Winnipeg and doctors/government don't deprive them of treatment. They wouldn't trade for our system on a bet. Also, I stay most every summer all summer in Canada. I have had seveal occasions to use the Canadian system. It's great. Service is prompt and professional. In fact, it has been more prompt than here. Plus, I can pay the bill out of my wallet.

Single-payer is cheaper because insuraace companies/providers would have only one customer. If they are unreasonable, their only customer will go somewehere else. It's the ultimate customer hammer.

[Ben Willaert]

Nope, the bill was $66,000 (sixty-six thousand dollars). I saw the bill. She did not have a C-section, but she was in hard labor for over 48 hours.



Only in the Nanny State could natural child birth cost $66,000! Well that gives me an idea for saving billions (maybe trillions) of dollars. Every time a woman is going to give birth in California, we need to fly her to Minnesota. Even including the $2000 (a guess) round trip airfare, we will save a ton in health care costs. Heck, fly over the dad for another $2000. The bill still won't come near $15,000 (both of my kids, C-sections, were under $10,000 here in Mankato), which means every birth will save $50,000.

A quick google search found that in 2004 there were 545,071 births in California. If we fly them all to Minnesota, we could save $50,000 per birth for a total savings of $27,253,500,000. That should lower some premiums a bit and make health insurance more affordable.

[Dan Conner]

Only in the Nanny State could natural child birth cost $66,000! Well that gives me an idea for saving billions (maybe trillions) of dollars. Every time a woman is going to give birth in California, we need to fly her to Minnesota. Even including the $2000 (a guess) round trip airfare, we will save a ton in health care costs. Heck, fly over the dad for another $2000. The bill still won't come near $15,000 (both of my kids, C-sections, were under $10,000 here in Mankato), which means every birth will save $50,000.

A quick google search found that in 2004 there were 545,071 births in California. If we fly them all to Minnesota, we could save $50,000 per birth for a total savings of $27,253,500,000. That should lower some premiums a bit and make health insurance more affordable.Well, I guess you are saying we have a nanny state. And I am getting sick and tired of being nanny to insurance companies. What an absolutely great day for Ameica. Compassion and caring about all has won out over vulgar selfishness. Now, we will start showing the compassion for human adult life that conservatives have insisted we show for embryos.

Your better idea was already preempted by the Congress. Health care reform passed and it is a start for a better day.

[Ben Willaert]

Well, I guess you are saying we have a nanny state. And I am getting sick and tired of being nanny to insurance companies. What an absolutely great day for Ameica. Compassion and caring about all has won out over vulgar selfishness. Now, we will start showing the compassion for human adult life that conservatives have insisted we show for embryos.

Your better idea was already preempted by the Congress. Health care reform passed and it is a start for a better day.

I was actually referring to California as the nanny state.

In case you haven’t noticed, health stocks are going up because of this legislation. Why? Because the health care industry is going to make a lot more money as a result.

You are right that not being able to deny coverage is going to hurt the insurance companies at first. They will adjust and find premiums that cover those expenses eventually. Now with government subsidies it doesn’t matter how high premiums go, the government will pay it.

Hospitals and drug companies are going to see immediate increases in their profits. Hospitals are losing the bad debt of patients that can’t pay, and drug companies have handfuls of new patients to sell drugs to.

So as you can see, there is still a need to educate people on how they can lower health care costs and hopefully save themselves and the government (our taxes) some money. Imagine if we took the same pride in conserving health care that we do recycling. We could give philanthropists back their money to continue their compassionate giving. And we could all afford the lower premiums. Thank you for acknowledging that my better idea of saving money is better than the subsidies the government will be giving to the health care industry. Too bad the government did preempt our chance to lower costs so that subsidies wouldn't be needed.

[Dan Conner]

I was actually referring to California as the nanny state.

In case you haven’t noticed, health stocks are going up because of this legislation. Why? Because the health care industry is going to make a lot more money as a result.

You are right that not being able to deny coverage is going to hurt the insurance companies at first. They will adjust and find premiums that cover those expenses eventually. Now with government subsidies it doesn’t matter how high premiums go, the government will pay it.

Hospitals and drug companies are going to see immediate increases in their profits. Hospitals are losing the bad debt of patients that can’t pay, and drug companies have handfuls of new patients to sell drugs to.

