Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I just can't think of a better response. :D

1) How could anyone have looked at Senator Obama's record and affiliations and not seen this coming?

2) Patrick, have you worked out what the Act will cost YOU yet? (Question based on your protest of the calculator found at the NPR Web site.)

I just recieved notice yesterday that my rates are also going up as well. Not that I was surprised because I'm not a raging, ignorant, Osama*-supporter. I haven't done the math yet because frankly, I'm too terrified. I'm seriously considering letting my plan laspse. The only reason I'm not is because I've had two emergency medical procedures done in the last 18 months and that insurance helped cover those. Otherwise, it's cheaper for me not to have it at all at this rate.

*that was not a typo

To be fair (ugh), I think quite a few of these people look up north at Canada and see a country with socialized medicine that has a quasi-capitalist system that hasn't gone under, and think, "Well, why not us?" There are two things they don't realize: 1) Canadians put up with delays, lack of medical technology and refusal to cover extraordinary options that U.S. consumers would never tolerate, and 2) Canada is a net hydrocarbon exporter -- money may not grow on trees in Canada, but it kinda grows under the ground. U.S.? Net hydrocarbon importer, at least for now. If you want to start down the road to a Canadian-style system, someone has to pay.

You failed to mention this quote from the SJ Merc News story, - "Some people will see an increase who are already on the individual market purchasing insurance," he said, "but most people will not."

Count me in as one of the suckers.

I voted for O twice. My penalty: a 25 pct increase in premiums (I'm self-employed and over 50 yo), a deductible of $6250, and a degradation of co-pay rates from 20 to 40%.

I thought of dropping coverage. I think of enrollment as having access to better rates negotiated by a carrier, rather than the substantial protection I had previously. I do wonder how many uninsured patients will still be dropping in on ERs.

I checked out Kaiser rates. Not even approaching a bargain or a savings, at least for my age.

The essence of the Obama administration seems to be to roll out a bunch of laws and programs that don't work at all at worst, and don't do what they intended at best.

None of this matters because everyone is supposed to just pretend that they do, while the press covers for them, as they lurch like the proverbial drunken sailer to the next big crisis which blots out coverage almost entirely of the previous big fuck up.

Anytime government gets involved between a business and the consumer, you can expect to see at least a thirty percent mark up in price to pay the bureaucracy. This is what you are seeing with Obamacare.

I really expect the whole federal web site exchanges to go quietly away at the beginning of January, and there will be no explanation at all, which will be ok because there should be another big crisis to focus on by then.

Lol. Yes let's use the example of two people & generalize for everyone. Good to see you're still a paragon of reason & logic "goddess."

Right now I feel like I went to bed one night, and woke up in a third world banana republic, where the only purpose the government has is to pay off their supporters with loot from the treasury and provide do nothing government jobs for their relatives and friends.

They nod sympathetically at the rubes who voted for them, as they give the rest of us, the middle finger.

This is an indication of how clueless these people are:

"Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura... are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama."

California is a deep Blue State. People who didn't even show up at the polls still helped to elect Obama. It's not really something to be proud of.

And if they're talking about the 2008 primary, remember that Hillary Clinton won in California (and independent and non-party affiliated voters were permitted to vote in the Democrat primary).

They're "proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama." ???

Even after they find his policies are bad for their welfare?

Can you say "cognitive dissonance."

Canadians put up with delays, lack of medical technology and refusal to cover extraordinary options that U.S. consumers would never tolerate.... ~ Marion

More-affluent Canadians could also cross the border to get the tests and treatments they needed without delay, so they didn't pressure the government to fix the system.

Without that pressure, the Canadian government had little incentive to fix the issues in the its health insurance and healthcare delivery systems. The poor were getting healthcare at low or no cost to them (so they voted for the ones who promised to keep providing it) and base-level medical needs of all (exams, prescription renewals, etc.) were being met so, on the surface, the system seemed to be working.

The advanced medical needs of the poor were being met, albeit with long delays in crowded state-run hospitals, again at low or no cost to them. The advanced needs of the higher premium paying more-affluent were being met in either somewhat better state-run hospitals or in the US on their own dime (or loonie).

The abundant evidence of inherent weaknesses in single payer healthcare delivery systems like Canada's were dismissed by "progressive" Americans who deluded themselves that the Canadian system worked without flaw and the American system (to which the more-affluent Canadians were coming for treatment) was beyond repair.

Those Canadians are not alone. In fact, it seems that for most of the socialized medicine world, the solution to delays and scarcity of advanced treatment in their own countries is to come to the non-socialized US.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/09/the-canadian-patients%E2%80%99-remedy-for-health-care-go-to-america/

Once the US implements socialized medicine, where will those folks go for advanced healthcare?

I'm curious to see what's going to happen to my boyfriend's plan. He's self-employed, so he had to get health insurance on the individual market (tough to do, with his preexisting condition).

However, he has what's called a catastrophic plan, which will no longer be allowed for those over 29 (he's 30). So he'll be pretty much forced to pay more for a more "comprehensive" plan, even though he doesn't really need it. I am so scared he's just going to drop insurance instead. He pays $80 a month for his current catastrophic plan (with a $10,000 deductible).

I guess the ONLY plus is that he can't get turned down for coverage anymore (it took him more than a year to get his current plan because nobody wanted to insure him -- he had a serious head injury a few years ago, and that counts as a preexisting condition.) But that's a small consolation if he can't afford the premiums. His income varies, and we're hoping it's *just* low enough that he can get a subsidy. The past few years, it's been borderline.

Once the US implements socialized medicine, where will those folks go for advanced healthcare?

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at October 10, 2013 9:26 AM

I suspect they will go wherever the doctors migrate to, which has an open market.

Anyone who thinks doctors in the US will just sit tight and take it, is as delusional as those California Obama voters.

In theory you will have great coverage after you pay that eye watering deductible, but in reality, having insurance is not the same thing as having medical care, which a lot of useful idiots, are going to shortly find out....

Every country with government run medicine has a two tier system, one tier for the wealthy and a second tier for everyone else. Canada's upper tier happens to be located in Seattle and Rochester,MN and Buffalo. Our upper tier will probably locate in Mexico and the Caribbean.

"Some people will see an increase who are already on the individual market purchasing insurance," he said, "but most people will not."
Eh, maybe. We're on the individual market, because hubby runs his own business. Our family insurance is going from $404 per month to $625 per month, and our deductible is going from $10,000 to $12,700. However, we're eligible for a five thousand and some subsidy, if we switch from our private insurance company to going through the insurance exchanges. Hubby and I are having ongoing discussions about whether we can afford to stick to our principles and continue with our original company, or if the increase in premiums is enough to warrant going through the exchanges. So far, we both agree we'd rather not go through the exchanges if we can help it. No point in letting ourselves be considered a "win" for Obama.

And not to "generalize for everyone," but we've been getting letters from our insurance company for the last year letting us know that our premiums would be going up because of "changes due to the ACA."

I got my Kaiser pack for my individual plan- 12.5% premium increase!!! My daughter works for a big company and the company increased the employee share of the premiums because of the increased premiums charged by their insurers. A recent high school grad friend will get the subsidies but then she is in an entry level, low wage, part time job (which would have been full-time had it not been for Obamacare). Works well for her now, but what happens when she progresses in her job and phases out of the subsidies? She will have to spend a big percentage of her paycheck on insurance and taxes - leaving little for other necessities like rent, food etc. in the high cost area of LA.

Hubby and I are having ongoing discussions about whether we can afford to stick to our principles and continue with our original company, or if the increase in premiums is enough to warrant going through the exchanges. So far, we both agree we'd rather not go through the exchanges if we can help it. No point in letting ourselves be considered a "win" for Obama.

Jazzhands, take money out of the equation.

Will your level of care be better under your current plant or the ACA. Once that is determined bring money back in, what is the total out of pocket cost to you either way and does the difference in price warrant sticking with your current plan or changing?

Cause quite frankly, I would argue it is MORE ethical to jump on the bandwagon, the more weight we can pile on it, the more leech-like we can ALL become the faster the system will collapse.

Works well for her now, but what happens when she progresses in her job and phases out of the subsidies? She will have to spend a big percentage of her paycheck on insurance and taxes - leaving little for other necessities like rent, food etc. in the high cost area of LA.

She'll always have food stamps, section 8 housing, etc too. Dependence on the government is a feature, not a bug, in many minds.

Once the US implements socialized medicine, where will those folks go for advanced healthcare? -- Conan the Grammarian at October 10, 2013 9:26 AM

Probably India or Thailand. There was a 60 Minutes video "article" a few years ago about medical tourism. The guy that needed some major surgery that would have cost over $100K in the U.S. He took a two week trip to Thailand for about $12K. The hospital looks like a resort.

I'm guessing they don't have the ACA over there.

I just found out today that most of our good options at work are going away.

I have a friend who need major surgery and went to Thailand for it. It was like 1/10th the cost of having it done in the U.S. The one problem was she had complications after she got back and the doctors had to review what was done and that took time and more money.

I heard there was a closer country - Costa Rica maybe? - that was starting to do this. On the radio they inverted a few people where their employer paid them to go there ... well shared the savings.