Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Thursday, December 5, 2013 5:42 pm

If you want to lay money on how well Obamacare is going to work …

… then you might want to pay attention to where insurance companies are putting their money, as insurance executive Richard Mayhew points out:

I was at physical therapy this morning.   As I did my stretches and balancing exercises for my ankle, the local generic “alt” rock radio station was being piped through the speakers and Good Morning America was on the wall television.

On the rock station, I heard a “I got covered” ad, an ad from my company advertising its Exchange product.  I heard two other competitors advertise their on and off-Exchange products.  This radio station’s typical advertising rotation is a combination of bars, strip clubs, debt consolidation agencies, cash for gold and structured settlement companies.  The normal advertising mix assumes a fairly young, male and broke listening audience.  This is a prime demographic for the subsidized Exchanges.

On Good Morning America, I saw another ad, and three ads from two other insurance companies in the area.  One was the same company on the radio, and the other was the fourth private plan advertising.  The pitch for the last one was “You need to sign up by Dec. 23 for Jan.1 coverage and even if the government website is jacked up, we can help you at 1-800-555-5544″

[That] four  insurance companies are putting their money behind the relaunch with the advertising campaign is a tell that entities with real money to lose if they guess wrong are guessing that things are working right.

But Obamacare will never work. It can’t work!


  1. Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare

    The HHS analysis of the markets and the impact of ObamaCare on plan offerings was not limited to just the individual markets. When the employer mandate gets enforced for the 2015 enrollment, as many as 93 million Americans may find that their job-provided coverage will go the way of the individual plans this year:

    The last question asked by Avik Roy is whether employers will bother to make those changes at all. Employers will face a critical decision point by September 2014 of whether to pay the fine for non-coverage and force their employees into the individual exchanges, or absorb more of the skyrocketing premium costs we’re seeing this month. They may opt for an in-between solution of private exchanges, but even that will force employees out of their current plans, contra to the Obama promise that Americans can “keep their plans.”

    Those decisions and actions will take place just weeks before the midterm elections. Take the headlines and outrage we are seeing now for the impact that ObamaCare has on the individual market and perhaps as many as 12 million Americans, and then multiply it by six as employers make the rational decision to get out of the health-insurance business altogether. The delay of the employer mandate may end up being the worst decision made by Barack Obama except for the hyperpartisan pursuit of ObamaCare itself.

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Sunday, December 8, 2013 3:36 pm @ 3:36 pm

  2. Obamacare Court Challenges: Can’t Rule Any of Them Out

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Sunday, December 8, 2013 5:31 pm @ 5:31 pm

  3. CoffeeCare

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Monday, December 9, 2013 3:14 pm @ 3:14 pm

  4. Yeah, they’re exactly comparable because you can buy health insurance anytime you need or want some, just like coffee. /irony

    Comment by Lex — Monday, December 9, 2013 3:56 pm @ 3:56 pm

  5. Ya know, some people see racism everywhwere, right Lex. .For example.

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Tuesday, December 10, 2013 12:24 am @ 12:24 am

  6. For those of you who didn’t get it, the insanity continues over at MSNBC ( above ). Harris-Perry is mlikening the “Derogatory Term ” Obamacare to the N- Word.

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Tuesday, December 10, 2013 5:50 pm @ 5:50 pm

  7. No, You Can’t Keep Your Drugs Either Under Obamacare

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Tuesday, December 10, 2013 5:55 pm @ 5:55 pm

  8. The Deeper You Get, The More Dysfunction You See

    “Higher deductibles can, in certain contexts, be useful for introducing some price sensitivity into the system. But that depends on how people go about dealing with them. There are two deep-rooted problems with what remains in many ways an excellent health care system overall: it is too expensive, and not enough people have enough access to it. The cheaper health care becomes, the easier it is to expand access. In a cheaper system, fewer people need subsidies and the subsidies they do need are smaller. Without fixing costs, on the other hand, more and more people, not to mention the government, struggle to pay for our system, and the resources for expanding access shrink as the cost of do so grows.

    Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act puts most of its effort on the wrong end of the problem: access rather than price. That’s one reason the rollout has been going so poorly and in some respects will get worse. Because not much effort was put into cost control, many insurers have taken the one easy step available to them to limit rate shock: restricting provider networks. As a result, people are unexpectedly losing access to doctors they have seen for years.

    A reform that put cost first, on the other hand, would recognize that high deductible plans need to be paired with other cost-saving measures, like wider use of nurse practitioners and better policy for retail chains operating as McDoc shops. Many lower-income people would be better able to afford care in that kind of system, and those who couldn’t would be subsidized at a lower cost to the rest of us. And, finally, more of the cost of routine care could be shifted onto the consumer while sparing him the burden of large, unanticipated medical bills “.

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:21 pm @ 12:21 pm

  9. Comment by Fred Gregory — Thursday, December 12, 2013 12:01 am @ 12:01 am

  10. Love this line from Mayhew…

    “… a tell that entities with real money to lose if they guess wrong are guessing that things are working right”

    Sorry, Lex, those ads were funded by Obama – by your tax dollars – and those companies have been backed into a corner, facing corporate death if they don’t play along.

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Sunday, December 15, 2013 1:40 pm @ 1:40 pm

  11. Any proof of that claim, Fred?

    Comment by Lex — Sunday, December 15, 2013 1:42 pm @ 1:42 pm

  12. Okay, since you asked, Yes !.

    For sure some of the ads are paid for by private companies…and the reason being, to paraphrase a certain recently recalled Democratic state senator, “if you are going to be raped, might as well lie back and enjoy it!”. These companies are just trying to make sure they get the biggest piece of the Obamacare exchange pie, and some have even been paid to do so (with Obama cronyism, no doubt, playing a part in who gets money and who doesn’t). But Government HAS paid for most of these ads, either directly or by channeling the money through other activities like the ‘community organizer’-affiliated (think Acorn) Obamacare Navigator program.

    Here is a report from the Heritage Foundation :
    Obamacare promotional costs and methods

    And some articles:

    Extrapolated across the entire U.S., the cost of marketing and advertising to get Americans to sign up for coverage is expected to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Here’s a link to all of the federal grants, including marketing funds, allocated to states across the country by the Obama administration to set up marketplaces and educate consumers.

    And these ads, from a taxpayer-funded Obamacare Navigator group, is designed to get college students to sign up for Obamacare by telling them they’ll be insured against the effects of promiscuous sex and wild drinking binges:

    And the state-funded ads are STILL paid for by Taxpayers – just perhaps not from the Federal trough, but using taxpayer funds all the same…and some of them are as stupid and inane as only Gov’t could make them:

    And plenty of other examples, even one from the left-leaning US News/World Report:

    . I would also point HR3420, the proposed legislation at , that would require any ads funded by the Government to be identified as such.

    Why would a bill be needed to solve a non-existent problem? But then again, Obamacare could be viewed in the same light… a “solution” for a problem that never existed (at least, not THE problem with our old health care system – which could be mostly solved by tort reform!).

    The stated goal of Obamacare was to get every American on health care…a fantasy at best, and even O-care fails that test, as we now have FEWER Americans ensured that even two months ago. And Obamacare is the reason.

    It was never about insuring everyone – it’s all about ‘social justice’ and a nationalized mandatory single-payer system that gives Gov’t total control over the healthcare system (and your privacy!) and almost 20% of the US economy. Obamacare was and is just a Trojan Horse to further “transform” America into the progressive, social-justice-driven, Utopia that can only exist in liberal fantasies.

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Monday, December 16, 2013 2:28 pm @ 2:28 pm

    • A few quick comments: 1) N.C. has had no recalled state senators of either party; the state constitution does not allow for recall of legislators. 2) I haven’t the time to go through and rebut every last one of these links, but the ads in Colorado were sponsored by two private nonprofit groups that do not receive government funds of any sort (and WHAT have I told you about relying on Breitbart as a news source)?

      Comment by Lex — Tuesday, December 17, 2013 12:34 pm @ 12:34 pm

  13. Lex don’t ask for proff of claim unless you are willing to examine it when provided . Brushing it off with a few snarky jabs makes you look like an irrational ideologue .