So as you can see, there is still a need to educate people on how they can lower health care costs and hopefully save themselves and the government (our taxes) some money. Imagine if we took the same pride in conserving health care that we do recycling. We could give philanthropists back their money to continue their compassionate giving. And we could all afford the lower premiums. Thank you for acknowledging that my better idea of saving money is better than the subsidies the government will be giving to the health care industry. Too bad the government did preempt our chance to lower costs so that subsidies wouldn't be needed.I think you better be careful about insisting California is a nanny state. I don't hear them whining. We seem to be. Also, they regularly whip us in most of the sports.

Besides, I think the debate doesn not go very far belittling California. It's not them losing population like us. Considering they are the sixth largest economy in the world, maybe we could all use a little nannying. It seems that most of the nannying needs are here. There is just to much whining. Wher was the whining when Bush forced enormous tax cuts for the wealthy using reconciliation? How about when he lied us to war in Iraq? I don't think we need to point fingers at any other state and call them a nanny state The object is to improve yourself not enviously demean others.

I think you actually need to read the summary for the new health care legislation. There will be insurnace exchanges people can use. If people can not afford their insurnace, they can go to the exchange. That is COMPETITION for them. It will most certainly help reduce costs. Besides, I trust the non-partisan CBO prediction of costs more than your. Pardon me, but they have a lot more credentials.

The Republican plan was actually going to cost money. The passed health care plan will save about $180 billion in the 1st 10 years and $1.2 trillion over 20 years. So, if you are interested in being fiscally prudent, the Democratic plan beat the Republican plan hands down.

[Ben Willaert]

I think you actually need to read the summary for the new health care legislation. There will be insurnace exchanges people can use. If people can not afford their insurnace, they can go to the exchange. That is COMPETITION for them. It will most certainly help reduce costs. Besides, I trust the non-partisan CBO prediction of costs more than your. Pardon me, but they have a lot more credentials.



The exchange doesn’t lower any cost except the cost to the individual being covered. The exchange puts a cap on premiums and pays for the difference with taxpayer dollars.

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/mar2010/pi20100322_662113.htm
“Under the exchange, the cost of a policy would be subsidized by the taxpayers for individuals and families with incomes up to 400% of the poverty level. This means a family of four with the national average income of about $70,000 (at 317% of the poverty level of about $22,000) would have their spending capped at 9.5% of income, which would be about $6,650. The other half of the cost of the insurance would be picked up by taxpayers.”

The exchange is not competition for insurance, it is another wallet to stick their hands in. The CBO said nothing about reducing health care costs. This will reduce the deficit. There is a difference.

[Bob Jentges]

The exchange doesn’t lower any cost except the cost to the individual being covered. The exchange puts a cap on premiums and pays for the difference with taxpayer dollars....The exchange is not competition for insurance, it is another wallet to stick their hands in. The CBO said nothing about reducing health care costs. This will reduce the deficit. There is a difference.

Recently I had an interesting discussion with some in the insurance business.

They tell me that if group insurance companies increase premiums it is usually done around the first of each year. They also tell me that now State and Federal regulations require that 65% of premiums collected be paid out in claims. The remainder is used for saleries, overhead, and money that must be set in aside in reserves to pay future claims in the event of some pandemic or other type catastrophe. They say they are audited at least once a year to see that those, and other regulations are being complied with.

It is these folks understanding that under the recently passed Health Care Reform bill the 65% will be increased to 85%. That additional 20% will most likely come from taxpayers because of the "caps" you mentioned in your post.

It is also the understanding of the people I talked to that we can expect a significant increase in premiums after January 1, 2011 because insurance companies will not be able to continue operation with only 15% of collected premiums left for saleries, overhead, and dollars set asides for reserves.

If these people are correct I think we can expect a significant increase in taxes, or private insurance will be no more. Many think that is the goal---elimination of private insurance down the road.

With respect to the CBO estimates, I think they were based on what the House Democrats provided when requesting the estimate. If they were given projections of wildly optomistic gains in the economy, double counting Medicare "cuts", etc., etc., a reduction in the deficit would seem to be the only conclusion the CBO could reach based on what they were given to work with.

