I called my health insurance company this afternoon to see if I could make an adjustment to my deductible. After waiting 40 minutes to talk to an actual human being, it turns out I’d need to switch onto a different plan altogether to change my deductible. Fine. Until we had this conversation:

Agent: You might not want to change plans right now.

Me: Why’s that?

Agent: If you keep your existing plan, you’ll be grandfathered into the new system at your current premium. If you change plans now, you’ll be subject to much higher rates due to the mandates in the new health care legislation.

Me: How much higher?

Agent: Much higher. We don’t know precisely how much, but it will be a lot. I’d advise that you not purchase new insurance for the next three years since new mandates will be going into effect every few months that will continue to increase your premiums.

Dismayed that Obama’s health care triumph amounts to less choice, higher costs, and more uncertainty in the health insurance market? Yes. Surprised? No.

And now I join Claire in her grumpiness.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

G.A. Dean
Joined
May '10
G.A. Dean
Diane Ellis, Ed.: Dismayed ...? Yes. Surprised? No.

Only the press believed that "savings" nonsense. Here's an article with a fine quote from a Bush cousin in the NYT...

Q. What do you think will happen to the total cost of health care under reform?

A. Oh, it’s going to go through the roof! It’s widely accepted that this is not a cost-reform bill — it’s an access bill. It’s in fact a cost-expansion bill.

(end of quote)

I work on a similar medical software application, and I am hearing very much the same thing. Everyone is gearing up for the "big confusion". If this doesn't get repealed in the next term, it will be a major issue on the 2012 election.

Edited on Sep 9, 2010 at 3:30pm
Duane Oyen
Joined
May '10
Duane Oyen

Clearly there needs to be a change of Congressional control, and a careful, stealth, cherry-picking elimination/revision of the most onerous and anti-market provisions in the legislation.

Then later, before 2014, revise the major pieces to make them pro-market.

Diane Ellis, Ed.

G.A. Dean

Only the press believed that "savings" nonsense. Here's an article with a fine quote from a Bush cousin in the NYT...

Q. What do you think will happen to the total cost of health care under reform?

A. Oh, it’s going to go through the roof! It’s widely accepted that this is not a cost-reform bill — it’s an access bill. It’s in fact a cost-expansion bill.

(end of quote)

I work on a similar medical software application, and I am hearing very much the same thing. Everyone is gearing up for the "big confusion". If this doesn't get repealed in the next term, it will be a major issue on the 2012 election. · Sep 9 at 3:29pm

I have a problem even calling it an "access bill." If the legislation makes health care less affordable, how will that increase access? What a bunch of malarkey.

Tom Lindholtz
Joined
May '10
Tom Lindholtz

In point of fact, figures I've heard and read suggest that, of the roughly 15% of Americans that have no coverage, about 3/4 would still not be covered by Obamacare.

So, it wrecks what presently works, increases the costs, for less service, and still doesn't significantly improve access. It just creates a huge bureaucracy and gives the government potential access and control to virtually every aspect of American life.

Other than that, it's a great bill.

Diane Ellis, Ed.

Tom Lindholtz:

Other than that, it's a great bill. · Sep 9 at 4:44pm

It's a mess of a bill, and if my experience is any indication, it's about to make things worse for a whole lot of people.

So the question becomes, why are so many Republicans afraid to just state outright that they'll work to repeal it? (I must note that one Republican who isn't afraid to demand that we repeal it is Ricochet's own Haley Barbour who discussed it in his interview with Peter on Uncommon Knowledge).

Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

Make no mistake, the President has been very clear. He has said and he will continue to say, if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it. The time for debate is over. This bill will reduce the cost of our healthcare by improving the quality and quantity of our health care. The notion that somehow your healthcare costs went up requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Diane Ellis, Ed.

Mark, have you ever read anything by the great Russian absurdist Daniil Kharms? Here's a sample for your enjoyment:

Blue notebook no. 2

Once there was a readheaded man without eyes and without ears. He had no hair either, so that he was a readhead was just something they said.

He could not speak, for he had no mouth. He had no nose either.

He didn't even have arms or legs. He had no stomach either, and he had
no back, and he had no spine, and no intestines of any kind. He didn't
have anything at all. So it is hard to understand whom we are really
talking about.

So it is probably best not to talk about him any more.

I think it's time for absurdism to make a comeback!

Tom Eline
Joined
May '10
Tom Eline

Thanks for sharing that Diane. I just got a notice that my high deductible policy was rising from $86 to $111 a month, a 30% increase, due to my birthday next month (50th). Sounds like shopping for a better deal would be fruitless.

Samwise Gamgee
Joined
Jun '10
Samwise Gamgee

I had a similar experience when trying to buy insurance for our daughter. I was told that no company, very soon, will be selling policies for individual children separate from their parents. Several companies said that the new law made such policies too expensive for them to turn a profit so they just gave up offering such plans at all.

 

I wonder what will happen to all of those uninsured children. Could they be headed to various state and federal programs - furthering the dependence of scores on the government.... perhaps that's a bit too cynical...

Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

Samwise Gamgee: I had a similar experience when trying to buy insurance for our daughter. I was told that no company, very soon, will be selling policies for individual children separate from their parents. Several companies said that the new law made such policies too expensive for them to turn a profit so they just gave up offering such plans at all.