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Wednesday, December 18, 2013 9:52 am @ 9:52 am

    • Fred, I scanned it quickly enough to find a couple of significant problems, which led me to conclude that I didn’t need to waste more time on it. That was, for me, a rational decision regarding best use of my time. And you need to figure out damn quick that Breitbart publishes what it WISHES were true, not what actually is. Were it not for the irrational 27 percenters funding the Wingnut Wurlitzer, any “news” organization with a record of getting so much so wrong in such a short period of time would long since have gone out of business.



      Comment by Lex — Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:28 am @ 10:28 am

  14. There are no significant problems with my proof. You won’t accept anything unless it is left of Media Matters.. I sourced US News & World Report; National Review;; Forbes; Daily Caller/WAPO; Heritage; ATR and a House Bill to label any ad in support of the ACA and paid for by the taxpayers to be labeled as such.

    You boogie man Breitbat.. He was right about the alleged incident on the Capitol steps while the MSM and LWNJ blogs peddled lies and hearsay .

    He backed it up with $100,000.00 Challenge You want some, then..go try !

    Oh do you pick guanno with birds. I never said the recalled state Senator was from NC .

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Wednesday, December 18, 2013 4:10 pm @ 4:10 pm

  15. Signing up for ObamaCare is so easy a cat can do it

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:54 pm @ 6:54 pm

  16. Yes it can work with help from Pajama Boy

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Friday, December 20, 2013 2:03 am @ 2:03 am

  17. Insurance companies got skin in the game ?

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Sunday, December 22, 2013 7:04 pm @ 7:04 pm

  18. Obamacare is now the Law of the Land.

    …Hospital staff in Northern Virginia are turning away sick people on a frigid Thursday morning because they can’t determine whether their Obamacare insurance plans are in effect

    Most insurers are operating on the assumption that they’ll be able to pay for the sick with the healthy….The data suggests the insurers will be cruelly disappointed. The healthy ain’t coming to the party.

    This suggests that many of Sebelius’ 2 million enrollees have not only not paid, but are also old and infirm. They will get a health card from Obamacare, but will they get healthcare?

    The Weekly Standard notes that hospitals Obamacare contractors are already behind on their payments to the hospitals….Leday says he’s owed nearly $3 million in payments from Medicare and can’t make payroll.

    ….hospitals will drop out, patients will go untreated, people will lose coverage and people will go broke.

    The early reports are now coming in…and Obamacare looks to be well on the way to a complete implosion. But not before destroying the health, wealth, and happiness of millions of Americans, all in the name of Obama’s vanity:

    Thomas Sowell asks “what kind of man would blithely disrupt the medical care of millions of Americans, and then repeatedly lie to them with glib assurances that they could keep their doctors or health insurance if they wanted to?”
    Who? Why a man who thought he had the answers; who imagined every change he made would be for the better when in fact he had a half-baked system whose fundamental assumptions are now going terribly wrong. Making things happen was always harder than promising to do it.

    Campaigning is one thing. Governing is another.

    God help us all – because Congress, the courts, and the GOP sure won’t.

    Murphy verus. Obama

    ” Ultimately healthcare means a patient getting effective treatment. It’s not a healthcard or piece of paper saying “Obamacare”. The healthcare system is an interlocking set of markets designed to deliver that outcome. Obamacare has disrupted the old but it hasn’t replaced it with the promised upgrade.

    Not only has Obamacare not yet delivered a fully functional front end, it’s backend does not seem to have been built. The insurance companies who have signed on to it are finding themselves stuck with an army of uninsurables and avoided by the young and healthy who alone can make the risk pool viable. This creates a drought of receivables that in turn disrupts payments to providers who “can’t make payroll”.

    It’s a shambles. Unless its fixed hospitals will drop out, patients will go untreated, people will lose coverage and people will go broke. Thomas Sowell asks “what kind of man would blithely disrupt the medical care of millions of Americans, and then repeatedly lie to them with glib assurances that they could keep their doctors or health insurance if they wanted to?”

