ccrunner609 wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote: I hate Obama.

I don't hate Obama. But the shenanigans of the last few months ... well, let's just say that I am more disappointed and disgusted every day.

He will go down as the worst president of all time.

The last 2 presidents (Obama and Bush) will go down as the 2 worst presidents in history. They were both too extreme.

Bigdogg wrote:

believer wrote:

Bigdogg wrote:The issue really is do you believe affordable health care is a right (I do) or a privilege.

If that's the issue then I believe we have a moral obligation as human beings to assist those in need including those who are ill.

But do I think you should pay for my health care by government edict? Hell no.

I believe we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But I do not believe affordable (whatever that means) health care is a right.

Forced government-care may temporarily assist with the "life" part of that equation but it takes away the liberty and doesn't guarantee happiness.

I said affordable health care, not free health care.

What's affordable if premiums continue to increase?

dwccrew wrote:What's affordable if premiums continue to increase?

It's not supposed to be affordable causing us to clamor for a true government-run single payer system which promises to be affordable. C'mon....get with the program!

Health care cost were spiraling out of control. This is a good first step. If not this then what? It is easy to take pot shots when you been sitting on your ass for the past twenty years. Take a close look at what was passed. It is no different then many different proposals put forth by BOTH party's through the years. Obama got it done and now partisan politics are being played out. Simple as that.

Bigdogg wrote: Health care cost were spiraling out of control. This is a good first step. If not this then what?


It is easy to take pot shots when you been sitting on your ass for the past twenty years.

1. So, when health care costs actually increase (we're supposed to think increasing will = decreasing) it is a good step?
How so? Who for? When?

2. Who has been sitting on their asses? How do you know?

Bigdogg wrote: Health care cost were spiraling out of control. This is a good first step. If not this then what? It is easy to take pot shots when you been sitting on your ass for the past twenty years. Take a close look at what was passed. It is no different then many different proposals put forth by BOTH party's through the years. Obama got it done and now partisan politics are being played out. Simple as that.

Why have they spiraling??? What was causing it??

It's easy to say "we need something now. Don't know what for sure, but we need it now. It may not be the best thing, but at least we got it passed."

How lame is the arguement "we need it now, but maybe not what was passed."

Very easy to spout about getting something passed, but you fail to discuss how poor this monster is, or are too blind to see it.

Mr. 300 wrote:Very easy to spout about getting something passed, but you fail to discuss how poor this monster is, or are too blind to see it.

Don't you see? The Dems can now thump their chests and tell the American people, "We were proactive and gave you health care" even if their "benevolence" is vastly overstated. Bottom-line: It doesn't matter if a bill makes good sense for the American people. It only matters if you can claim political "victory."

Mr. 300 wrote:

Bigdogg wrote: Health care cost were spiraling out of control. This is a good first step. If not this then what? It is easy to take pot shots when you been sitting on your ass for the past twenty years. Take a close look at what was passed. It is no different then many different proposals put forth by BOTH party's through the years. Obama got it done and now partisan politics are being played out. Simple as that.

Why have they spiraling??? What was causing it??

It's easy to say "we need something now. Don't know what for sure, but we need it now. It may not be the best thing, but at least we got it passed."

How lame is the arguement "we need it now, but maybe not what was passed."

Very easy to spout about getting something passed, but you fail to discuss how poor this monster is, or are too blind to see it.

What has made it spiral largely out of control is we have to supplant the profits healthcare companies (be it drug, device makers, and so forth) aren't making in other countries by paying exhorbitantly more for everything because we are the only system in the world that has a blank check policy for anyone in the medical food chain to charge as much as they want without having to answer to the government.

It's why a pill that may cost 25 cents in Canada can cost $10 here for the same thing. The government tells them what they can charge for something and it is the end of it. Not alot of profit in that, so in turn it means Americans have to pay more because we are the only ones that willingly pay it.