[Ben Willaert]

Wow, I had not heard about raising the percentage to 85%. I don’t know of any companies that could survive on that overhead margin. Imagine how horrible customer service will be if that is true. I can wave bye-bye to some of the nice programs Medica is offering for clients to improve their health.

I heard yesterday on KFAN that the CBO is only allowed to use the numbers provided in the bill. Their hands are tied as to finding alternative situations. There is no room for speculation on their part.

[Dan Conner]

Recently I had an interesting discussion with some in the insurance business.

They tell me that if group insurance companies increase premiums it is usually done around the first of each year. They also tell me that now State and Federal regulations require that 65% of premiums collected be paid out in claims. The remainder is used for saleries, overhead, and money that must be set in aside in reserves to pay future claims in the event of some pandemic or other type catastrophe. They say they are audited at least once a year to see that those, and other regulations are being complied with.

It is these folks understanding that under the recently passed Health Care Reform bill the 65% will be increased to 85%. That additional 20% will most likely come from taxpayers because of the "caps" you mentioned in your post.

It is also the understanding of the people I talked to that we can expect a significant increase in premiums after January 1, 2011 because insurance companies will not be able to continue operation with only 15% of collected premiums left for saleries, overhead, and dollars set asides for reserves.

If these people are correct I think we can expect a significant increase in taxes, or private insurance will be no more. Many think that is the goal---elimination of private insurance down the road.

With respect to the CBO estimates, I think they were based on what the House Democrats provided when requesting the estimate. If they were given projections of wildly optomistic gains in the economy, double counting Medicare "cuts", etc., etc., a reduction in the deficit would seem to be the only conclusion the CBO could reach based on what they were given to work with.Health insurance companies haven't seen anything yet. By 2014, they must spend 80-85% of premiums collected on health care. About time.

While those whining insurance companies comiserate, they better get some ideas from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minnesota about how to operate at 85% paid in benefits. Blue Cross and Blue Shield have. In fact they have prospered. You should love that because that's state law, not Federal. If they can do it why can't other whining insurance companies do it? It has been that way for quite a while. Minnesota requires that health insurance companies be non-profit in Minnesota. Somehow, MInnesota doesn't seem to lack for insurers. Those poor health insurance devils.

Rip-off insurance companies won't be able to increase premiums too much in 2014 because they'll have to refund excess premiums to policy holders if they don't pay out at least 80-85% of premiums.

Of course health insurance companies will be singing gloom and wildly increasing prices. They don't want to operate with reduced profits. Remember, they have a motive to tell you to allow "sky is the limit " premiums. I couldn't feel happier about insurance companies. They've been screwing the public for too long. Hey, if they just stopped spending hundreds of millions of dollars on efforts to derail health care reform, they might save their customers something. Those poor destitute insurance companies were only able to find about $1 billion of customer's money to combat health care reform. Certainly a sign of financial poverty. Poor guys....boohoo.

[Ben Willaert]

After some looking, I found that the required payout is 80% for small market and 85% for large market insurance companies. But it isn't necessarily paid out on claims, it is on medical services. I would assume that means health insurance companies can continue with some of the new services they have started in the past few years to help us all live healthier lives.

Programs like stop smoking, weight loss, and depression along with 24 hour nurses lines can help all of us lead healthier lives and reduce medical claims as a result. I've mentioned before I am a big fan of the online seminars Medica offers to educate clients on healthy living, and as a reward they give gift cards up to $115 a year for participating. That is money very well spent.

[Ben Willaert]

And drug companies are getting charged a $2.3 billion increasing annual fee to pay for all this.

Innovation costs money. Drug companies need to make money to fund research and development of new and better medical solutions. If anything, we should be figuring out ways to reduce the expenses of drug companies, so they have even more money for research and development. There are new and completely different technologies just around the corner that will improve everyone's lives. But it takes money to get us there.

[Dan Conner]

After some looking, I found that the required payout is 80% for small market and 85% for large market insurance companies. But it isn't necessarily paid out on claims, it is on medical services. I would assume that means health insurance companies can continue with some of the new services they have started in the past few years to help us all live healthier lives.