    Who? Why a man who thought he had the answers; who imagined every change he made would be for the better when in fact he had a half-baked system whose fundamental assumptions are now going terribly wrong. Making things happen was always harder than promising to do it. Campaigning is one thing. Governing is another.

    The present health care system is broken and needs reform. But what those who sought to fix it forgot was that while you could make things better you could also make things worse. The devil is in the details and in the arithmetic. So far in 2014 the score stands The Devil 1: Obama 0. “

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Friday, January 3, 2014 1:03 pm @ 1:03 pm

  19. The current system, despite all the ongoing transitional problems, is by no means “worse” than the status quo ante. Even before Jan. 1, it was quite a bit better, in fact. My brothers could no longer be discriminated against because of their pre-existing conditions. Children could stay on their parents’ health insurance if necessary until the age of 26. The pre-existing condition change alone made life better for millions.

    Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to lie about how many people have lost insurance under the ACA. It’s true that some people lost their then-current policies, because those policies were crap. Most were able to find replacement policies of comparable or greater value for comparable or lesser premiums; a few had to pay more but got better insurance, and a very few more had to pay more for comparable insurance. Out of the so-called “5 million” who supposedly lost coverage, only about 10,000 actually did so.

    So, no, the ACA didn’t make things worse. And once the transitional problems are ironed out, just as they were in Massachusetts under Romney, I think you’re going to see a whole lot of happier people — and not just patients, but also doctors.

    Comment by Lex — Friday, January 3, 2014 1:44 pm @ 1:44 pm

  20. You won’t get it but here goes


    Comment by Fred Gregory — Saturday, January 4, 2014 1:44 am @ 1:44 am

  21. [youtube-]

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Saturday, January 4, 2014 1:45 am @ 1:45 am

  22. Comment by Fred Gregory — Saturday, January 4, 2014 1:46 am @ 1:46 am

  23. Lex wrote ” And once the transitional problems are ironed out, just as they were in Massachusetts under Romney, I think you’re going to see a whole lot of happier people — and not just patients, but also doctors.”

    I’d say he is whistling past the graveyard.

    The NY Times points out….

    Emergency Visits Seen Increasing With Health Law

    [ “Supporters of President Obama’s health care law had predicted that expanding insurance coverage for the poor would reduce costly emergency room visits because people would go to primary care doctors instead. But a rigorous new experiment in Oregon has raised questions about that assumption, finding that newly insured people actually went to the emergency room a good deal more often.

    The study, published in the journal Science, compared thousands of low-income people in the Portland area who were randomly selected in a 2008 lottery to get Medicaid coverage with people who entered the lottery but remained uninsured. Those who gained coverage made 40 percent more visits to the emergency room than their uninsured counterparts during their first 18 months with insurance.

    The pattern was so strong that it held true across most demographic groups, times of day and types of visits, including those for conditions that were treatable in primary care settings.

    The findings cast doubt on the hope that expanded insurance coverage will help rein in emergency room costs just as more than two million people are gaining coverage under the Affordable Care Act. And they go against one of the central arguments of the law’s supporters, that extending insurance to large numbers of Americans would reduce emergency room use, and eventually save money.” ]


    Comment by Fred Gregory — Saturday, January 4, 2014 3:52 pm @ 3:52 pm

  24. AND THIS !

    Insurance compamies are betting on the ACA IF they get a bailout

    [ ” First order of business for the returning Congress: The No Bailout for Insurance Companies Act of 2014.

    Make it one line long: “Sections 1341 and 1342 of the Affordable Care Act are hereby repealed.”

    End of bill. End of bailout. End of story.

    Why do we need it? On December 18, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers was asked what was the administration’s Plan B if, because of adverse selection (enrolling too few young and healthies), the insurance companies face financial difficulty.

    Jason Furman wouldn’t bite. “There’s a Plan A,” he replied. Enroll the young.

    But of course there’s a Plan B. It’s a government bailout.

    Administration officials can’t say it for political reasons. And they don’t have to say it because it’s already in the Affordable Care Act, buried deep.

    First, Section 1341, the “reinsurance” fund collected from insurers and self-insuring employers at a nifty $63 a head. (Who do you think the cost is passed on to?) This yields about $20 billion over three years to cover losses.

