View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

My Obamacare experience

Posted: May 12, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: May 12, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

I read Gary Horton’s April 30 column on his experience with the Affordable Care Act (“American Medicine has become a joke”) and decided to share a story.

My most recent experience is trying to understand exactly what kind of plan I have and who will take it. Since my previous plan did not meet the criteria of the ACA, my husband and I had to chose another one.

After much research, we chose Blue Shield PPO Preferred. Both my husband and I are independent contractors, so we pay our own insurance premiums. The monthly total is as much as our mortgage.

I spent a lot of time trying to decide which plan covers our current doctors. All of them said they take Blue Shield PPO.

What everyone failed to mention, and I don’t think they understood it at the time, is that an individual plan is treated differently than an employer’s plan — although I’m assuming our per-person premium is probably higher.

Even our insurance agent said if we buy the policy as an independent, rather than through Covered CA, we will have more in-network doctors.

When I recently searched the Blue Shield website, all the doctors were listed as providers. It wasn’t until I received my insurance card and plugged in my ID number that most every name dropped off.

They were considered “out of network.” Some doctors will tell you, “Yes, we take Blue Shield PPO” but fail to mention they will charge out-of-network pricing.

Two weeks ago I had a surgery scheduled at a prominent hospital and reminded them my insurance changed April 1. No problem, as they took Blue Shield PPO.

The afternoon before my surgery, I received a call that they were actually “out of network.”

After a number of phone calls to understand what happened, I canceled the surgery. The out-of-pocket cost would run well over $20K for an outpatient procedure.

There is no such plan as a Blue Cross PPO plan for Los Angeles and Orange counties on independent coverage.
I am now back to square one in trying to understand what will happen next.

Our insurance agent checked into the Blue Cross EPO Plan, as the hospital took this insurance. Only one doctor was listed, and a call to his office confirmed he did not take Blue Cross EPO.

The agent spoke to customer service at Blue Cross and was told that some of the listings are incorrect. So it is a challenge to understand who is in network and who isn’t.

Last week we received a letter from Covered CA thanking us for joining — even though we purchased our insurance through an independent agent.

The letter said Covered CA is required to send a voter registration application to all participants. 

That seems very strange to me so I contacted our agent. He had not heard about it until I sent him an email with the letter attached.

I just hope this all gets straightened out soon. Both my husband and I have always had good insurance coverage, but these recent changes leave me feeling very uncomfortable. 

I no longer have the same coverage, and never will as long as we are self-employed.

Penalizing entrepreneurs in order to provide insurance coverage for the masses doesn’t seem right.

Valerie Tippy is a Santa Clarita resident.

Comments

ricketzz: Posted: May 12, 2014 6:32 a.m.

The Plans are Bronze; Silver; Gold; or Platinum. Gold or Platinum have the PPO option afaik. If you don't get the Plan through the Marketplace you will not get a subsidy. If you don't qualify for a subsidy we thank you.


17trillion: Posted: May 12, 2014 7:41 a.m.

Logic and the English language are foreign concepts to ricketzz. The above Covered CA plans are CRAP! I had to see a Dr. recently and I have a high end Blue Shield plan that I was fortunate enough to be grandfathered into. When I called I was told they took my plan but not a Covered CA plan FROM THE SAME PROVIDER! I can't wait until some of you brain dead libs start running into issues. Why do you willfully ignore that which is right in front of your nose? Is it ignorance? Is it the desire to be shown correct about a flawed law that nobody read that had to be passed for it to be understood? Is it a tumor in your brain or just stupidity?


Nitesho: Posted: May 12, 2014 7:48 a.m.

<sarcasm on>

17Trillon, you are a bigot, racist, Obama hater. Your opinion will be shouted down and you should loose your job for making disparaging remarks against Dear Leader. You will be reported to the White House.

<sarcasm off>

joking aside, this ever "evolving" law as screwed me and mine. I hope they fix it, or repeal it.


tech: Posted: May 12, 2014 8:20 a.m.

When propaganda is exposed by reality in a free society, expect denial from those that were taken in by the former.

"If you don't qualify for a subsidy we thank you." - ricketzz

res ipsa loquitur


hopeful: Posted: May 12, 2014 9:19 a.m.

Ricketzz- Your information is only partially correct. I have a Silver Blue Shield PPO, but no where on my card does it say Silver...it simply says Blue Shield Enhanced PPO. Granted, I have NO idea why they call it "enhanced" because it is anything but enhanced!

I too spent hours researching which plan to purchase, before finally choosing the Blue Shield PPO option that I purchased directly from the insurance company. What I have found so far is that I have to pay the first $2,000 BEFORE my insurance will kick in a dime, but if I use an out-of-network doctor, I will have to pay even more BEFORE my insurance pays anything. At this point, I am literally praying that I don't get sick until they resolve these issues!

Valeria - I really hope you are able to find a good doctor and hospital within your plan, so you can reschedule that surgery! This should NEVER have happened, and I have no doubt thousands more will find themselves in your situation when they try to use their insurance for the first time sometime this year.


chefgirl358: Posted: May 12, 2014 10:03 a.m.

A friend of mine and her husband have had the same insurance since forever. However, their plan changed with Obamacare and they are now forced to pony up over $3,000 a month for the two of them. It is absolute lunacy.


tech: Posted: May 12, 2014 10:11 a.m.

"If you don't qualify for a subsidy we thank you." - ricketzz

Precisely, hopeful and chefgirl. See the above quote for what Obamacare is really about.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 12, 2014 11:13 a.m.

Yeah, I wrote a couple of things about the ObamaScare fiasco.

This column (A Very Expensive Pumpkin) on Nov 13: http://www.signalscv.com/archives/107992/



And this LTE (Obamacare: biggest fiasco since Prohibition) on March 27: http://www.signalscv.com/section/35/article/116992/

It needs to be repealed. It's too broken to fix. Repeal it and start all over again.


tech: Posted: May 12, 2014 11:20 a.m.

$474M for 4 failed Obamacare exchanges
By JENNIFER HABERKORN and KYLE CHENEY | 5/11/14 7:04 AM EDT Updated: 5/12/14 5:37 AM EDT

Nearly half a billion dollars in federal money has been spent developing four state Obamacare exchanges that are now in shambles — and the final price tag for salvaging them may go sharply higher.

Each of the states — Massachusetts, Oregon, Nevada and Maryland — embraced Obamacare, and each underperformed. All have come under scathing criticism and now face months of uncertainty as they rush to rebuild their systems or transition to the federal exchange.

The federal government is caught between writing still more exorbitant checks to give them a second chance at creating viable exchanges of their own or, for a lesser although not inexpensive sum, adding still more states to HealthCare.gov. The federal system is already serving 36 states, far more than originally anticipated.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/obamacare-cost-failed-exchanges-106535.html#ixzz31WigHkeE


stevehw: Posted: May 12, 2014 1:00 p.m.

"When I recently searched the Blue Shield website, all the doctors were listed as providers. It wasn’t until I received my insurance card and plugged in my ID number that most every name dropped off."

Sounds like fraudulent advertising to me. Perhaps a call to the state board of insurance, or the AG's office?

If this is part of the complaint against Obamacare, it'd be like blaming the law requiring auto insurance if your auto insurance company advertised a certain coverage, took your money, and then didn't provide said coverage. Why is it the law's fault, and not the insurance company's?


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 1:48 p.m.

Stevehw wrote: "When I recently searched the Blue Shield website, all the doctors were listed as providers. It wasn’t until I received my insurance card and plugged in my ID number that most every name dropped off."

Sounds like fraudulent advertising to me. Perhaps a call to the state board of insurance, or the AG's office?

If this is part of the complaint against Obamacare, it'd be like blaming the law requiring auto insurance if your auto insurance company advertised a certain coverage, took your money, and then didn't provide said coverage. Why is it the law's fault, and not the insurance company's?

Indy: Yes, the insurance companies are using the ACA to increase their profits by restricting doctor pools . . . but as we see, it’s just ‘easier’ to blame the ACA.

I’d like to know what hospital this lady was scheduled that advised the ‘day before’ of the surgery that she was using a ‘out of network’ doctor.

That’s how the free market works . . . they won’t get my business.

But indeed, if the policy sold to the Op-ed writer was fraudulently presented, I too would contact the insurance commissioner’s office . . . and please, give us an Op-ed that denotes that outcome.


Nitesho: Posted: May 12, 2014 2:11 p.m.

" Perhaps a call to the state board of insurance, or the AG's office? "

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

yea. I'm sure they will be helpful..


JSMAS: Posted: May 13, 2014 8:52 a.m.

This healthcare thing is enough to make you sick. After my small group Blue Shield HMO plan was canceled twice as it didn't qualify, under Obamacare, amazingly I was offered a year extension. At the advice of my agent I signed up for the extension which was a good call I feel blessed to pay $1500.00 a month for my wife, 17 year old son and myself. I won't have that option going forward. It seems everyone is still trying to figure this thing out. Who knows what options we will have??

As noted here, it seems doctors don't want to take minimal government reimbursements...hence they opt out of these plans. This is just one area where there this law has big problems. There are many famous quotes to this "affordable" health care act. "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Really??? We now see what's in it and many of us don't like it. Of course Nancy and her colleagues won't have to deal with it, so our healthcare really doesn't matter to them. What a mess.


therightstuff: Posted: May 13, 2014 3:20 p.m.

"""If the policy sold to the Op-ed writer was fraudulently presented, I too would contact the insurance commissioners office."""

Dear Mr. Commissioner,

I was promised that if I liked my insurance I could keep it. 37 times. The guy even said he guaranteed it. What can I do?


stevehw: Posted: May 13, 2014 5:03 p.m.