Programs like stop smoking, weight loss, and depression along with 24 hour nurses lines can help all of us lead healthier lives and reduce medical claims as a result. I've mentioned before I am a big fan of the online seminars Medica offers to educate clients on healthy living, and as a reward they give gift cards up to $115 a year for participating. That is money very well spent.As I understand it, it means health care. So, I would imagine the preventative health programs could count. The democrats tried to make sure the insurance companies had to give 80-85% of premiums in health care, not bonuses, or luxurious overhead. That sounds good. If people are getting the lion's share of their premiums back in benefits, that's good. In too many cases in the immediate past, insurance companies were paying a far lesser amount for healthcare. I understand some were down to 65%. That ends up a rip off.

[Bob Jentges]

...CBO is only allowed to use the numbers provided in the bill. Their hands are tied as to finding alternative situations. There is no room for speculation on their part.

In my post #22 I brought up what I considered the problem with relying on the CBO estimate claiming the recently signed HCR law will reduce the debt. Your above quote seems to agree with what I said. If someone wants to read more about my opinion on that they could scroll back to post #22. Doubting that someone will scroll back, so before someone goes off with some wild accusation that I hate the CBO I will re-state that I do not intend to be critical of the CBO. They can only base their estimate on what they are given---it's sort of like the old saying garbage in, garbage out.

I found an interesting article on Bloomberg.com this morning: "Health-Care Costs Lies Make us Sing the Blues". Ben, it looks like at least one person agrees with you and me on this CBO issue.

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aEhggnpxWFT4

[Dan Conner]

In my post #22 I brought up what I considered the problem with relying on the CBO estimate claiming the recently signed HCR law will reduce the debt. Your above quote seems to agree with what I said. If someone wants to read more about my opinion on that they could scroll back to post #22. Doubting that someone will scroll back, so before someone goes off with some wild accusation that I hate the CBO I will re-state that I do not intend to be critical of the CBO. They can only base their estimate on what they are given---it's sort of like the old saying garbage in, garbage out.

I found an interesting article on Bloomberg.com this morning: "Health-Care Costs Lies Make us Sing the Blues". Ben, it looks like at least one person agrees with you and me on this CBO issue.

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aEhggnpxWFT4What a better country we are going to have with health care for all. It's funny how you were doubting it would happen. Well, here it is. Now, we will give this the time so we can see if the American people like it, and if it better serves them. This is great for the American people. Too bad Bob.

[Bob Jentges]

...This is great for the American people.

Here is a link to a short Cato Institute article and graph showing that HHS spending, which includes Medicare and Medicaid, has increased nine fold since 1970 after adjusted for inflation.

If what is commonly referred to as "Obamacare" remains in effect and is funded, HHS spending will go through the ceiling.

Considering the present deficit/debt I disagree "This is great for the American people."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/23/federal-health-spending/

[Dan Conner]

Here is a link to a short Cato Institute article and graph showing that HHS spending, which includes Medicare and Medicaid, has increased nine fold since 1970 after adjusted for inflation.

If what is commonly referred to as "Obamacare" remains in effect and is funded, HHS spending will go through the ceiling.

Considering the present deficit/debt I disagree "This is great for the American people."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/23/federal-health-spending/First, I am so happy for the American people that now people unable to get health insurance will be able to do so in the future. Also, I was happy to see that your touted health care reform opposition polls have now flip flopped and show that more people favor it than not. And the number of people favoring it are growing.

I think a lot of people were lied to and intentionally misled by the Republican party. Now they are beginning to realize the benefits of health care reform. Also, the current health care reform bill will reduce our country's deficit, unlike the Republican proposal.

I think the Republicans need to revise their game plan of lying, coercing, and deceiving the public. I think the gig is up for Republicans. They have now fired David Frum from the American Enterprise Institute (very conservative) because he had the temerity to say the Republican is facing their Waterloo for being the party of "no:"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/david-frum-aei-split-cons_n_513544.html

The best news is that the reconciliation package kicked back to the House, just passed quickly. The Republican obstructionism has run out of gas. Even Sen DeMint has dropped his 60+ amendments to health care reform. He now only has about 3 or 4 amendments. THe Republican Party is in disarray.

It is poetic justice that the party of obstruction, selfishness and greed has run out of credibility. The American public has spoken and said they want to move forward and improve our country. They don't want to go back in time, like the Republicans want. Also, I thought it interesting that Republicans have abandoned Sen. Corker because he had the gaul to work with Democrats. I think there will continue to be more Republican defections as the party implodes. They try to advance their agenda by intimidating Congressmen, not appealing to the public.