    Then there is Section 1342, the “risk corridor” provision that mandates a major taxpayer payout covering up to 80 percent of insurance-company losses.

    Never heard of these? That’s the beauty of passing a bill of such monstrous length. You can insert a chicken-soup recipe and no one will notice.

    Nancy Pelosi was right: We’d have to pass the damn thing to know what’s in it. Well, now we have and now we know.

    The whole scheme was risky enough to begin with — getting enough enrollees and making sure 40 percent are young and healthy. Obamacare is already far behind its own enrollment estimates. But things have gotten worse. The administration has been changing the rules repeatedly — with every scrimmage-line audible raising costs and diminishing revenue.”]

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Saturday, January 4, 2014 4:19 pm @ 4:19 pm

  25. Lingering software defects leave many without coverage

    Splendid !!

    More than 100,000 Americans who applied for insurance through and were told they are eligible for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) remain unenrolled because of lingering software defects in the federal online marketplace, according to federal and state health officials.
    To try to provide coverage to these people before they seek medical care, the Obama administration has launched a barrage of phone calls in recent days in 21 states, advising those who applied that the quickest route into the programs is to start over at their state’s Medicaid agency.

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Sunday, January 5, 2014 4:17 pm @ 4:17 pm

  26. Obamacare Can’t Fail … … because the White House won’t stop watering down its definition of success

    The standard of success for the Affordable Care Act keeps getting weaker.

    Whether in enrollment numbers, federal savings, or the workings of its website, the White House has repeatedly lowered the bar for the law when it has missed expectations, replacing initial standards with ones that are lower, squishier, or nonexistent.

    Just a few months ago, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said success would entail covering 7 million people this year. Now, the White House has disowned that standard for enrollment—and it hasn’t come up with a new one.

    President Obama touted, the main portal to shop for coverage, as the “Amazon” or “Expedia” of health insurance. Now the administration is calling it a win for the site to be “functional for the vast majority of users,” and even that standard has been watered down since its debut.

    And when the law passed, it was expected to reduce the federal deficit by about $210 billion over a decade. Now the projected savings are about half that, largely because one big program proved unworkable.

    At this point, the White House’s definition of success seems to basically boil down to “not failure”—a standard that falls far short for a law that used up so much political capital and was sold with such grand promises.

    At this point, when asked to define success for 2014, White House officials often answer by noting that the worst-case scenario for the health care law is unlikely to happen. But that “non-failure” standard falls far short of the high expectations Democrats once had for the law, and of the promises they made to sell it.

    “They are masters at moving the goalposts, and they have done that a lot. They’ll move the goalposts again,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a conservative economist and former Congressional Budget Office director who now leads the American Action Forum.

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Monday, January 6, 2014 6:15 pm @ 6:15 pm

    • Oh, Holtz-Eakin would know quite a bit about moving the goalposts, inasmuch as he has championed the Medicare Part D program, the cost of which was intentionally understated to Congress.

      And Obamacare isn’t failing, despite being sabotaged .



      Comment by Lex — Monday, January 6, 2014 10:24 pm @ 10:24 pm

  27. Wrong.

    Obamacare will never work because math doesn’t add up”>Obamacare will never work because math doesn’t add up

    “After decades of health care debates going back at least to the Nixon and Clinton administrations, Obamacare has arrived, though handling health care through private markets paid with insurance has long been recognized as unlikely to meet the needs of every American.

    In fact, while developing Obamacare, some debated eliminating health insurance in favor of government’s paying agencies or health care cooperatives. During the debates, though, Timothy Geithner said something about a lack of political will to move away from insurance. It is the model we are accustomed to, despite mountains of evidence that it fails to provide satisfactory health care when people need it.

    As Obamacare rolls out, perhaps we should remind ourselves why health insurance cannot be the solution.”


    “Universal health care paid through affordable insurance premiums is impossible, simple as that. So why does Obamacare rely on it? Maybe Geithner tipped the administration’s hand – maybe failure is expected – maybe to build political will for something else? I guess we’ll see.”