That more than anything is at the root of every problem we face. We pay the technology/medical research costs for entire world so that everyone else can have cheap healthcare. That is not sustainable long term.

jmog wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: Between 1995 and 1999 the average cost of a family health insurance policy rose 9.7%

Between 2000 and 2008 the average cost of a family health insurance policy rose close to 100% (double) at a pace that accelerated yearly.

between 2007 and 2008 the average policy rose 37%

so 10, 15, even 25% is actually a decreased rate of increase

where was this outrage back then?

It seems as if some of you who refer to "FREE" healthcare being offered, jail time for non compliance, or use the mantra "ObamaKare" need to spend a little less time regurgitating their spoon fed talking points and a little more time actually gathering the facts for themselves

here is a link to a chart:
http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/picture-6.jpg

You suck at math.

2000-2008, going up to 100% sucks, but on a yearly basis that is "only" 9.1% per year.

If its raising by as much as people are claiming this year alone, its not a "decrease in the rate of increase", its being accelerated.

But hey, don't let the math facts get in the way of your rhetorical opinion.

You say something about others spoon fed opinions, and then post a link to "healthcareforamericanow.org"? Really?

So says the guy that believes in Noah's Ark, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus

Mr. 300 wrote:

Bigdogg wrote: Health care cost were spiraling out of control. This is a good first step. If not this then what? It is easy to take pot shots when you been sitting on your ass for the past twenty years. Take a close look at what was passed. It is no different then many different proposals put forth by BOTH party's through the years. Obama got it done and now partisan politics are being played out. Simple as that.

Why have they spiraling??? What was causing it??

It's easy to say "we need something now. Don't know what for sure, but we need it now. It may not be the best thing, but at least we got it passed."

How lame is the arguement "we need it now, but maybe not what was passed."

Very easy to spout about getting something passed, but you fail to discuss how poor this monster is, or are too blind to see it.

Bigdogg's position reminds me of the Obama's administrations comment that the stimulus created or saved millions of jobs. When the proof was in the pudding that jobs were not created, they gave us the "saved millions" bit, as if there was way to substantiate it.

IggyPride00 wrote:

Mr. 300 wrote:

Bigdogg wrote: Health care cost were spiraling out of control. This is a good first step. If not this then what? It is easy to take pot shots when you been sitting on your ass for the past twenty years. Take a close look at what was passed. It is no different then many different proposals put forth by BOTH party's through the years. Obama got it done and now partisan politics are being played out. Simple as that.

Why have they spiraling??? What was causing it??

It's easy to say "we need something now. Don't know what for sure, but we need it now. It may not be the best thing, but at least we got it passed."

How lame is the arguement "we need it now, but maybe not what was passed."

Very easy to spout about getting something passed, but you fail to discuss how poor this monster is, or are too blind to see it.

What has made it spiral largely out of control is we have to supplant the profits healthcare companies (be it drug, device makers, and so forth) aren't making in other countries by paying exhorbitantly more for everything because we are the only system in the world that has a blank check policy for anyone in the medical food chain to charge as much as they want without having to answer to the government.

It's why a pill that may cost 25 cents in Canada can cost $10 here for the same thing. The government tells them what they can charge for something and it is the end of it. Not alot of profit in that, so in turn it means Americans have to pay more because we are the only ones that willingly pay it.

That more than anything is at the root of every problem we face. We pay the technology/medical research costs for entire world so that everyone else can have cheap healthcare. That is not sustainable long term.

The left is always more than willing to say that the "rich" in this country are not paying their "fair share" in taxes and that they should be happy and willing to do so in order to help the "greater good of this country" and those that are less fortunate, BUT when this country, (the richest in the world as we are told) as a whole, is "asked" to help pay for the medical technology and new drugs to help those less fortunate around the world, the left bulks, and screams unfair!! HHMMMMM??..... Iggy, Shouldn't you be happy to do your part in helping, those people around the world that are not as well off as you, and who dont have the same opportunities you do, by paying alittle extra for YOUR health care and perscribtion drugs, so that they don't have to bear that burden also? Or does that thinking only apply to "rich" Americans and the paying of their taxes? Isn't that(the "rich" paying more taxes) not sustainable long term?