I wonder what will happen to all of those uninsured children. Could they be headed to various state and federal programs - furthering the dependence of scores on the government.... perhaps that's a bit too cynical... · Sep 9 at 7:17pm

Sam, I'm afraid you're too right. All it takes is a small incentive to change something, and you will see a complete shift in the market. If separate children's plans go from slightly profitable to slightly unprofitable, we could go from 10,000 market choices to zero very quickly.

That is the explicit goal of many Obamacare supporters, as the surest was to arrive at a single payer system. Listen to these people cheer at the idea making the healthcare marketplace so hostile that it puts the private insurance industry completely out of business.

Edited on Sep 9, 2010 at 7:35pm
BlueAnt
Joined
Aug '10
BlueAnt

Markets responding to a change in the rules? Gee, imagine that.

When the inevitable government report comes out in 5 years "discovering" that premiums rose and access stayed the same or declined, I imagine Obama et al will be shocked--shocked--to suddenly discover that the reform process had:

  • Been completely, wrongly estimated
  • Got co-opted by big evil corporations
  • Left too much market freedom in it
  • Something to do with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh

(You could make it into a choose-your-own-adventure game, if you wanted to get a jump start on writing talking points into the future press release.)

I'm officially predicting the inevitable Paul Krugman column declaring that health care reform could have been perfect... but we just didn't do enough, we needed to throw more money at it.

Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

Diane Ellis, Ed.: Mark, have you ever read anything by the great Russian absurdist Daniil Kharms? Here's a sample for your enjoyment:

Blue notebook no. 2

Once there was a readheaded man without eyes and without ears. He had no hair either, so that he was a readhead was just something they said.

He could not speak, for he had no mouth. He had no nose either.

He didn't even have arms or legs. He had no stomach either, and he had
no back, and he had no spine, and no intestines of any kind. He didn't
have anything at all. So it is hard to understand whom we are really
talking about.

So it is probably best not to talk about him any more.

I think it's time for absurdism to make a comeback! · Sep 9 at 6:13pm

That's delightful!

Duane Oyen
Joined
May '10
Duane Oyen

Diane Ellis, Ed.

Tom Lindholtz:

Other than that, it's a great bill. · Sep 9 at 4:44pm

It's a mess of a bill, and if my experience is any indication, it's about to make things worse for a whole lot of people.

So the question becomes, why are so many Republicans afraid to just state outright that they'll work to repeal it? (I must note that one Republican who isn't afraid to demand that we repeal it is Ricochet's own Haley Barbour who discussed it in his interview with Peter on Uncommon Knowledge). · Sep 9 at 4:55pm

I think that they believe that the tactics and strategy for killing it are more effective if less visible until TVG isn't there to veto it. I agree with the sentiment, confrontational bluster isn't always the best way toi get it done. Who was the most effective SCOTUS justice in recent years (unfortunately)? Under-the-table Brennan, while Douglas drew all the ink.

Diane Ellis, Ed.

Duane -- I'm missing something. Could you spell out "TVG" for me?

Joseph Stanko
Joined
Jun '10
Joseph Stanko
I think that they believe that the tactics and strategy for killing it are more effective if less visible until TVG isn't there to veto it. · Sep 9 at 8:12pm

We can't repeal until we retake the presidency, but as long as we retake the House in November, all spending bills must originate in the House, right? Could the GOP House leadership simply strip every last dime of funding from all the agencies responsible for issuing all these new mandates? The mandates won't write and issue themselves.

Pilgrim
Joined
Jun '10
Pilgrim

Tom Lindholtz: In point of fact, figures I've heard and read suggest that, of the roughly 15% of Americans that have no coverage, about 3/4 would still not be covered by Obamacare.

So, it wrecks what presently works, increases the costs, for less service, and still doesn't significantly improve access. It just creates a huge bureaucracy and gives the government potential access and control to virtually every aspect of American life.

Other than that, it's a great bill. · Sep 9 at 4:44pm

Tom, you are right on - see WSJ below (my emphasis)

U.S. health spending is projected to rise 9.2% in 2014, up from the 6.6% projected before the law took effect. New mechanisms kick in that year to expand insurance coverage. The report estimates 92.7% of U.S. residents will have health insurance by 2019, up from 84% this year. WSJ 9/9/2010 Health Outlays Still Seen Rising (may be behind pay wall)

Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Joined
Aug '10
Midget Faded Rattlesnake

So, if they're expanding access to certain populations while at the same time pricing other populations out of the market, what's to guarantee that health-care coverage expands overall?

Maybe it doesn't even expand access. Maybe it just mushes it around at great expense. Or maybe access will actually decrease, and maybe this is even what some folks secretly hope for.

We're already experiencing less freedom to choose in our own plan, too.

Duane Oyen
Joined
May '10
Duane Oyen
Diane Ellis, Ed.: Duane -- I'm missing something. Could you spell out "TVG" for me? · Sep 9 at 8:24pm

Sorry- "The Vacuous Garment", DO-pompous-speak for "The Empty Suit". I've been using that acronym since Spring 2008 to describe a then-Presidential candidate, based on his alleged qualifications for office.

whatsthefracas
Diane Ellis, Ed.: I think it's time for absurdism to make a comeback! · Sep 9 at 6:13pm

Kharms!

Love it.

I would be excited about our devolving into a dystopia if it were just the plot of a novel.

Diane Ellis, Ed.

whatsthefracas

I would be excited about our devolving into a dystopia if it were just the plot of a novel. · Sep 10 at 2:36pm

This is a great line. Well, you've got great material for a second novel if you feel up to the task!


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In