    Comment by Fred Gregory — Thursday, January 9, 2014 12:20 pm @ 12:20 pm

  28. Yeah, Tim Geithner is always the guy I turn to for *political* insight. More to the point, I don’t know anyone with a lick of sense, including Obama himself, who claimed that the ACA would provide “universal health care paid through affordable insurance premiums.” The Medicaid expansion alone is evidence of that. But is universal health care possible? Not only is it possible, it’s happening in most other industrialized democracies, many of whom are getting superior medical outcomes for a helluva lot less money.

    Meanwhile, health-care costs, while still growing, are growing at their slowest rate in quite a while. It’s too soon to know why (and the explanation is likely a combination of factors), but I will be surprised if the ACA didn’t play some role given that some parts of it have been in effect for years now..

    Comment by Lex — Thursday, January 9, 2014 12:53 pm @ 12:53 pm

  29. Obamacare’s Majestic Failure

    ” It is not too late to capitalize on the value and power of insurance exchanges to broaden access to a wide array of insurance choices at competitive prices. Overridden by anti-competitive regulations and edicts that escalate prices, combined with massive subsidies to consumers without any mechanism of validating their eligibility, the ObamaCare exchanges will certainly be a debacle. But it appears that the private sector will lead the way, as usual, with innovative ways to bring down health costs while empowering individuals. Bain estimates that up to 80 million Americans will shop for insurance via these private exchanges in just four years. And just as importantly, the emerging trend of defined cash benefits to individuals should be welcomed. Modernizing health benefits, like retirement benefits were changed decades ago, is far too long in the making. Instead of maintaining an archaic system that assumes people are incapable of making personal decisions, Americans want choices and the empowerment derived from defined contribution benefits. This is the route to better value for individuals as well as lower prices.

    As Ken Sperling, Aon AON +2.14% Hewitt’s national health exchange strategy leader stated, “Employees who want richer coverage are free to purchase it — and they do. Health care is personal, and people have different needs. This model lets employees decide which plan and which insurance company is best for them, and they are free to modify that choice.” In principle, insurance exchanges can work to benefit Americans seeking both value and better access to health coverage, but free market exposure empowering consumers, not overregulated government schemes, is the best pathway to their success”


    Other nations with government-dominated healthcare systems offer a preview of the fiscal woes and substandard care that lie ahead thanks to the president’s spendthrift reform plan.

    In order to realize some savings, the NHS is raising the threshold at which patients qualify for treatment and lengthening wait times for surgeries determined “non-lifesaving.” The Service is also cutting more than 20,000 NHS jobs over the next two years and shuttering a number of hospitals.

    Patients are feeling the pain. For decades, they’ve turned over substantial portions of their hard-earned paychecks as taxes — and accepted “free”

    health care from the government in return. Only about 11 percent of Britons pay for their care privately.

    They’ve foregone cutting-edge medical treatments available in the United States, told by their leaders that these new therapies were no better than the old ones — just more expensive. At least in Britain, they thought, everyone has access to basic health care. That has to be better than the situation in America, where tens of millions of people lack health insurance, right?

    Hardly. The British healthcare system may “guarantee” access to care — but that doesn’t mean patients actually receive it.

    A report released in October by Britain’s health regulator found that a stunning 20 percent of hospitals were failing to provide the minimum standard of care legally required for elderly patients.

    11 images
    Photos: When to Fire Your Doctor

    Deborah L. JacobsDeborah L. Jacobs
    Forbes Staff

    As part of the study, inspectors dropped by dozens of hospitals unannounced. They found patients shouting or banging on bedrails desperately trying to get the attention of a nurse. At one hospital, inspectors identified bed-ridden patients that hadn’t been given water for over 10 hours.

    The upcoming austerity measures will only amplify maladies like these.

    The NHS is broken — and not in some superficial way that a simple tweak would fix. The incentives are wrong. The government’s main priority is keeping costs low — not providing quality care. Patients can’t choose how they receive their care — it’s one-size-fits-all medicine. And the entrenched NHS bureaucracy has no reason to improve efficiency.