Ah, I see...an insurance company makes fraudulent claims in its advertising, and it's Obama's fault, not the insurance company's.

I wonder if there is anything bad anywhere on Earth that right-wingers don't think is Obama's fault.

Probably not.


stevehw: Posted: May 13, 2014 5:09 p.m.

hopeful wrote:

"What I have found so far is that I have to pay the first $2,000 BEFORE my insurance will kick in a dime, but if I use an out-of-network doctor, I will have to pay even more BEFORE my insurance pays anything."

OK, so there's a $2K deductible for in-network physicians, and higher for out-of-network. That modus operandi is no different than it was before (for HMOs and some other plans). I use an HMO, and it's *always* been the case that out-of-network services were higher (if covered at all), unless it's an emergency.

Without more info, there's no way to tell what's going on here with hopeful's coverage.


hopeful: Posted: May 13, 2014 5:35 p.m.

I removed this post because it was a duplicate of the one below.
--edited.


hopeful: Posted: May 13, 2014 5:44 p.m.

stevehw wrote: "Without more info, there's no way to tell what's going on here with hopeful's coverage."

I have posted numerous times here regarding my insurance before and after I was forced to purchase my current ACA compliant plan. My older, less expensive PPO insurance had a deductible, BUT I only had to pay a co-pay when I went to the doctor. NOW I have to pay the first $2,000 for my PPO plan, and out of network doctors are more whereas, I was able to go to any doctor with my old PPO.

Do you really think it is affordable for me (or others in my situation) to have to pay over $10,280 BEFORE my insurance pays a dime? Do you really think it is reasonable that people can't find a doctor to treat them now that they have an ACA compliant plan when they had no problem finding doctors with their old insurance plans?

You, Indy and Ricketzz have no problem dismissing anyone's complaints, and Indy actually claimed that the ACA was a huge success. I, and many others, see it very differently.

Look, I know our insurance system has been broken for years, and I agree that we needed to make changes so people with pre-existing conditions and the uninsured could get affordable insurance. However, I don't think the ACA was the best way to do it, and when it became obvious that there were too many problems for it to be rolled out when it was, Obama and the Democrats should have delayed the implementation until they could resolve the issues.


therightstuff: Posted: May 13, 2014 7:45 p.m.

Steve, your president didn't make fraudulent claims about healthcare? We never heard a peep out of you when your leader was lying over and over and over again.

So funny...the same guy who was just telling us how critical he's been of Obama now calls me a right winger who blames Obama for everything bad on the earth.

Ahhhhhh....the sixth grade mentality of the far-left. No accountability, no evidence, and no standard, just bliss.


ricketzz: Posted: May 14, 2014 6:38 a.m.

3 of 5 American adults want the ACA preserved and strengthened. Most people are sophisticated enough to know when a politician is blowing smoke. If you feel harmed by Obama's exaggeration you are either very fragile or suddenly the least cynical person on the planet. "Oh, woe is me, a politician over-promised and I believed him...". The whole thing is an act.

People in propaganda land love the ACA but hate Obamacare. Whatever floats your phosphorus foam.


therightstuff: Posted: May 14, 2014 7:10 a.m.

You're wrong yet again, ricketzz. Because your beloved leader lies so often, I never believed him. But I love how the far left fringe will say that Bush lied bot Obama just "over promised". And if you believed him, it's YOUR fault. You guys are priceless!


ajones999: Posted: May 14, 2014 1:22 p.m.

I'm sorry for Valerie Tippy and her husband. Let's hope they both stay healthy! My friend was recently diagnosed with colon cancer, had the surgery to remove the tumor and now needs chemo. Her BRONZE plan (she purchased thru Covered Calif) will pay a small portion of her chemo meds because it's Stage 2 Cancer. Last week, the pharmacy said the ins.company will pay $600, but she must pay $2600 (each month) for the chemo pills. She is sick to her stomach with stress over the cancer, and now this stress. She feels misled thinking all along, she had health insurance that would put her mind at ease. She also has a $12,000+ bill to pay the hospital and doctor for the surgery in March. She should have started her chemo meds four weeks ago, but she's waiting for an update from ins.company. Also, she has polio (since childhood) and earns about $40K a year. Seriously, couldn't be any worse. I want to know why the politicians exempted themselves and their staff from A-C-A, but this is what we have to live with.


tech: Posted: May 14, 2014 2:49 p.m.

More Insured, but the Choices Are Narrowing

In the midst of all the turmoil in health care these days, one thing is becoming clear: No matter what kind of health plan consumers choose, they will find fewer doctors and hospitals in their network — or pay much more for the privilege of going to any provider they want.

These so-called narrow networks, featuring limited groups of providers, have made a big entrance on the newly created state insurance exchanges, where they are a common feature in many of the plans. While the sizes of the networks vary considerably, many plans now exclude at least some large hospitals or doctors’ groups. Smaller networks are also becoming more common in health care coverage offered by employers and in private Medicare Advantage plans.

Insurers, ranging from national behemoths like WellPoint, UnitedHealth and Aetna to much smaller local carriers, are fully embracing the idea, saying narrower networks are essential to controlling costs and managing care. Major players contend they can avoid the uproar that crippled a similar push in the 1990s.

“We have to break people away from the choice habit that everyone has,” said Marcus Merz, the chief executive of PreferredOne, an insurer in Golden Valley, Minn., that is owned by two health systems and a physician group. “We’re all trying to break away from this fixation on open access and broad networks.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/business/more-insured-but-the-choices-are-narrowing.html?_r=0

Many words for a simple reality, i.e. de facto rationing.


hopeful: Posted: May 14, 2014 3:07 p.m.

ajones999 - I am so sorry to hear about your friend. It makes me mad that people are having so many problems with their ACA plans!


Indy: Posted: May 14, 2014 4:39 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: stevehw wrote: "Without more info, there's no way to tell what's going on here with hopeful's coverage."

I have posted numerous times here regarding my insurance before and after I was forced to purchase my current ACA compliant plan. My older, less expensive PPO insurance had a deductible, BUT I only had to pay a co-pay when I went to the doctor. NOW I have to pay the first $2,000 for my PPO plan, and out of network doctors are more whereas, I was able to go to any doctor with my old PPO.

Do you really think it is affordable for me (or others in my situation) to have to pay over $10,280 BEFORE my insurance pays a dime? Do you really think it is reasonable that people can't find a doctor to treat them now that they have an ACA compliant plan when they had no problem finding doctors with their old insurance plans?

Indy: I’m going to look into this as well as the issue the Op-ed noted . . . I have a Blue Shield policy so I feel ‘empowered’ to discuss same with them . . . then I’ll report back.

Hopeful wrote: You, Indy and Ricketzz have no problem dismissing anyone's complaints, and Indy actually claimed that the ACA was a huge success. I, and many others, see it very differently.

Indy: I think the posters here are sympathetic to your plight . . . at least I am . . . but nothing that is rolled out in the scope like the ACA will be ‘problem free’.

It wasn’t that way with Medicare in the beginning or with the Part D roll out.

Hopeful wrote: Look, I know our insurance system has been broken for years, and I agree that we needed to make changes so people with pre-existing conditions and the uninsured could get affordable insurance. However, I don't think the ACA was the best way to do it, and when it became obvious that there were too many problems for it to be rolled out when it was, Obama and the Democrats should have delayed the implementation until they could resolve the issues.

Indy: Sadly, both parties are refusing to address the ‘health care drivers’ and both parties try to position themselves as ‘saviors’ but both are failing.

Put simply, a lot of older people like me are all about the new technologies like hip and knee replacements that weren’t around 20 years . . . but now are covered by insurance and these are not inexpensive.

So a lot of public ‘cries’ about the rising cost but in fairness to them, our so called ‘leaders’ won’t again address these type of ‘cost drivers’.

And parts of the ACA were delayed . . .

The bigger challenge, however, is how does any republican try to ‘improve’ the ACA after grandstanding its demise from day one?


Indy: Posted: May 14, 2014 4:44 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Steve, your president didn't make fraudulent claims about healthcare? We never heard a peep out of you when your leader was lying over and over and over again.

Indy: What a asinine way of looking at politics . . . republicans have been promising more growth by cutting taxes but that has never worked . . . for decades . . . are all republicans liars? According to this poster’s standards, they are.

Therightstuff wrote: So funny...the same guy who was just telling us how critical he's been of Obama now calls me a right winger who blames Obama for everything bad on the earth.

Indy: Gee . . . would have thought that after this posters ‘repeatedly’ calls anyone supporting any Obama policy ‘Obama wh0ores’! Who would thought . .

Therightstuff wrote: Ahhhhhh....the sixth grade mentality of the far-left. No accountability, no evidence, and no standard, just bliss.

Indy: This spoken by an economic illiterate that is willing to risk the future of 10 of millions of Americans by advocating cuts to food stamps for the poor, refusing to raise the minimum wage per inflation to raise many of the poor out of poverty, and watching millions of people lose their homes since the unemployment benefits ‘ran out’ . . .


Indy: Posted: May 14, 2014 4:46 p.m.

Ricketzz wrote: 3 of 5 American adults want the ACA preserved and strengthened. Most people are sophisticated enough to know when a politician is blowing smoke. If you feel harmed by Obama's exaggeration you are either very fragile or suddenly the least cynical person on the planet. "Oh, woe is me, a politician over-promised and I believed him...". The whole thing is an act.

People in propaganda land love the ACA but hate Obamacare. Whatever floats your phosphorus foam.

Indy: Excellent points . . .


therightstuff: Posted: May 14, 2014 4:54 p.m.

"""People in propaganda land love the ACA"""

Excellent point, indeed. I couldn't have said it better.


therightstuff: Posted: May 14, 2014 4:59 p.m.