If this is true, this is extremely depressing. This spells the end of the democrats, but I'd rather have democrats than "free" health care and you can take that to the bank.

Bigdogg wrote: Health care cost were spiraling out of control. This is a good first step. If not this then what? It is easy to take pot shots when you been sitting on your ass for the past twenty years. Take a close look at what was passed. It is no different then many different proposals put forth by BOTH party's through the years. Obama got it done and now partisan politics are being played out. Simple as that.

Health costs were spiraling out of control for a few main reasons, non-competition in a few states and malpractice lawsuits/insurance.

Tort reform and allowing sale of health insurance across state lines would have been a good small first step to correct the problem. Then you take more steps if need be later. What they did was take a sledgehammer to the problem instead of a scalpul.

The sledgehammer has and will blow up the system.

Bigdogg wrote:

jmog wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: Between 1995 and 1999 the average cost of a family health insurance policy rose 9.7%

Between 2000 and 2008 the average cost of a family health insurance policy rose close to 100% (double) at a pace that accelerated yearly.

between 2007 and 2008 the average policy rose 37%

so 10, 15, even 25% is actually a decreased rate of increase

where was this outrage back then?

It seems as if some of you who refer to "FREE" healthcare being offered, jail time for non compliance, or use the mantra "ObamaKare" need to spend a little less time regurgitating their spoon fed talking points and a little more time actually gathering the facts for themselves

here is a link to a chart:
http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/picture-6.jpg

You suck at math.

2000-2008, going up to 100% sucks, but on a yearly basis that is "only" 9.1% per year.

If its raising by as much as people are claiming this year alone, its not a "decrease in the rate of increase", its being accelerated.

But hey, don't let the math facts get in the way of your rhetorical opinion.

You say something about others spoon fed opinions, and then post a link to "healthcareforamericanow.org"? Really?

So says the guy that believes in Noah's Ark, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus

Ah, the ad hominem attack. When the logic/statement is correct just attack the poster to try to discredit the statement.

Check my math, if I'm wrong please point it out.

However, I'm not sure if compounding interest is in your realm of expertise?

jmog wrote:

Bigdogg wrote: Health care cost were spiraling out of control. This is a good first step. If not this then what? It is easy to take pot shots when you been sitting on your ass for the past twenty years. Take a close look at what was passed. It is no different then many different proposals put forth by BOTH party's through the years. Obama got it done and now partisan politics are being played out. Simple as that.

Health costs were spiraling out of control for a few main reasons, non-competition in a few states and malpractice lawsuits/insurance.

Tort reform and allowing sale of health insurance across state lines would have been a good small first step to correct the problem. Then you take more steps if need be later. What they did was take a sledgehammer to the problem instead of a scalpul.

The sledgehammer has and will blow up the system.

And we have a winner! Someone that actually understands the root of the problem and not what the left wants us to believe the problem is.

Little Danny wrote:

Mr. 300 wrote:

Bigdogg wrote: Health care cost were spiraling out of control. This is a good first step. If not this then what? It is easy to take pot shots when you been sitting on your ass for the past twenty years. Take a close look at what was passed. It is no different then many different proposals put forth by BOTH party's through the years. Obama got it done and now partisan politics are being played out. Simple as that.

Why have they spiraling??? What was causing it??

It's easy to say "we need something now. Don't know what for sure, but we need it now. It may not be the best thing, but at least we got it passed."

How lame is the arguement "we need it now, but maybe not what was passed."

Very easy to spout about getting something passed, but you fail to discuss how poor this monster is, or are too blind to see it.