The positive byproduct of the demise of the Republican party will hopefully be a new atmosphere of cooperation and advancement of rights for all people. Maybe we'll end up being a society that cares for all our citizens. It probably would be good for the public if the Republican party keeps lying, manipulating with fear, and promoting selfishness, because I think more and more people are catching on. As I said earlier, I think the gig is up. Maybe Rush will move to Costa Rica. Then we could call him a patriot.

I wonder if Republicans will learn to cooperate and share with their communities?

[Bob Jentges]

...I was happy to see that your touted health care reform opposition polls have now flip flopped and show that more people favor it than not. And the number of people favoring it are growing....they are beginning to realize the benefits of health care reform. Also, the current health care reform bill will reduce our country's deficit, unlike the Republican proposal....the Republican is facing their Waterloo for being the party of "no:"...THe Republican Party is in disarray....The American public has spoken and said they want to move forward and improve our country....Republicans...try to advance their agenda by intimidating Congressmen, not appealing to the public.

The polls have not flip-flopped and they do not show that more people favor it than not. In looking at the top 10 polls since passage of the bill only the USA Today/Gallop poll shows more approve than disaprove. The average of the difference between approve/disaprove is 11.3% more disapprove. That is about 1% fewer than before passage, so the so-called "bump" after passage has been miniscule so far. Apparrently Fidel Castro coming out in favor had little effect on U.S. citizens positions. Todays Rasmussen Reports shows that 55% of all those polled want the law repealed, and 60% of "Seniors" polled want it repealed.

If you think passage and implimentation of the bill will "reduce our countries deficit" you are not paying attention. I will not explain why the CBO estimate should not be considered as etched in stone---Ben and me and many mainstream print articles have addressed that previously.

A March 24, 2010 CBS News poll suggested that 62% of those polled want the Republicans to "keep fighting" against the law. Interestingly, 41% of Democrats polled felt the same.

Republicans trying to "intimidate Congressmen,..." is about as big an attempt at turning something upside down as I can imagine---you have outdone yourself! In the House, all Rebublicans voted against the bill, as did 33 Democrats. The Democrats prevailed in the House by less than a handful of votes despite an overwhelming majority, and I would think that even you would admit there was a lot of wheeling and dealing behind the scene to get the 219 votes.

The last vote in the Senate was all Republicans and 3 Democrats voting no. In spite of what you say, the polls presently support the Republican position.

Considering the votes in the House and the Senate I do not see how it can be seriously said "The Republican Party is in disaray". To the contrary, the votes seem to suggest it is the Democrat Party that is in disaray.

Todays Rasmussen Reports shows 55% of all in the poll want the law repealed, and 60% of "Seniors" polled want it repealed. I have not seen any of the "Republican defections" you mentioned, and doubt there will be any---why defect when the majority of the people agree with your position.

Although certainly not claiming to be scientific, 62% of those who voted in The Free Press Online Poll checked the "Don't like it" box.

As more people learn that the timeline demonstrates most of the major provisions of the law will not be implimented until after the 2010 elections, and what a drain on the economy they will create after implimentation, my guess is even more will wonder why Congress allowed this to happen.

You did not comment on the Cato Institute graph linked in my post #30, and probably for good reason. Intitlement spending is spiraling out of control. Social Security is now "underwater" and Medicare/Medicaid is in even more dire straits. To add what you call "Universal Health Care" to those liabilities is making something that is almost unsustainable, certainly unsustainable for future generations.

I think one reason many States have sued and others are expected to follow is because they think implimentation of the new law will place additional Medicaid burdons on them they simply can not afford.

On a somewhat different, but I think related issue the CBO came out yesterday with an estimate that President Obama's 2011 fiscal budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90% of the nations economic output by 2020.

[Dan Conner]

The polls have not flip-flopped and they do not show that more people favor it than not. In looking at the top 10 polls since passage of the bill only the USA Today/Gallop poll shows more approve than disaprove. The average of the difference between approve/disaprove is 11.3% more disapprove. That is about 1% fewer than before passage, so the so-called "bump" after passage has been miniscule so far. Apparrently Fidel Castro coming out in favor had little effect on U.S. citizens positions. Todays Rasmussen Reports shows that 55% of all those polled want the law repealed, and 60% of "Seniors" polled want it repealed.

If you think passage and implimentation of the bill will "reduce our countries deficit" you are not paying attention. I will not explain why the CBO estimate should not be considered as etched in stone---Ben and me and many mainstream print articles have addressed that previously.

A March 24, 2010 CBS News poll suggested that 62% of those polled want the Republicans to "keep fighting" against the law. Interestingly, 41% of Democrats polled felt the same.

Republicans trying to "intimidate Congressmen,..." is about as big an attempt at turning something upside down as I can imagine---you have outdone yourself! In the House, all Rebublicans voted against the bill, as did 33 Democrats. The Democrats prevailed in the House by less than a handful of votes despite an overwhelming majority, and I would think that even you would admit there was a lot of wheeling and dealing behind the scene to get the 219 votes.

The last vote in the Senate was all Republicans and 3 Democrats voting no. In spite of what you say, the polls presently support the Republican position.

Considering the votes in the House and the Senate I do not see how it can be seriously said "The Republican Party is in disaray". To the contrary, the votes seem to suggest it is the Democrat Party that is in disaray.

Todays Rasmussen Reports shows 55% of all in the poll want the law repealed, and 60% of "Seniors" polled want it repealed. I have not seen any of the "Republican defections" you mentioned, and doubt there will be any---why defect when the majority of the people agree with your position.

Although certainly not claiming to be scientific, 62% of those who voted in The Free Press Online Poll checked the "Don't like it" box.

As more people learn that the timeline demonstrates most of the major provisions of the law will not be implimented until after the 2010 elections, and what a drain on the economy they will create after implimentation, my guess is even more will wonder why Congress allowed this to happen.

You did not comment on the Cato Institute graph linked in my post #30, and probably for good reason. Intitlement spending is spiraling out of control. Social Security is now "underwater" and Medicare/Medicaid is in even more dire straits. To add what you call "Universal Health Care" to those liabilities is making something that is almost unsustainable, certainly unsustainable for future generations.

I think one reason many States have sued and others are expected to follow is because they think implimentation of the new law will place additional Medicaid burdons on them they simply can not afford.

On a somewhat different, but I think related issue the CBO came out yesterday with an estimate that President Obama's 2011 fiscal budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90% of the nations economic output by 2020.The polls have flip-flopped. More people are now in favor of the health care bill than against it. It is also amazing that Fidel Castro seems to be more enlightened than the Republican party. That doesn't say much about Republicans.

Well, I'm waiting for all that talk about the Republicans repealing health cae reform. They would have to explain to a lot of people why they lost valuable protections offered by the bill., not to mention the selfish motives to hurt others.

[Bob Jentges]

The polls have flip-flopped. More people are now in favor of the health care bill than against it. It is also amazing that Fidel Castro seems to be more enlightened than the Republican party. That doesn't say much about Republicans....

What you say is the exact opposite of what I said in my post #33 which you quoted in submitting your Reply. You can say what you want, but I provided evidence to support my position---you provided no supporting evidence for yours. If you have some, lets see it.

Fidel Castro is a Communist, or at the very least a Socialist. You may think someone with such political ideology is "enlightened", but I do not!

You never seem interested in addressing my position that as a country we can not financially afford to continue government spending at the present rate.

PS---I just read an article where Michael Moore is quoted as saying Obamacare is a "victory for capitalism"! Is there a rift developing between Castro and Moore?

[Dan Conner]

What you say is the exact opposite of what I said in my post #33 which you quoted in submitting your Reply. You can say what you want, but I provided evidence to support my position---you provided no supporting evidence for yours. If you have some, lets see it.

Fidel Castro is a Communist, or at the very least a Socialist. You may think someone with such political ideology is "enlightened", but I do not!

You never seem interested in addressing my position that as a country we can not financially afford to continue government spending at the present rate.

PS---I just read an article where Michael Moore is quoted as saying Obamacare is a "victory for capitalism"! Is there a rift developing between Castro and Moore?While I tire of your poll regurgitation, I think you should consider that AARP and the AMA endorsed the passed health care reform. Unlike many of the polls you have referred to, with an industry special interest, AARP and the AMA stand of millions of people and the medical professionals that care for people. Even the medical profession recognizes the insurance industry has perverted health care in our country. I have every confidnece health care is and swill be favored by the overwhelming majority of people.