Indy: """This spoken by an economic illiterate that is willing to risk the future of 10 of millions of Americans"""

Gee...I've been downgraded from a religious conservative to an economic illiterate. Worse yet, the future of tens of millions of Americans hang on my words. Typical insecure liberal. If you disagree with their narrow worldview, it's because you're an evil person.

Indy.....please grow up and try to stay on point. When you yield to your irrational fears it makes you look pretty foolish.


michael: Posted: May 14, 2014 6:18 p.m.

I ricketzz the same guy that was hit while riding his bicycle on an unsafe road. Seems he wants everyone to look out for him and take care of him.


ricketzz: Posted: May 15, 2014 7:11 a.m.

I never ride on unsafe roads. I used to drive my bike to Lost Canyon Rd. Trailhead, but I can't lift it since my back surgery. I live on a steep hill and ride around in circles in front of the house, if at all.

You would think The Corporation had turned everyone into risk-averse cowards, unwilling to shake things up, if you didn't know everything on American Radio and TV is propaganda. In reality we are bored with business as usual and anything is better than this. We expect a lively Spring and Summer in the streets.


michael: Posted: May 15, 2014 8:51 a.m.

Sorry to learn of you back problem. I am very tired of it all as well. Our country has become a tweet!


Indy: Posted: May 15, 2014 1:10 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """This spoken by an economic illiterate that is willing to risk the future of 10 of millions of Americans"""

Gee...I've been downgraded from a religious conservative to an economic illiterate. Worse yet, the future of tens of millions of Americans hang on my words. Typical insecure liberal. If you disagree with their narrow worldview, it's because you're an evil person.

Indy: I don’t see your positions or your lack of knowledge as necessarily ‘personal’ since somebody ‘taught you’ your beliefs and ideology and did so independent of the reality of the world that you live in.

But real tragedy is that you can’t see ‘new knowledge’ that refutes much of your ideology and beliefs . . .

But indeed the consequences of your beliefs seem to reach beyond your ability to comprehend them and thus you’re saddled with promoting things that brutalize different groups of Americans even as you believe otherwise.

That’s tough . . . and that’s the burden you bear.

Most Americans at least by their pronouncements ‘value’ education . . . yet I find the ‘true believer’ who resist learning anything will continue to fight for outcomes that we can actually ‘see’ . . . including cutting food stamps to the poor, refusing to raise the minimum wage or addressing the current recession that has put many hard working Americans out of work yet we see religious conservatives ‘ignoring the economics’ and citing out dated biblical scripture that ignore economics.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy.....please grow up and try to stay on point. When you yield to your irrational fears it makes you look pretty foolish.

Indy: It appears you have a good heart since you do help people local with your personal charity . . . I’m just trying to raise the bar or expand the outlook to the greater population that is effected by conservative beliefs systems that are not held accountable for their outcomes.

You choose to see this as some sort of a political ideology battle but that isn’t useful since both parties use ‘focus group tested’ slogans to gain advantage even when the premise of these slogans is faulty.

Addressing the real life problems of tens of millions of Americans to ideology nonsense is not ‘foolish’ . . .


therightstuff: Posted: May 15, 2014 2:36 p.m.

Indy: I don’t see your positions or your lack of knowledge as necessarily ‘personal’

Indy, I never take your criticism personally. Not even when you *daily* condemn me for not caring about poor people. I'll ask you again, please join me to help feed the poor right in our own community as a volunteer.

What are you waiting for?


therightstuff: Posted: May 15, 2014 2:44 p.m.

Indy: """But indeed the consequences of your beliefs seem to reach beyond your ability to comprehend them and thus you’re saddled with promoting things that brutalize different groups of Americans even as you believe otherwise."""

Republicans want to transition food stamps by 2024 to 2008 levels. How a 15 year transition is considered brutal is beyond me....unless you want to expand the dependency for political power.


tech: Posted: May 15, 2014 3:14 p.m.

"But real tragedy is that you can’t see ‘new knowledge’ that refutes much of your ideology and beliefs . . . " - Indy

Review this article on the changes to the Nordic Model of social democracy and advise on how it affects your "ideology and beliefs", Indy.

The Nordic countries are reinventing their model of capitalism, says Adrian Wooldridge
Feb 2nd 2013 | From the print edition

THIRTY YEARS AGO Margaret Thatcher turned Britain into the world’s leading centre of “thinking the unthinkable”. Today that distinction has passed to Sweden. The streets of Stockholm are awash with the blood of sacred cows. The think-tanks are brimful of new ideas. The erstwhile champion of the “third way” is now pursuing a far more interesting brand of politics.

Sweden has reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP from 67% in 1993 to 49% today. It could soon have a smaller state than Britain. It has also cut the top marginal tax rate by 27 percentage points since 1983, to 57%, and scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance. This year it is cutting the corporate-tax rate from 26.3% to 22%.

Sweden has also donned the golden straitjacket of fiscal orthodoxy with its pledge to produce a fiscal surplus over the economic cycle. Its public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010, and its budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3% over the same period. This allowed a country with a small, open economy to recover quickly from the financial storm of 2007-08. Sweden has also put its pension system on a sound foundation, replacing a defined-benefit system with a defined-contribution one and making automatic adjustments for longer life expectancy.

Most daringly, it has introduced a universal system of school vouchers and invited private schools to compete with public ones. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly. Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist who lives in America, hopes that Sweden is pioneering “a new conservative model”; Brian Palmer, an American anthropologist who lives in Sweden, worries that it is turning into “the United States of Swedeamerica”.

There can be no doubt that Sweden’s quiet revolution has brought about a dramatic change in its economic performance. The two decades from 1970 were a period of decline: the country was demoted from being the world’s fourth-richest in 1970 to 14th-richest in 1993, when the average Swede was poorer than the average Briton or Italian. The two decades from 1990 were a period of recovery: GDP growth between 1993 and 2010 averaged 2.7% a year and productivity 2.1% a year, compared with 1.9% and 1% respectively for the main 15 EU countries."

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570840-nordic-countries-are-reinventing-their-model-capitalism-says-adrian


Indy: Posted: May 15, 2014 4:03 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: I don’t see your positions or your lack of knowledge as necessarily ‘personal’

Indy, I never take your criticism personally. Not even when you *daily* condemn me for not caring about poor people. I'll ask you again, please join me to help feed the poor right in our own community as a volunteer. What are you waiting for?

Indy: It’s not that you don’t care about people it’s that you don’t understand the consequences of your political positions some of which are based on biblical scripture.

So whether you wish to believe it or not, your local charity work while important isn’t cancelling out per se the consequences of religious conservatives that act in congress toward the issues I’ve noted.

So while you’re qualified as a local citizen to provide charity services in the manner you do, I’m qualified and spend my time at the higher levels of government trying to help millions of people by explaining the economics that sit apart and above beliefs.

So in sense, each of us has so much time in a day and we have to choose where best to you use.

What’s troubling for me is the ‘highbrow’ debating posture you take here with the ‘chippy rhetoric’ that simply dismisses the reality that you don’t understand basic economics and get ‘defensive’ versus trying to learn why cutting food stamps ahead of time is not necessary since the economy as it recovers, will see people ‘drop off’ the program.

Further you and many conservatives here want to specifically blame Obama for the rise in food stamp participation completely ‘IGNORING’ why this has occurred after the 2007 crash.

In any event, I write these posts to you but they are more for the ‘guest readers’ so they can understand the plight we are in in that that personal charity isn’t sufficient to make up for the economic problems we face as a nation.

And as important as your charity work is, it isn’t addressing these economic issues . . . and it appears that many religious conservatives in the House simply don’t get basic economics either thus the reference to biblical scripture which doesn’t address the economics.

That’s why these debating forums are important since the media makes celebrities out of out-spoken politicians that the journalist can’t comprehend either that reciting opinions that don’t work isn’t ‘news’ . . . I’ve see this for 40+ years . . .

But indeed I’ve learned a lot from you as you put forth your views such that it lets me know the religious conservative foundation for your positions. That will believe it or not ‘help the poor’ as I can now address same.


Indy: Posted: May 15, 2014 4:11 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """But indeed the consequences of your beliefs seem to reach beyond your ability to comprehend them and thus you’re saddled with promoting things that brutalize different groups of Americans even as you believe otherwise."""

Republicans want to transition food stamps by 2024 to 2008 levels. How a 15 year transition is considered brutal is beyond me....unless you want to expand the dependency for political power.

Indy: This is sadly just political posturing and understandable since conservatives have to appeal to their ‘base’ that is riding not on economics but ‘beliefs’.

And this whole issue of ‘dependency’ is nonsense . . . it’s a political fiction that is propagated to people like yourself that makes you ‘dismiss’ any concept that isn’t found in the chain of conservative dogma that you listen to.

Sadly, both parties are failing here . . . to both recognize that we’re not going to get the ‘unlimited’ growth that even ‘Obama’ promised you in his SOTU speech.

It’s very likely with globalization consequence of off shoring more and more US jobs that more and more people here will require food assistance.

But politicians won’t get elected if they dared to even get close to the economic reality we’re now facing.

If you want a good read, try this: The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future Of Our Economy, Energy, And Environment [Kindle Edition] Chris Martenson

He’s even set up a website: www.peakprosperity.com/ . . . but I’m not recommending that till I finish the book and understand the motives of the writer. He’s talking good economics but even the book is a bit over the heads of the public . . . but well written, researched and he does hit the right economic concepts in play.

Suffice it to say, you can learn a lot since this guy has the business background to really
‘see the big picture’.


Indy: Posted: May 15, 2014 4:16 p.m.

Tech wrote: "But real tragedy is that you can’t see ‘new knowledge’ that refutes much of your ideology and beliefs . . . " - Indy

Review this article on the changes to the Nordic Model of social democracy and advise on how it affects your "ideology and beliefs", Indy.