    The problems with “universal” health care aren’t confined to Britain. Canada’s single-payer, government-run system — where any private health care is outlawed under the Canada Health Act — is similarly failing its patients.

    The Health Council of Canada recently surveyed over three thousand patients and found that those with chronic illnesses like high blood pressure or heart disease were largely dissatisfied with the medical care they received. Less than half of respondents with such conditions reported that the care they received was excellent or very good.

    But aren’t they getting it for free? Shouldn’t they be grateful?

    Not really. Despite the massive taxes Canadians remit to finance universal care, they still must pay out of pocket for some services. Nearly a quarter of chronically ill respondents said that they had skipped their medications or neglected to fill a prescription because it was too expensive

    .Further, many Canadians travel to the United States and pay out of pocket for treatments and procedures, as they feel the wait in Canada is too long and harmful to their health.

    The American health system is far from perfect. But it’s wrong to think that government can fix it. The socialized systems found up North or across the Atlantic are proof. We need more market forces in our medical sector — not more government controls”

    SO MUCH FOR:.: “it’s happening in most other industrialized democracies, many of whom are getting superior medical outcomes for a helluva lot less money” Can you say gfabulism

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Friday, January 10, 2014 1:11 am @ 1:11 am

  30. PERIOD !!!

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:38 am @ 12:38 am

  31. Uh-Roh… CBO: O-Care slowing growth, contributing to job losses

    “The new healthcare law will slow economic growth over the next decade, costing the nation about 2.5 million jobs and contributing to a $1 trillion increase in projected deficits, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report released Tuesday.

    The non-partisan agency’s report found that the healthcare law’s negative effects on the economy will be “substantially larger” than what it had previously anticipated.

    The CBO is now estimating that the law will reduce labor force compensation by 1 percent from 2017 to 2024, twice the reduction it previously had projected.”

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:59 pm @ 12:59 pm

  32. All of which would be more than overwhelmed by the positive effect on government revenue of pushing for higher employment now. If Congress were to decide tomorrow that instead of 7 percent, a tolerable rate of unemployment were 5%, much if not all of the projected “additional deficits” would be erased. As it is, the ACA is already slowing the growth of medical care.

    And what have the Republicans offered to replace Obamacare? The status quo ante? We already know that didn’t work. Meanwhile, millions more Americans are covered who previously were not. So, if Republicans want to get rid of the ACA, I first want to see what they propose to replace it with. Because right now they’ve got nothin’.

    Comment by Lex — Tuesday, February 4, 2014 1:40 pm @ 1:40 pm

  33. Lex, repeating the Obama.Reid canard is simply risable.

    Republicans Have Introduced Alternatives To Obamacare For Years

    “Liberals ( like you ) say pervasively that Republicans have no alternatives to replace Obamacare, and that their only plan seems to be a voucher system. Given how abysmal the GOP has been at messaging, that narrative is now entrenched. Yet, the fact remains that Republicans doled out many bills reforming health care in America. Even George W. Bush offered alternatives to help curb costs and maintain the quality of care during his presidency. Democrats may not have liked their plans, but they exist nonetheless. Chris Conover at Forbes listed the Republican history on health care reform in his August 28 post. Let’s go down the line.

    Let’s start with 5 comprehensive health reform proposals that have actually been introduced in Congress—some well before President Obama even was nominated for president, and all months before the House (11/7/09) or Senate (12/24/09) voted on what eventually became Obamacare.

    Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (S. 1783) introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) July 12, 2007.
    Every American Insured Health Act introduced by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Bob Corker (R-TN) with co-sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mel Martinez (formerly R-FL) and Elizabeth Dole (formerly R-NC) on July 26, 2007.
    Senators Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Healthy Americans Act on January 18, 2007 and re-introduced the same bill on February 5, 2009.
    Patients’ Choice Act of 2009 introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) on May 20, 2009.
    H.R. 2300, Empowering Patients First Act introduced July 30, 2009 by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA).