Also, you are showing more of your hate. There are many good things Fidel Castro did for Cuba. If you are familiar with history, we supported and propped up Bastista for years. He murdered thousands, colluded with US mafia, and allowed most of the peopleof Cuba go without food and other basic necessities of life. Some people would describe him as a monster. Yet, he seemed to embody our fine capitalist values. Heaven knows we spend a lot of resources to keep him in power. Fdsor those in Cuba that can remember, they would take Castro hands down. By the way, they have great health care.

Frankly I don't care what Castro is, if he leads his country for the benefit of the people of Cuba. Are you afraid of the bogey man again? Michael More was right again. I think he tried to point out that capitalism can work for people, if one tries hard enough.

I think you need to get over the fear stuff. I think you fear words without knowing what they mean. Remember earlier? I had to explain communism and socialism and their relationship to your "centralized" government.

[Bob Jentges]

...I think you should consider that AARP and the AMA endorsed the passed health care reform. Unlike many of the polls you have referred to, with an industry special interest, AARP and the AMA stand of millions of people and the medical professionals that care for people....
There are many good things Fidel Castro did for Cuba....he seemed to embody our fine capitalist values....I had to explain communism and socialism and their relationship to your "centralized" government.

If you had been following things you should understand that many "seniors" have dropped their AARP memberships, and that about 60% of "seniors" are not in favor of the Democrat partisan health care reform law. The AMA has fewer than 20,000 members; from what I have heard and read there is no consensus among doctors favoring the new law.

Castro's Cuba "...embody[s] our fine capitalist values"---good grief!

I do not recall your explaination of "communism and socialism" but I understand them. Socialism is a system that follows capitalism in the transition to communism. Communism is a system where all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. I do not approve ot either!

[Dan Conner]

If you had been following things you should understand that many "seniors" have dropped their AARP memberships, and that about 60% of "seniors" are not in favor of the Democrat partisan health care reform law. The AMA has fewer than 20,000 members; from what I have heard and read there is no consensus among doctors favoring the new law.

Castro's Cuba "...embody[s] our fine capitalist values"---good grief!

I do not recall your explaination of "communism and socialism" but I understand them. Socialism is a system that follows capitalism in the transition to communism. Communism is a system where all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. I do not approve ot either!

Well, I'm sure AARP is at the point of bankruptsy losing a few disgruntled members, but I think they will survive the loss of the "throngs" of Republicans. Who knows, they might only have 40 million members left.

As far as other physician groups. Many of them support single-payer. How's them apples?

I am amazed at your faux knowledge. It's called where knowledge stops and prejudice and ignorance takes over. Obviously, you don't know what communism is. Once again, I'll have to remind you to pick up a dictionary. You sound like the kid propagandized when young and who never questioned or evaluated it for the truth. I will simply tell you that you are wrong. Hopefully, that will serve as an incentive to look things up.

[Bob Jentges]

...I'm sure AARP...will survive the loss of the "throngs" of Republicans.... As far as other physician groups. Many of them support single-payer....Obviously, you don't know what communism is. Once again, I'll have to remind you to pick up a dictionary....I will simply tell you that you are wrong. Hopefully, that will serve as an incentive to look things up.

I expect the AARP to survive as well, especially since they are now selling insurance!:D Why did you put quotation marks around the word throngs?:confused:

I know some of the "other physicians groups" support single payer, but I am not ready to accept that as fact it involves "many", without proof or at least some evidence. I repeat: "...from what I have heard and read there is no consensus among doctors favoring the new law."

Just for you I did "pick-up a dictionary" i.e. my Oxford Concise English dictionary. This is what I found for a definition of communism: "1. political theory advocating a society in which all property is publically owned and each person is paid and works according to his or her needs and abilities. 2. the communistic form of society established in the former USSR and elswhere. b. any movement or political doctrine advocating communism, esp. Marxism."

I think the Oxford definition tracks quite closely with what I said in my post #36: "Communism is a system where all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party."

I would not want to live under a communist form of Government! Would you?