I’m not interested per se in ‘models’ but the basic economics in play.

I’ll review this later but try reading the book I recommended to TRS.

You’ll find a lot of interesting concepts that extend beyond politicians just promising ‘unlimited’ growth . . .

Interestingly, the author addresses the seriousness of ‘debt’ but does place it in the bigger picture in that all debt is ‘assumed’ to be paid back . . . thus the economy has to growth ‘exponentially’ to do so . . . which isn’t going to happen.

If you get the book we can go through it chapter by chapter, one at a time, and see how your libertarian views are either supported or not . . . that would be a very productive use of your time and mine.


Indy: Posted: May 15, 2014 4:28 p.m.

PS – I did contact Blue Shield but the representative on the phone was told not to ‘discuss’ policy.

I specifically brought up the assertions of the LTE writer here . . . and was transferred to a person’s voice mail . . . in PR.

In any event, this ‘for profit’ company is operating in its own interest so if it has reduced the doctor networks, I suggest trying another company ‘BEFORE’ buying their policies.

Interestingly, I have one of their PPO plans but through my work and it doesn’t have the network restriction as noted.

In my plan, I have to completely pay for the policy ‘deductible’ before they pay anything on a claim.

The big advantage especially for policy holders, however, is the ‘negotiated’ fees that the Blue Shield has with its providers which is ‘substantial’.

Finally, my insurance cost for this 90/70 PPO is over $14,000.00 per year for me and my wife . . . both of us over 55 . . . the writer here noted ‘although I’m assuming our per-person premium is probably higher.’.

I’m not sure if that’s a good assumption and would encourage of the writer to update this site with the total cost of her and her husband so we can ‘level set’ the difference.


hopeful: Posted: May 15, 2014 5:05 p.m.

Indy wrote: "In any event, this ‘for profit’ company is operating in its own interest so if it has reduced the doctor networks, I suggest trying another company ‘BEFORE’ buying their policies."

As the letter writer has noted, and others have commented in the past, it was NOT possible to find out the complete and accurate doctor lists BEFORE buying an individual policy this year. That is one of the reasons I strongly believe they should have allowed us Californians to keep our older plans. Now, we have to hope and pray we don't NEED to use our insurance.

Indy: "Interestingly, I have one of their PPO plans but through my work and it doesn’t have the network restriction as noted."

Which is precisely why you have no right to claim the ACA is a huge success...you aren't affected by the horrible roll out of the ACA!

Indy: "In my plan, I have to completely pay for the policy ‘deductible’ before they pay anything on a claim."

So, are you saying you have to pay 100% of the doctor bill when you go to the doctors until your deductible is met? Most company PPOs run very differently, so that when you get sick, you pay a co-pay, not 100% of the bill. Last year, when I had my individual PPO, I had to pay a co-pay when I had a sinus infection, I did not have the pay more than my co-pay unless I needed medicines, or xrays, etc.

What is your deductible?



therightstuff: Posted: May 15, 2014 6:52 p.m.

Indy: """He’s even set up a website: www.peakprosperity.com/ . . . but I’m not recommending that till I finish the book and understand the motives of the writer."""

That would be a good idea considering how you humiliated yourself by recommending a 99 cent pamphlet on Benghazi from an author you didn't know. Of course, once you understood David Brock's motives were to protect Obama and attack anyone who questioned the terrorist attack in Benghazi, you recommended it. So predictable.


emheilbrun: Posted: May 15, 2014 7:01 p.m.

Notice how Indy's position changes on the need for food stamps in just 8 minutes! !

"What’s troubling for me is the ‘highbrow’ debating posture you take here with the ‘chippy rhetoric’ that simply dismisses the reality that you don’t understand basic economics and get ‘defensive’ versus trying to learn why cutting food stamps ahead of time is not necessary since the economy as it recovers, will see people ‘drop off’ the program." Indy 5/15/14 4:03 PM

"It’s very likely with globalization consequence of off shoring more and more US jobs that more and more people here will require food assistance." Indy 5/15/14 4:11 PM

As the economy recovers people will drop off the program but because of globalization more people will need assistance. The genius of Indy in action.


therightstuff: Posted: May 15, 2014 7:06 p.m.

Hopeful: """Which is precisely why you have no right to claim the ACA is a huge success...you aren't affected by the horrible roll out of the ACA!"""

Excellent point. Hopeful, the ACA disciples remind me of a football team that has kicked a field goal in the first minute of a game and are now spiking the ball and doing a victory dance. There's a whole game to go. We know that Obama has arbitrarily moved the worst parts of the law as far into the future as possible. Even HE knows the worst is yet to come.


tech: Posted: May 16, 2014 9:19 p.m.

"I’m not interested per se in ‘models’ but the basic economics in play." - Indy

How do you learn anything new when you're stuck on basics? And does that lack of interest apply to climate models as well?


ricketzz: Posted: May 16, 2014 6:24 a.m.

Climate models have become climate observations; we are living the hockey stick. The chaos is here, now. How bad it gets is in our hands. This will make our 2.5% of GDP deficit look like a parking ticket.


Indy: Posted: May 16, 2014 7:44 p.m.

From the Op-ed writer complaints this article seem relevant:

Recording seems to refute claims made by Anthem
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20140516-column.html
David Lazarus
LOS ANGELES TIMES
5/15/14
We've all heard stories about health insurance companies refusing to budge after denying a claim, often asserting that the policyholder was in the wrong.

David Cienfuegos said his wife was told by Anthem Blue Cross that his doctor was part of the insurer's coverage network, but then was left with the tab for about $5,800 in medical costs after Anthem insisted that it never said any such thing.

In this case, though, Cienfuegos, 40, has a digital recording of the Anthem rep clearly saying his surgery would be covered.

And he's suing to hold the insurer accountable.

"It's shameful," Cienfuegos told me. "It's like they have a policy of denying claims without even looking at the facts."

He said his wife contacted Anthem on Sept. 10 to make sure that surgery for a condition known as varicoceles, which can cause infertility in men, was covered under the plan and that his doctor, Philip Werthman, was in Anthem's network.

Having received verbal assurances on both counts, Cienfuegos said, he underwent surgery at a Los Angeles clinic and submitted a claim to Anthem on Oct. 28.

The company denied full coverage for the claim on Dec. 2, he said, ruling that Dr. Werthman was not part of Anthem's network. Any reimbursement Cienfuegos received thus would be at a lower out-of-network rate.

Indy: You should read the entire article since even with the recording, Blue Cross still denies the claim.

So many here can blame the ACA till hell freezes over but this ‘business practice’ by Blue Cross is their own doing . . .


Indy: Posted: May 16, 2014 8:13 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: Indy wrote: "In any event, this ‘for profit’ company is operating in its own interest so if it has reduced the doctor networks, I suggest trying another company ‘BEFORE’ buying their policies."

As the letter writer has noted, and others have commented in the past, it was NOT possible to find out the complete and accurate doctor lists BEFORE buying an individual policy this year. That is one of the reasons I strongly believe they should have allowed us Californians to keep our older plans. Now, we have to hope and pray we don't NEED to use our insurance.

Indy: Yes, I called Blue Shield and the rep that wanted to ‘sell me a policy’ didn’t want to discuss that . . . so whether you want an old plan or new, the ‘company’ is doing the deception not the ACA.

Hopeful wrote: Indy: "Interestingly, I have one of their PPO plans but through my work and it doesn’t have the network restriction as noted."

Which is precisely why you have no right to claim the ACA is a huge success...you aren't affected by the horrible roll out of the ACA!

Indy: Remember, the ACA didn’t address plans like mine . . . likewise, this may be an article that will interest you on the plans that were cancelled: http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/obamacare-canceled-health-insurance

I’d be interested in your take after you read same . . .

Indy: "In my plan, I have to completely pay for the policy ‘deductible’ before they pay anything on a claim."

So, are you saying you have to pay 100% of the doctor bill when you go to the doctors until your deductible is met? Most company PPOs run very differently, so that when you get sick, you pay a co-pay, not 100% of the bill. Last year, when I had my individual PPO, I had to pay a co-pay when I had a sinus infection, I did not have the pay more than my co-pay unless I needed medicines, or xrays, etc.

What is your deductible?

Indy: Yes, I just looked at a recent claim and I do pay 100% of the services apart from the ‘doctor visit’ until my deductible is met. So as you noted, the Co-pay covered the visit but I paid 100% of the tests done.

My deductible, however, is quite ‘low’ being just $375 per individual but I’m paying a ‘high’ fee if you will to get that . . . we don’t know what the Op-ed writer paid . . . but I’d be shocked if it was over $7,000.00 for an individual that I’m looking at.

The only reason I can afford this is that the company gives me a stipend of about 50% or so . . . but even then, this is expensive!

And considering my ‘preexisting conditions’, I would be uninsurable without the ACA.

In any event, there is a ‘trade off’ between a higher premium and a lower deductible and vice versa.


Indy: Posted: May 16, 2014 8:17 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """He’s even set up a website: www.peakprosperity.com/ . . . but I’m not recommending that till I finish the book and understand the motives of the writer."""

That would be a good idea considering how you humiliated yourself by recommending a 99 cent pamphlet on Benghazi from an author you didn't know. Of course, once you understood David Brock's motives were to protect Obama and attack anyone who questioned the terrorist attack in Benghazi, you recommended it. So predictable.

Indy: Again, this site if for people ‘seeking’ knowledge not reciting slogans . . . but I do recommend highly this description of the actual chain of events in Libya: The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters for America (Oct 16, 2013)

In any event, as a suggestion the guest readers, realize that ‘character assignation’ is job one with many conservatives since they worried about the ‘writer’ more than the content. And anybody in politics that disagrees with conservative ideology is quickly ‘dismissed’ as we see here . . .


Indy: Posted: May 16, 2014 8:20 p.m.

Emheilbrun wrote:Notice how Indy's position changes on the need for food stamps in just 8 minutes! !

"What’s troubling for me is the ‘highbrow’ debating posture you take here with the ‘chippy rhetoric’ that simply dismisses the reality that you don’t understand basic economics and get ‘defensive’ versus trying to learn why cutting food stamps ahead of time is not necessary since the economy as it recovers, will see people ‘drop off’ the program." Indy 5/15/14 4:03 PM

"It’s very likely with globalization consequence of off shoring more and more US jobs that more and more people here will require food assistance." Indy 5/15/14 4:11 PM

As the economy recovers people will drop off the program but because of globalization more people will need assistance. The genius of Indy in action.

Indy: I can only recommend that you ‘think’ before writing . . . go back and read ‘in context’ what I wrote . . . the answers you’re looking for will be found there . . .

But I will note that many folks in politics as you demonstrated like to cite things out of context to make some political point . . . in this case here, diminishing my comments . . . but it only ‘looks’ that way . . .


Indy: Posted: May 16, 2014 8:25 p.m.

Tech wrote: "I’m not interested per se in ‘models’ but the basic economics in play." - Indy

How do you learn anything new when you're stuck on basics? And does that lack of interest apply to climate models as well?

Indy: Yes, this is real dilemma especially for those who believe the current neoclassical economic viewpoints that indeed ignore the basics . . .

We saw this in 2007 as the Fed and the Council of Economic Advisors to the President were both predicting ‘growth’ not an economic collapse.

The referenced book I noted above would be very helpful for you: The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future Of Our Economy, Energy, And Environment [Kindle Edition] Chris Martenson

And for climate change, here’s an excellent link that goes into why the ‘deniers’ reasoning is both faulty and illogical: http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

I’ll go through this ‘point by point’ if you wish . . . but again, the article is very well written and clear.


hopeful: Posted: May 16, 2014 8:42 p.m.

Indy wrote: "Indy: Yes, I just looked at a recent claim and I do pay 100% of the services apart from the ‘doctor visit’ until my deductible is met. So as you noted, the Co-pay covered the visit but I paid 100% of the tests done."

So you just confirmed that you DO NOT have to pay the full deductible, like I do, BEFORE your insurance pays a dime.

Now, regarding your premiums, yes those are quite high, but the balance is that you can go to any doctor you want, and your deductible is extremely low. I am sure that had you chosen a higher deductible, such as the one I have, and you were forced into the extremely narrow doctor's networks, your insurance premiums would be much less.

I am truly happy for you, Indy, because you weren't forced into my situation. But, that is why I get mad when you keep spouting off that the ACA was/is a huge success.

When I purchased my Blue Shield PPO Silver plan, I was given their network of doctors, and for the most part, all my doctors and my husband's doctors were on that list. Additionally, I was told that co-pays were apart from the deductible, so when I did need to go to the doctor, I only had to pay the co-pay. I only found out that I had to pay my entire $2,000 deductible after reading the fine print of my policy AFTER I paid for my insurance.

A lawsuit has been filed in San Francisco against Blue Shield because of this mess, so I am hoping that something will be resolved. Yes, the insurance companies are to blame, but so is Obama and the Democrats, who refused to delay the forced implementation of the ACA!

What I don't understand is how Democrats and Progressives support the whole premise of the ACA. It gave MORE power to the insurance companies, so now, they can screw the public even more than they did in the past.


therightstuff: Posted: May 16, 2014 8:45 p.m.

Indy: """And anybody in politics that disagrees with conservative ideology is quickly ‘dismissed’ as we see here . . ."""

Let's see what other icons of conservative ideology have to say about Mr. Brock:

THE NEW YORK TIMES referred to Brock as a "prominent Democratic political operative"

THE WASHINGTON POST refers to Brock as a "former journalist-turned-political operative"

NEW YORK MAGAZINE referred to Brock's "hyperpartisanship".

Once again, Indy is proven wrong and yet he keeps hawking this guy's 99 cent pamphlet about Benghazi. But here's my favorite:

"""...in 2001, only months before Brock finished production of his book, "Blinded by the Right," he was committed to the psychiatric ward of Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington."""

THIS IS THE GUY that Indy swears will tell us the truth about Benghazi...and just for 99 cents. Indy...does your shame have no end? We'll soon know the truth that Obama, his Democratic minions, and his media wh0res have been hiding. At last we'll have justice for the four Americans murdered by a terrorist attack in Benghazi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock


hopeful: Posted: May 17, 2014 9:00 p.m.

Indy wrote: "Indy: Remember, the ACA didn’t address plans like mine . . . likewise, this may be an article that will interest you on the plans that were cancelled: http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/obamacare-canceled-health-insurance

I’d be interested in your take after you read same . . ."


From the article you sited: "The ACA was designed specifically to prevent insurance companies from peddling lousy insurance plans and to force these firms to replace these subpar products with affordable plans providing better and effective coverage."

I say, B.S.! I was very happy with my insurance. Granted, it didn't cover maternity care and some other things that I didn't need, but I was able to see ANY doctor I wanted, only had to pay a co-pay to do so, and I had lower premiums and better coverage than I do now! I could also use my insurance to be treated by a regular doctor if I got sick when I was out of town, whereas now, I have to pay the exorbitant ER or Urgent Care fees if I get sick when I am out of the Los Angeles County area.

I have no doubt that they were some bad insurance plans, but mine was not one of them. And quite honestly, if people thought they were getting a good insurance plan by only paying $24 to $54 a month for a Blue Cross plan they bought at the mall, well these people are probably the same people who would jump at buying cheap ocean front property in the state of Nevada...

There were OTHER ways to ensure insurance companies couldn't sell those horrible policies, without changing everything for everyone. And then when it became OBVIOUS that the website wasn't ready, and that insurance companies hadn't completed their doctor networks, Obama and the Democrats should have either 1) delayed the individul mandate, or 2) at the very least looked into the problems instead of burying their heads in the sand!


hopeful: Posted: May 17, 2014 9:19 p.m.

Indy wrote: "If this is part of the complaint against Obamacare, it'd be like blaming the law requiring auto insurance if your auto insurance company advertised a certain coverage, took your money, and then didn't provide said coverage. Why is it the law's fault, and not the insurance company's?"

It is the fault of many, including Obama & the Democrats, who refused to delay the individual mandate, the State Insurance Commissioners (especially here in California), who FAILED to do his job to ensure that insurance companies had adequate doctor networks in place, as well as the Insurance company's fault. The "law" promised that Americans would be able to compare insurance plans, but that was not the case. The doctor lists were NOT ready, and in fact both Blue Cross and Blue Shield hadn't even bothered to have contracts in place by January. The Law also promised that insurance would be more affordable, but that isn't the case for what I believe is the majority of the people who purchase individual insurance.

The problem for you, Indy, is that more and more people are finding out just how bad their insurance is, yet all you want to do is close your eyes and ears to the truth.


tech: Posted: May 17, 2014 12:09 a.m.

The question was: "How do you learn anything new when you're stuck on basics?"

Why the deflection? You're a social democrat, right? Why is Sweden changing their economic system per the article I linked? Why are the Swedes ratcheting down the percentage of GDP consumed by government markedly? According to your ideology, are they moving in the wrong direction?

Understanding these changes might assist you in realizing the 20th Century social democratic model isn't sustainable. If you have difficulty with my questions, let me know and I'll break them down into a simpler form to assist you in releasing your allegiance to failed ideologies.


emheilbrun: Posted: May 17, 2014 6:10 a.m.

Indy: "I can only recommend that you ‘think’ before writing . . . go back and read ‘in context’ what I wrote . . . the answers you’re looking for will be found there . . .
But I will note that many folks in politics as you demonstrated like to cite things out of context to make some political point . . . in this case here, diminishing my comments . . . but it only ‘looks’ that way . . . "

I reread your posts. You clearly contradicted yourself. You lack the inegrity to either own up to it or try to further clarify your point. And you of all people admonishing someone else to 'think' before they write! Did you think before you referred to Hanna Rosin as an evangelical Christian? You know, Hanna Rosin, the Jewish journalist. Did you 'think' before you referred to the ACA as an overwhelming success? Other than the number of sign ups, what are the key performance indicators that you reviewed before declaring the 'overwhelming success'?


stevehw: Posted: May 17, 2014 8:53 a.m.

" is the fault of many, including Obama & the Democrats, who refused to delay the individual mandate, the State Insurance Commissioners (especially here in California), who FAILED to do his job to ensure that insurance companies had adequate doctor networks in place, as well as the Insurance company's fault. The "law" promised that Americans would be able to compare insurance plans, but that was not the case. The doctor lists were NOT ready, and in fact both Blue Cross and Blue Shield hadn't even bothered to have contracts in place by January."

How is fraud by the insurance companies the fault of Obama or the Democrats? If any government agency is at fault here, it might be the state insurance commissioner, but I'd lay the blame squarely at the feet of the ones *committing the fraud*. In addition, they had *how many* years to get their s**t together before the law went into effect?

Again, blaming the President or the Democrats for the fraudulent and/or negligent actions of the *insurance companies* is a bit of a stretch.


hopeful: Posted: May 17, 2014 9:27 a.m.

stevehw: "How is fraud by the insurance companies the fault of Obama or the Democrats? If any government agency is at fault here, it might be the state insurance commissioner, but I'd lay the blame squarely at the feet of the ones *committing the fraud*. In addition, they had *how many* years to get their s**t together before the law went into effect?"

First, the ACA was made into law by Democrats alone, despite huge outcry from the public. Then, despite knowing that the website wasn't ready, and the doctor networks were not in place, the Democrats refused to delay the individual mandate. Rather than take a pause to fix some of the problems BEFORE the roll-out, the Democrats charged ahead, essentially telling those of us stuck with it, "Screw You...you will be our guinea pigs"

Our California Insurance Commissioner, who is a Democrat, should be fired! I know that he doesn't have the authority to regulate medical insurance rates, however, he can review and comment. And, he was also given the authority to allow us to keep our insurance for another year, however, he refused. Where was his review? Where has he commented about the horribly narrow networks? Why did he refuse to let us keep our insurance when there was NO way for us to know which doctors were in our new plans because contracts hadn't even been signed?

Yes, the insurance companies are primarily to blame, but the President and Democrats are the ones, who voted for the ACA, which gave unprecedented power to insurance companies!


therightstuff: Posted: May 17, 2014 9:59 a.m.

Wow...great points, hopeful. Steve...your response?

And while you're at it, how would YOU describe your president's comment that if you like your insurance you can keep it - period - end of story - I guarantee it! 37 times your guy made this statement.

An "over promise"? An "exaggeration"? It's the insurance companies' fault?

One of two things had to happen. Either Obama KNEW this wasn't true and deliberately lied or he was incredibly ignorant of his own law. So Steve, was your president incredibly deceitful or incredibly inept?


tech: Posted: May 17, 2014 10:20 a.m.

Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law.

"She said, 'I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,'" Kehaly said.

An example of the tone deaf behavior of statist bureaucrats hopeful referenced:

All these cancellations were prompted by a requirement from Covered California, the state's new insurance exchange. The state didn't want to give insurance companies the opportunity to hold on to the healthiest patients for up to a year, keeping them out of the larger risk pool that will influence future rates.

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, said the state and insurers agreed that clearing the decks by Jan. 1 was best for consumers in the long run despite the initial disruption. Lee has heard the complaints — even from his sister-in-law, who recently groused about her 50% rate increase.

"People could have kept their cheaper, bad coverage, and those people wouldn't have been part of the common risk pool," Lee said. "We are better off all being in this together. We are transforming the individual market and making it better."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-sticker-shock-20131027-story.html#page=1

Got that? It's for your own good, so suck it! That's what socialism does, i.e. guarantee equal misery for all. That is, except for the elites who exempt themselves from its effects. --edited.


tech: Posted: May 17, 2014 11:30 a.m.

"Climate models have become climate observations; we are living the hockey stick. The chaos is here, now. How bad it gets is in our hands. This will make our 2.5% of GDP deficit look like a parking ticket." - ricketzz

But is there any truth to President Obama’s declaration that the ravaging effects of global warming are already upon us? We checked the historical record on extreme weather events and will let the official evidence speak for itself and then readers can make up their own minds.

Tornadoes: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says, “There has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.”

Extreme temperatures: NOAA’s U.S. Climate Extremes Index of unusually hot or cold temperatures finds that over the last 10 years, five years have been below the historical mean and five above the mean.

Severe drought/extreme moisture: While higher than average portions of the country were subjected to extreme drought/moisture in the past few years, the 1930s, 40s and 50s were more extreme in this regard. In fact, over the last 10 years, four years have been below the average and six above the average.

Hurricane activity: Government statistics and academic research show that hurricane activity is actually at historic lows. According to the National Hurricane Center, in 2013, “There were no major hurricanes in the North Atlantic Basin for the first time since 1994. And the number of hurricanes this year was the lowest since 1982.”

And there is still more good news: The eastern Pacific Ocean had only one major hurricane in 2013. Only 1968 – which had no major hurricanes in either the Atlantic Basin or eastern Pacific – was more calm in the regard.
According to Ryan Maue at Weather Bell Analytics, “We are currently in the longest period since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the U.S. (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5). The last major hurricane to strike the U.S. was Hurricane Wilma during late October of that record-breaking year of 2005.”

Cyclones: Maue reports that “the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.”

Floods: Roger Pielke Jr., past chairman of the American Meteorological Society Committee on Weather Forecasting and Analysis, reports that “floods have not increased in the U.S. in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage of U.S. GDP have dropped by about 75 percent since 1940.”

Catastrophic weather events: Pielke concludes, “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change. ... It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate time scales either in the United States or globally.”

(cont.)


tech: Posted: May 17, 2014 11:30 a.m.

One of the best measures of extreme weather events is losses to insurance companies, which protect against catastrophic losses. Globally, weather-related losses have actually decreased by about 25 percent since 1960.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/years-613585-global-hurricane.html


Indy: Posted: May 17, 2014 2:46 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: Indy wrote: "Indy: Yes, I just looked at a recent claim and I do pay 100% of the services apart from the ‘doctor visit’ until my deductible is met. So as you noted, the Co-pay covered the visit but I paid 100% of the tests done."

So you just confirmed that you DO NOT have to pay the full deductible, like I do, BEFORE your insurance pays a dime.

Indy: If you’re not getting the ‘doctor’ visit itself per the deductable, and paying for that in your deductible, then yes, the policies are different.

Hopeful wrote: Now, regarding your premiums, yes those are quite high, but the balance is that you can go to any doctor you want, and your deductible is extremely low. I am sure that had you chosen a higher deductible, such as the one I have, and you were forced into the extremely narrow doctor's networks, your insurance premiums would be much less.

Indy: Yes, but if I wasn’t getting the ‘subsidy’ from my employer, I couldn’t afford this policy. So many in the exchanges without the tax subsidy, would be in a similar position.

Hopeful wrote: I am truly happy for you, Indy, because you weren't forced into my situation. But, that is why I get mad when you keep spouting off that the ACA was/is a huge success.

Indy: I keep telling people the ACA is a success to ‘balance’ the nonsense that it should be repealed and has no value . . . obviously it does for the 8+ million people that signed up as well as the millions of poor people who are now on Medicaid.

Hopeful wrote: When I purchased my Blue Shield PPO Silver plan, I was given their network of doctors, and for the most part, all my doctors and my husband's doctors were on that list. Additionally, I was told that co-pays were apart from the deductible, so when I did need to go to the doctor, I only had to pay the co-pay. I only found out that I had to pay my entire $2,000 deductible after reading the fine print of my policy AFTER I paid for my insurance.

Indy: I noted that I called Blue Shield the ‘sales’ person didn’t want to discuss this . . . but I’m not done with it. My wife is a few years younger than me and will be facing the exchanges when I go on Medicare. So I’ll be doing the digging and won’t let just one sale bozo stop me.


Indy: Posted: May 17, 2014 2:47 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: A lawsuit has been filed in San Francisco against Blue Shield because of this mess, so I am hoping that something will be resolved. Yes, the insurance companies are to blame, but so is Obama and the Democrats, who refused to delay the forced implementation of the ACA!

Indy: The reality is that without the ACA, nothing would have happened and the benefits I’ve noted regarding preexisting conditions, arbitrary cancellations, would still be in play.

Hopeful wrote: What I don't understand is how Democrats and Progressives support the whole premise of the ACA. It gave MORE power to the insurance companies, so now, they can screw the public even more than they did in the past.

Indy: Again, republicans have talked about health care reform for 40 years . . . and have produced ‘NOTHING’ except the 'Romneycare' in Massachusetts that the ACA is based on . . .

And many of the so called ‘market’ solutions don’t address the benefits of the ACA . . . so nothing that moves us forward is ‘free’ and indeed we’ll be seeing updates to the ACA some of which no doubt will be remedies for the lawsuits you noted.


Indy: Posted: May 17, 2014 3:02 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """And anybody in politics that disagrees with conservative ideology is quickly ‘dismissed’ as we see here . . ."""

Indy: Yes, in this response you’ve demonstrated this observation . . .

Let's see what other icons of conservative ideology have to say about Mr. Brock:

Therightstuff wrote: THE NEW YORK TIMES referred to Brock …

Indy: Yes, rather than even dicuss what’s in the book . . . you feel character assassination is the approach . . . and indeed that’s the strategy the RNC uses . . . get their followers off the reality and just focus on denigrating people . . . check . . . go it!

Therightstuff wrote: Once again, Indy is proven wrong and yet he keeps hawking this guy's 99 cent pamphlet about Benghazi.

Indy: Here again, I guess you would have demeaned some of the ‘Founding Fathers’ for handing out ‘free’ pamphlets in that era to get their views disseminated?

Again, I do recommend highly this description of the actual chain of events in Libya: The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters for America (Oct 16, 2013)


emheilbrun: Posted: May 17, 2014 4:11 p.m.

Indy, you wrote that if you're getting your information from biased sources, you're not being informed.

David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt are every bit as biased as Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.

In the spirit of intellectual honesty, how do you reconcile your continued recommendation of Brock's book with your comments about getting information from unbiased sources? You acknowledged that you had no idea who Brock was when you first began recommending his book. I trust that is no longer the case and certainly you don't believe Brock to be unbiased.


therightstuff: Posted: May 17, 2014 8:27 p.m.

emheilbrun, partisan charlatans like David Brock meets the only criteria for any source people like Indy seek: Will the source protect Obama at all costs and attack any of his critics? Wh0res like David Brock will do it for 99 cents. For Obama loyalists like Indy, this trumps honesty, integrity, and honor.


ricketzz: Posted: May 18, 2014 7:02 a.m.

Tech again turns to the opinion pages for his "facts" about science. "Opinion" is not the same as facts. This decade is hotter than the last, which was hotter than the one before it, etc. ad infinitum.

You should always check your "facts" with this list before you go making a fool of yourself on a message board.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/11/extreme-weather-worries-insurers-farmers/3994861/


tech: Posted: May 18, 2014 9:23 a.m.

Please dispute the facts about "the historical record on extreme weather events", ricketzz.

Skeptical Science is an AGW theory advocacy site. They present a single perspective.

Here's an example of a balanced report on a different but controversial topic, i.e. GMO food:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/

The USA Today article you linked doesn't tie weather events to "climate change".

"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

- Richard Feynman on the Scientific Method

http://www.presentationzen.com/presentationzen/2014/04/richard-feynman-on-the-scientific-method-in-1-minute.html


ricketzz: Posted: May 19, 2014 7:02 a.m.

"Skeptical Science is an AGW theory advocacy site. They present a single perspective."

There are not 2 sides to a fact. What SkepticalScience does is arrange the facts for people who understand what "fact" means. It is a fact that the models are coming true and that the measurements show the models are probably downplaying the danger.

Humans are causing the vast majority of the warming. That was determined by elimination of any other possible cause, by using scientific methods.

Even if you aren't willing to accept responsibility are you willing to start mitigation? Either way it will require a true world war Manhattan Project/Apollo moon walk type of national and international mobilization. Petty squabbles like Ukraine and Israel will seem downright quaint. Consumerism will have to be put on hold. Eyes wide open Mister!


CaptGene: Posted: May 19, 2014 12:23 p.m.

What flavor KoolAid® are they serving these days ricketzz?


tech: Posted: May 19, 2014 1:42 p.m.

"It is a fact that the models are coming true and that the measurements show the models are probably downplaying the danger. - ricketzz

The models didn't predict a pause in warming. Scientists are now positing theories to explain it.

"If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

- Richard Feynman on the Scientific Method

"Consumerism will have to be put on hold." - ricketzz

Now you've hit on the root of climate orthodoxy, i.e. restraining/taxing economic activity. That's not going to happen and we'll adapt as required based on observed data rather than model projections.


Indy: Posted: May 19, 2014 4:12 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: Indy wrote: "If this is part of the complaint against Obamacare, it'd be like blaming the law requiring auto insurance if your auto insurance company advertised a certain coverage, took your money, and then didn't provide said coverage. Why is it the law's fault, and not the insurance company's?"

It is the fault of many, including Obama & the Democrats, who refused to delay the individual mandate,

Indy: For insurance to work, everyone needs to get into the ‘pool’ to spread the risk and cost.

Anyone not in the pool, when they run say to the emergency room, has those of us with insurance seeing higher premiums to ‘cover the losses’ for those folks that ‘game’ the system.

With the subsidies in place, there’s no excuse . . . the individual mandate addresses the ‘free riders’ as it should.

Hopeful wrote: the State Insurance Commissioners (especially here in California), who FAILED to do his job to ensure that insurance companies had adequate doctor networks in place, as well as the Insurance company's fault.

Indy: I agree in principle. But the ‘exchanges’ only set the ‘requirements’ for the policies and don’t tell each ‘for profit’ insurance company who to hire as doctors or how many.

The price in the market is reflective of the decisions by the private health insurers.

Hopeful wrote: The "law" promised that Americans would be able to compare insurance plans, but that was not the case. The doctor lists were NOT ready, and in fact both Blue Cross and Blue Shield hadn't even bothered to have contracts in place by January.

Indy: You can take this up with your congressman McKeon who’s party obstructed the implementation of the ACA . . . including the many states controlled by republicans that ‘dumped’ the implementation ‘back onto the federal government’ without putting forth any additional funding for such things as ‘state by state’ doctor list.

You should recall that this issue arose when republicans brought the ACA to the SCOTUS who decided to let states off the hook and not require their involvement in the website process.

There’s plenty of blame to go around . . . but issues like this can be resolved provided the contentious atmosphere in congress is mitigated.

Hopeful wrote: The Law also promised that insurance would be more affordable, but that isn't the case for what I believe is the majority of the people who purchase individual insurance.

Indy: If you’ve got statistics to support your claim fine . . . but short of that, we’re back to the issue that not every policy holder in this transition would benefit.


Indy: Posted: May 19, 2014 4:17 p.m.

Emheilbrun wrote: Indy, you wrote that if you're getting your information from biased sources, you're not being informed. David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt are every bit as biased as Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.

Indy: Have you read the book?

Emheilbrun wrote: In the spirit of intellectual honesty, how do you reconcile your continued recommendation of Brock's book with your comments about getting information from unbiased sources? You acknowledged that you had no idea who Brock was when you first began recommending his book. I trust that is no longer the case and certainly you don't believe Brock to be unbiased.

Indy: The whole issue with Libya has been investigated to death . . . and nothing of substance is there.

I don’t really want to ‘waste time’ on this.

I regret the loss of life . . . but the ‘innuendo and speculation’ from Fox et al has been misleading and has done nothing to address anything substantial by the ‘surprise’ attack.

If you want to carry on with this . . . go ahead . . . I’ll just refer people to this document for ‘balance’: The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters for America (Oct 16, 2013)

And I don’t ‘equate’ the issue of ‘intellectual’ honesty here with those who create the ‘innuendo and speculation’ of this incident.

But please, what’s your take? What happened there that has you so upset beyond the obvious attack?


Indy: Posted: May 19, 2014 4:26 p.m.

Ricketzz,

Tech does what all ‘climate deniers’ do in that they try to build ‘doubt’.

And yet, the climate science with respect to the anthropological cuase of the current climate change is ‘beyond’ doubt.

So why is this issue still being ‘debated’? Simply. Money.

The fossil fuel industry has a lot of stake here including maintaining their ‘market share’ to maintain profitability and not to ‘strand assets’ that aren’t worth anything if not drilling for oil.

And make no mistake, the economy will suffer as we transition to renewable energy, none of which ‘packs’ the same ‘energy’ per unit mass as oil . . . at least for now . . . but that is changing as the EROEI of oil extraction is falling . . .

Unfortunately, the consequences of the continued injection of CO2 into the atmosphere resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels (C) and the atmosphere (O) continues . . .

In any event, ‘demonizing’ the scientific method trying to make it look ‘arbitrary’ is outrageous but no doubt one of the many ‘focus group tested’ strategies given to ‘non-technical’ people that don’t know any better.

PS – I’m not writing this to you since you don’t read my posts . . . but more as a courtesy as to where the response was originated.


Indy: Posted: May 19, 2014 4:28 p.m.

C(omedy)aptG(old)ene wrote: What flavor KoolAid® are they serving these days ricketzz?

Indy: This is the ‘preferred’ recital by a conservative that lacks the knowledge of the climate change drivers and thus asserts that anyone that does is to be distrusted.

The reality, however, is exactly the opposite . . . but hey, it’s comedy gold!


CaptGene: Posted: May 19, 2014 5:51 p.m.

He must be payed by the word.


tech: Posted: May 19, 2014 6:07 p.m.

"The price in the market is reflective of the decisions by the private health insurers." - Indy

Compliance with the numerous regulations and mandated coverages has no effect on price?


tech: Posted: May 19, 2014 6:14 p.m.

"Tech does what all ‘climate deniers’ do in that they try to build ‘doubt’." - Indy

How, precisely, am I "denying" climate?


emheilbrun: Posted: May 19, 2014 6:18 p.m.

Indy, I'm not upset at all. I'm just intrigued at your obvious contradiction. Will I read the book? No. Nor do I watch Fox News. Is David Brock biased? Absolutely! Does he have an agenda? You betcha! Does Fox News have an agenda? Of course. But you're the one that said you're not informed if you get your information from biased sources. If you deny that Brock is biased you're simply being dishonest. Yet you continually recommend his book. If not for the fact that you confessed to not knowing who Brock was, I'd think you were his publicist.


ricketzz: Posted: May 20, 2014 7:29 a.m.

The "pause in the warming" never happened. Any event shorter than 30 years is weather, not climate. We are causing the weather to be more violent by adding heat (energy) to the troposphere. We are altering weather patterns by changing the composition of the oceans and behavior of global thermohaline deep water/surface currents. Added carbon dioxide is causing the oceans to acidify and kill the exoskeletal krill, etc., that form the base of the marine food chain. There is enough methane ice and permafrost to make the planet uninhabitable inside a decade, once the feedbacks start speeding up ("gradually at first, then all of a sudden"). The warmer it gets the more methane melts the warmer it gets. This is under way now. At some point in this century it will all let go. We may be able to prevent it but it will mean universal sacrifice for a greater good. Tech, et al, are unwilling to give up even something as meaningless as a consumerist based society in order to preserve the truly important stuff, like each other.


emheilbrun: Posted: May 20, 2014 7:50 a.m.

ricketzz,that all seems so complicated. If only someone could explain the simple chemistry.


tech: Posted: May 20, 2014 9:39 a.m.

"Any event shorter than 30 years is weather, not climate." - ricketzz

Cool! I'll ignore those "hottest year on record" assertions from you in the future.

"We may be able to prevent it but it will mean universal sacrifice for a greater good." - ricketzz

This article will no doubt appeal to your bias, ricketzz:

North Korea: an unlikely champion in the fight against climate change

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/20/north-korea-unlikely-champion-fight-against-climate-change

Read it and advise if you consider N. Korea a model in "the stability of governance" that can provide leadership in hydrocarbon use per capita.


tech: Posted: May 20, 2014 9:40 a.m.

Meanwhile, just for fun…

http://2-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/05/517x367xClimate-Heretic-1-copy.jpg.pagespeed.ic.VrFrFaJkDq.jpg


Indy: Posted: May 20, 2014 3:36 p.m.

Tech wrote: "The price in the market is reflective of the decisions by the private health insurers." - Indy

Compliance with the numerous regulations and mandated coverages has no effect on price?

Indy: That’s not what I said . . .


Indy: Posted: May 20, 2014 3:38 p.m.

Emheilbrun wrote: Indy, I'm not upset at all. I'm just intrigued at your obvious contradiction. Will I read the book? No. Nor do I watch Fox News. Is David Brock biased? Absolutely! Does he have an agenda? You betcha! Does Fox News have an agenda? Of course. But you're the one that said you're not informed if you get your information from biased sources. If you deny that Brock is biased you're simply being dishonest. Yet you continually recommend his book. If not for the fact that you confessed to not knowing who Brock was, I'd think you were his publicist.

Indy: Just read it . . . see for yourself . . . responding to the ‘innuendo and speculation’ put out by Fox isn’t partisan . . . it’s just clarification of the reality.


tech: Posted: May 20, 2014 4:14 p.m.

Tech wrote: "The price in the market is reflective of the decisions by the private health insurers." - Indy

Compliance with the numerous regulations and mandated coverages has no effect on price?

Indy: That’s not what I said . . .

Then you omitted a significant factor that I remedied by addressing it.


ricketzz: Posted: May 22, 2014 8:22 a.m.

Tech; does your peer group allow you to get away with such ridiculous arguments? Is the idea of shared sacrifice so distorted it elicits images of the freaking DPRK in your world? That is truly sad. We are indeed a nation of cowards.


tech: Posted: May 22, 2014 10:13 a.m.

My peer group isn't populated with irrational climate alarmists. Consequently, I don't share idiotic Guardian articles that extol brutal dictatorships as climate "champions".

In your case, I thought the methodology that N. Korea employes to "achieve" that status would be illuminating.

Regarding cowardice, speak for yourself.


tech: Posted: May 22, 2014 11:09 a.m.

By the way, ricketzz, weren't you recently extolling the benefits of single payer government health care provided by the VA?

The controversy began after the Arizona Republic reported in April that 40 or more US veterans died while waiting for appointments at the Phoenix VA hospital. According to internal emails later acquired by CNN, VA managers in Phoenix created a secret wait list in an attempt to hide that 1,400 to 1,600 sick veterans were forced to wait months to see a doctor. Even worse, top-level management supposedly knew of and defended the practice.

Besides the secret list, the Phoenix VA hospital already provided a different, official wait list to DC that allowed VA higher-ups to verify that patients are being treated in a timely manner (within 14 to 30 days). But Phoenix's secret wait list supposedly avoided federal oversight with an elaborate scheme in which officials shredded evidence that some patients were taking months to be seen. What's worse, if someone died while waiting for an appointment due to the secret wait list, Phoenix officials would allegedly discard the name as if the fatal error never happened.

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/14/5714574/what-the-hell-is-happening-at-the-va


ricketzz: Posted: May 23, 2014 7:10 a.m.

No. I was not. I merely pointed out the Government already administers most health services in the USA and that giving private insurers 20% off the top is illogical. Insurance companies and hospitals should never be "for profit".

The procedures allowed regional managers to give inaccurate reports to the VA. Why did the managers lie? What was the incentive? Where is the IG for this department of government? This practice has been going on for decades. Where's the Congressional Oversight Committee when you need them?

People were dying in the hallways at the VA after Nam. Sleeping on the floors. Most GIs would still rather suffer together than go to a civilian hospital. We have half a million new Vets to disappoint, better get crackin'.


tech: Posted: May 23, 2014 9:02 a.m.

"No. I was not. I merely pointed out the Government already administers most health services…" - ricketzz

You also remarked that most veterans were happy with their care with the exception of the long waits for disability determinations. I have an excellent memory.

"Why did the managers lie? What was the incentive?" - ricketzz

I know. Do you?


tech: Posted: May 23, 2014 10:13 a.m.

Critics call Obama funding plan for health insurer losses a 'bailout'

The Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money.

The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall's congressional elections.

Administration officials for months have denied charges by opponents that they plan a "bailout" for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1


ricketzz: Posted: May 24, 2014 7:02 a.m.

This fund has existed for years. This is the second time the propagandists have tried to light it up.


tech: Posted: May 26, 2014 1:00 a.m.

These are new HHS regulations leveraging that fund. You need to read prior to reacting.


ricketzz: Posted: May 26, 2014 6:58 a.m.

Read the QERs for the insurers if you want to see the actual story. Do not believe the TV or Whirled Nut Daily, Caller, etc.


tech: Posted: May 26, 2014 7:52 p.m.

User Removed Comment.


tech: Posted: May 26, 2014 7:54 p.m.

Citizens are realizing the failure of central planning, ricketzz. Note that I quoted the LAT, spinner.

11/4/14®


ricketzz: Posted: May 27, 2014 6:45 a.m.

The Times appears to be written for people who either are unemployed (more likely retired) or who read papers for a living. I can't get into it. Never been able to. NYT is a better read. WSJ is my fave daily rag. Don't subscribe to anything.

Do you know how silly you sound with the "failure of central planning" meme? Nobody knows what "central planning" actually means but they know it's bad because "Benghazi". Propagandists like to use loaded vague terms because the horror is in the imaginations of the viewers. You sound like a freaking John Bircher from the early 1960s. How'd that end up? Oh yeah, dead Kennedys, dead King; 11 year war for Halliburton. Then the lunacy ascended in the '90s, during Clinton; Mt. Carmel, Oklahoma City, Olympics, and the new millennium starts with a new war against stateless, but nonetheless with concrete objectives, actors called "terrorists". Speech is "free" but it can have consequences.

There are serious matters before us; your retro Fred Koch shtick notwithstanding.


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 1:33 p.m.

Tech wrote: Tech wrote: "The price in the market is reflective of the decisions by the private health insurers." - Indy

Compliance with the numerous regulations and mandated coverages has no effect on price?

Indy: That’s not what I said . . .

Then you omitted a significant factor that I remedied by addressing it.

Indy: Yes, taking the statement out of context is something I’ve noted that you do and it sadly distortes the political discourse.

I’m sure most Americans that were being denied health care in the private individual markets see the invention of standardized policies that they can ‘understand’ and know what they are buying.

But again, lets list what the ACA set out to do and did:

http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/index.html
Coverage
• Ends Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions for Children: Health plans can no longer limit or deny benefits to children under 19 due to a pre-existing condition.
• Keeps Young Adults Covered: If you are under 26, you may be eligible to be covered under your parent’s health plan.
• Ends Arbitrary Withdrawals of Insurance Coverage: Insurers can no longer cancel your coverage just because you made an honest mistake.
• Guarantees Your Right to Appeal: You now have the right to ask that your plan reconsider its denial of payment.

Costs
• Ends Lifetime Limits on Coverage: Lifetime limits on most benefits are banned for all new health insurance plans.
• Reviews Premium Increases: Insurance companies must now publicly justify any unreasonable rate hikes.
• Helps You Get the Most from Your Premium Dollars: Your premium dollars must be spent primarily on health care – not administrative costs.

Care
• Covers Preventive Care at No Cost to You: You may be eligible for recommended preventive health services. No copayment.
• Protects Your Choice of Doctors: Choose the primary care doctor you want from your plan’s network.
• Removes Insurance Company Barriers to Emergency Services: You can seek emergency care at a hospital outside of your health plan’s network.


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 1:40 p.m.

Tech wrote: My peer group isn't populated with irrational climate alarmists.

Indy: Like the scientist that accumulate their findings in an organized manner including ‘layered’ descriptions of the various fallacies created by ‘climate deniers’ at this site: www.skepticalscience.com

This poster’s statement is the kind of ‘double speak’ that George Orwell wrote about in ‘1984’ and as we see here, is a the main motivation of libertarian market fundamentalist that are for the most part economic illiterates that propagate nonsense as this poster is doing by referring to people addressing climate change as ‘irrational climate alarmists’.

As we see now, this poster is in good company with such renowned authorizes on climate change as Pat Sajak who tweeted: I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 1:43 p.m.

Ricketzz wrote: Do you know how silly you sound with the "failure of central planning" meme? Nobody knows what "central planning" actually means but they know it's bad because "Benghazi". Propagandists like to use loaded vague terms because the horror is in the imaginations of the viewers. You sound like a freaking John Bircher from the early 1960s. How'd that end up? Oh yeah, dead Kennedys, dead King; 11 year war for Halliburton. Then the lunacy ascended in the '90s, during Clinton; Mt. Carmel, Oklahoma City, Olympics, and the new millennium starts with a new war against stateless, but nonetheless with concrete objectives, actors called "terrorists". Speech is "free" but it can have consequences.

There are serious matters before us; your retro Fred Koch shtick notwithstanding.

Indy: Yes, history points out the failings of Tech’s assertion that libertarian market fundamentalist where you simply don’t allow society to ‘think and act’ about the future . . . and just look as you noted what happened . . .


ricketzz: Posted: May 29, 2014 7:36 a.m.

The Corporation, like a malignant mass, will grow until it kills the host, unless mitigated. Think of regulations as "tough love".


tech: Posted: June 4, 2014 7:17 p.m.

Regarding government, represented by Big Brother:

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - George Orwell, 1984


ricketzz: Posted: June 7, 2014 7:06 a.m.

Tech has no faith in this country nor its Founding Principles. He accuses me of being antisocial while condemning one of humanity's greatest experiments. Perhaps we are more alike than it seems. I don't think Jeffersonian Democracy scales infinitely. What worked for 30,000,000 farmers is not working for 300,000,000 service sector slaves. Totalitarian methods must be used, in lieu of an objective press and an educated electorate, to maintain order.

A New World Order is what they called it, as I recall. I call it The Bubble.


tech: Posted: June 11, 2014 8:16 p.m.

Risible, ricketzz.

It's YOU that have no faith in our country. That's why you advocate "totalitarian methods". Disgusting!



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...