Bigdogg's position reminds me of the Obama's administrations comment that the stimulus created or saved millions of jobs. When the proof was in the pudding that jobs were not created, they gave us the "saved millions" bit, as if there was way to substantiate it.

Well that's a totally unrelated subject but are you claiming that pumping billions of dollars in the economy has not created or saved any jobs?

Bigdogg wrote:

Little Danny wrote:

Mr. 300 wrote:

Bigdogg wrote: Health care cost were spiraling out of control. This is a good first step. If not this then what? It is easy to take pot shots when you been sitting on your ass for the past twenty years. Take a close look at what was passed. It is no different then many different proposals put forth by BOTH party's through the years. Obama got it done and now partisan politics are being played out. Simple as that.

Why have they spiraling??? What was causing it??

It's easy to say "we need something now. Don't know what for sure, but we need it now. It may not be the best thing, but at least we got it passed."

How lame is the arguement "we need it now, but maybe not what was passed."

Very easy to spout about getting something passed, but you fail to discuss how poor this monster is, or are too blind to see it.

Bigdogg's position reminds me of the Obama's administrations comment that the stimulus created or saved millions of jobs. When the proof was in the pudding that jobs were not created, they gave us the "saved millions" bit, as if there was way to substantiate it.

Well that's a totally unrelated subject but are you claiming that pumping billions of dollars in the economy has not created or saved any jobs?

Proof that it has please!!!! Because Obama says so isn't proof. Just a little FYI sparky.

jmog wrote:

Bigdogg wrote:

jmog wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: Between 1995 and 1999 the average cost of a family health insurance policy rose 9.7%

Between 2000 and 2008 the average cost of a family health insurance policy rose close to 100% (double) at a pace that accelerated yearly.

between 2007 and 2008 the average policy rose 37%

so 10, 15, even 25% is actually a decreased rate of increase

where was this outrage back then?

It seems as if some of you who refer to "FREE" healthcare being offered, jail time for non compliance, or use the mantra "ObamaKare" need to spend a little less time regurgitating their spoon fed talking points and a little more time actually gathering the facts for themselves

here is a link to a chart:
http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/picture-6.jpg

You suck at math.

2000-2008, going up to 100% sucks, but on a yearly basis that is "only" 9.1% per year.

If its raising by as much as people are claiming this year alone, its not a "decrease in the rate of increase", its being accelerated.

But hey, don't let the math facts get in the way of your rhetorical opinion.

You say something about others spoon fed opinions, and then post a link to "healthcareforamericanow.org"? Really?

So says the guy that believes in Noah's Ark, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus

Ah, the ad hominem attack. When the logic/statement is correct just attack the poster to try to discredit the statement.

Check my math, if I'm wrong please point it out.

However, I'm not sure if compounding interest is in your realm of expertise?

I am sure you are a math wizard, but what you and your source fails to take in consideration is you are not factoring in the reduction of benefits, the increase in out of pocket expenses, etc...

Here is a link for you to educate yourself better on the projected costs of reform.

http://www.kff.org/pullingittogether/050510_altman.cfm

And this is for you also

http://www.kff.org/pullingittogether/031010_altman.cfm

http://www.kff.org/pullingittogether/091509_altman.cfm

Bigdogg,

Are you satisfied with the bill just the way it is right now?

Or are you just satisfied that something/anything was passed?

Bigdogg wrote:

I am sure you are a math wizard, but what you and your source fails to take in consideration is you are not factoring in the reduction of benefits, the increase in out of pocket expenses, etc...

Here is a link for you to educate yourself better on the projected costs of reform.

http://www.kff.org/pullingittogether/050510_altman.cfm

And this is for you also

http://www.kff.org/pullingittogether/031010_altman.cfm

http://www.kff.org/pullingittogether/091509_altman.cfm

Look back up, wasn't my source, was soemone's on your side of the argument and I corrected their bad math.

I just want to point out that in June 1st my wife's (aka my family's) rates are gowing down while the coverage and everything is staying the same.

I'm willing to bet that for everyone complaining about an increase, there is someone cheering about a decrease.

yea??? What company/plan is that?

bigkahuna wrote: I'm willing to bet that for everyone complaining about an increase, there is someone cheering about a decrease.

How much do you want to bet? I'd be willing to bet a lot that there are a lot more people getting an increase than there are getting a decrease. (And I don't think Obama had anything to do with it. He might not be helping, but prices are out of control for everyone.)

FWIW, I agree with bigdogg that the relevant question isn't the gross increase, but the net increase over what your employer typically would do. Most employers will increase their healthcare premiums year-over-year, and I think the important thing is to figure out what effect the healthcare bill had. If your costs were going up 30%, and then the healthcare bill passed, and then they only went up 15%, that's a savings, not an increased expense, compared to baseline.

Of course, it's a little difficult to know what those numbers are, but it's probably unfair to blame the healthcare bill without more numbers than what is reported here.

zhon44622 wrote: Between 1995 and 1999 the average cost of a family health insurance policy rose 9.7%

Between 2000 and 2008 the average cost of a family health insurance policy rose close to 100% (double) at a pace that accelerated yearly.

between 2007 and 2008 the average policy rose 37%

so 10, 15, even 25% is actually a decreased rate of increase

where was this outrage back then?

To confirm (as has been pointed out above), you're not showing the compounded annual growth rate, but just the overall rate for that period. Some quick back-of-the-envelope math makes it look like the CAGRs were 2.3% from '95'-99, 9.1% from '00-'08, and 17.0% from '07-'08. If we take out '07-'08 from the '00-'08 numbers and just look at '00-'06, the CAGR is 8.5%, substantially below the increases we're seeing.

Under those numbers, an increase of 10, 15, even 25% is actually an increased rate of increase. In that respect, the outrage wasn't there back then because the rates weren't going up nearly as quickly.

It seems as if some of you . . . need to spend a little less time regurgitating their spoon fed talking points and a little more time actually gathering the facts for themselves

It seems as if some of you (or at least one of you) needs to spend a little less time taking websites at face value and a little more time thinking about how those numbers are derived and what they mean.

bigkahuna wrote: I just want to point out that in June 1st my wife's (aka my family's) rates are gowing down while the coverage and everything is staying the same.

I'm willing to bet that for everyone complaining about an increase, there is someone cheering about a decrease.

The smart money says you're wrong. If we know that healthcare costs have generally been on an upward trajectory for years, it's unlikely that for any particular year, half of people have an increase and half have a decrease. While there may be some who are saving, I'm willing to bet that's a small minority.

jmog wrote: Health costs were spiraling out of control for a few main reasons, non-competition in a few states and malpractice lawsuits/insurance.

Tort reform and allowing sale of health insurance across state lines would have been a good small first step to correct the problem.

Tort reform and malpractice lawsuits/insurance are a favorite whipping boy of the right, but I'm not convinced that they have a meaningful impact on the overall costs of healthcare (in full disclosure, I'm an attorney, though I never have and never will do any medmal work). Many (most?) states already have some forms of damage caps in place, and those caps haven't resulted in premiums or costs dropping, to the best of my knowledge. The issue appears to be structural (bad apple doctors who can go from state to state, with a handful of doctors responsible for the vast majority of lawsuits). We're better off getting those doctors out of practice than we are in capping the damages people can get when those doctors cut off the wrong leg, for example.

I will retract me earlier statement, but it's not like everyone is doomed and like Hobbit said; is this really Obama's fault?

Maybe it's not 50/50, but some people on here are acting like they're going to go bankrupt and are doomed to live in a box because of rates. Like I said, there are those who aren't having their rates increase.

Man O'War,

I'm not sure what the company is because their facility was recently bought out. However, the Insurance provider is Blue Cross/Blue Shield.