    Likewise, conservative market-oriented health policy scholars have developed a rich menu of potential replacement plans for Obamacare:

    Individual Pay or Play proposed in 2005 by John Goodman; this is a minimalist version of a broader reform envisaged by Goodman built on converting the tax exclusion into universal tax credits.
    Health Status Insurance originally proposed by John Cochrane in 1995.
    Universal Health Savings Accounts proposed by John Goodman and Peter Ferrara in 2012. This combines fixed tax credits with individual pay or play and health status insurance concepts along with Roth-style Health Savings Accounts.
    Fixed tax credits. A variety of proposals have centered on using fix tax credits to replace the current inefficient and unfair tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits. Two good explanations of how that would work are here:
    James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit, “How to Replace Obamacare,” National Affairs, no. 11 (Spring 2012).
    James C. Capretta. Constructing an Alternative to Obamacare: Key Details for a Practical Replacement Program. American Enterprise Institute, December 2012.
    Income-Related Tax Credits proposed by Mark Pauly and John Hoff in Responsible Tax Credits (2002) and endorsed by the American Medical Association. More recently, 8 scholars from Harvard, University of Chicago, and USC–Jay Bhattacharya, Amitabh Chandra, Michael Chernew, Dana Goldman, Anupam Jena, Darius Lakdawalla,Anup Malani and Tomas Philipson—releasedBest of Both Worlds: Uniting Universal Coverage and Personal Choice in Health Care (2013) which also is built around a model of individual health insurance subsidized with income-related tax credits.
    Flexible Benefits Tax Credit For Health Insurance by Lynn Etheredge in 2001.
    Near-Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2001 by Sara Singer, Alan Garber and Alain Enthoven (covers only non-elderly).
    Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2013 by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Avik Roy (covers Medicare and Medicaid in addition to privately insured).
    What about the Bush plan in 2007? Conover said that Dubya proposed:

    [A] sweeping health reform plan that would have replaced the current tax exclusion for employer-provided coverage with standard tax deductions for all individuals and families. The Bush plan called for a tax deduction that would have applied to payroll taxes as well as income taxes. Moreover, if one were worried about non-filers, the subsidy could easily have instead been structured as a refundable tax credit in which case even those without any income taxes would have gotten an additional amount. This is the kind of policy detail that easily could have been negotiated had the Democrats been in a cooperative mood in 2007. They were not.


    What’s sad is that the Bush plan actually was superior to Obamacare when it comes to providing universal coverage. Remember, Obamacare actually does not provided universal coverage. The latest figures from CBO says that when it is fully implemented in 2016, Obamacare will cut the number of uninsured by only 45%, covering 89% of the non-elderly. Even if illegal immigrants are excluded, this percentage rises to only 92%. In contrast, the Bush plan (without a mandate!) would have cut the number of uninsured by 65%. But that’s ancient history.

    WOW! Bush’s plan would’ve cut the number of uninsured Americans by 65%!? Liberals will do their best to keep this fact buried.”

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:04 pm @ 1:04 pm

  34. Yes we can .. Actually.. No you can’t

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Wednesday, February 5, 2014 2:08 pm @ 2:08 pm

  35. From above link:

    Washington Post can’t handle appeals of enrollment errors

    By Amy Goldstein, February 2

    Tens of thousands of people who discovered that made mistakes as they were signing up for a health plan are confronting a new roadblock: The government cannot yet fix the errors.

    Roughly 22,000 Americans have filed appeals with the government to try to get mistakes corrected, according to internal government data obtained by The Washington Post. They contend that the computer system for the new federal online marketplace charged them too much for health insurance, steered them into the wrong insurance program or denied them coverage entirely.

    For now, the appeals are sitting, untouched, inside a government computer. And an unknown number of consumers who are trying to get help through less formal means — by calling the health-care marketplace directly — are told that’s computer system is not yet allowing federal workers to go into enrollment records and change them, according to individuals inside and outside the government who are familiar with the situation.


    Comment by Fred Gregory — Wednesday, February 5, 2014 2:14 pm @ 2:14 pm

  36. When you have lost The View, it’s time to pack up

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Thursday, February 6, 2014 4:22 pm @ 4:22 pm

  37. Wage slaves. Heh

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Friday, February 7, 2014 11:51 am @ 11:51 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: