Powered by TypePad

« Drill, Baby, Drill | Main | No Beatdown Like A Brit Beatdown »

March 30, 2010

Comments

sylvia

Clarice, don't be so full of yourself. Your comments on cooking and inane small talk are exactly edge of your seat material either.

And once again, no one has shot me down on a point. They try, and when I press them, they just call me stupid and run off, because they know they can't beat me.

sylvia

"Under Clinton, federal government spending went down (that's a good thing) to 18.4% of GDP compared to 25% under Obama. "

Well probably helped that if Clinton raised taxes, more money came in, hence the same spending would be less of GDP."

Ignatz, what is your problem with this post. Clinton raised taxes, the GDP rose, so more money came in, etc. This should not be a problem for people with reading comprehension ability. It's not dishonesty.

centralcal

Amen, Clarice. I have learned to look at the recent comment list on the right hand sidebar to see which thread I want to avoid.

Porchlight: I agree with you and Ace's hysterical takedown of Charles Johnson and his fear of the Tennessee Flag. That was priceless. (Actually, a few blogs joined in all the fun yesterday.)

And, then, there is LL Cool J, thinking he was gonna be a real smart *ss over the upcoming special, hosted by Palin. Fox News took his comments for what they were worth - they removed his segment and "wished him well." Totally, funny and snort worthy.

bgates

Since I tweaked trollblocker, I can't even see the avatars.

I also can't see sylvia's posts.

Wait - he can't see them because of trollblocker, or for some other reason? Is that a clue?

sylvia

And no where did I say that raising taxes made the GDP rise, I'm just saying they happened at the same time, which could mean they are linked.

centralcal

Porchlight, for your further amusement ...

Little Green Footballs made it's name back in the Dan Rather fake memo days. Dan Riehl has some fun with that skill in light of C.J.'s current insanity.

LUN

Danube of Thought

OK folks, some red-hot impeccable gossip straight from the bush telegraph.

In the barbershop ten minutes ago a guy is on his cellphone saying, "got some intel for ya...both Verizon and AT&T are telling Waxman April 21 is no good because that's the day they're releasing their earnings...yeah... let's us do the same...right...did you hear what Jarrett said? [Laughter]..yeah, right."

(I hang out in a high-end barbershop.)

As always, I stand by my gossip.

Danube of Thought

Wash. Examiner:

The Employee Benefit Research Institute calculates that the 28% subsidy on average will run taxpayers $665 in 2011 and that the tax dispensation is worth $233. The same plan in Medicare costs $1,209. Given that Congress has already committed the original sin of creating a drug entitlement that crowds out private coverage, $233 in corporate tax breaks to avoid spending $1,209 seems like a deal. If one out of four retirees is now moved into Medicare, the public fisc will take on huge new liabilities.

Emphasis mine. Such corporations have four main options: drop or reduce prescription coverage for their retirees, pass new costs along to cash-strapped consumers, lay off workers, or simply bear the tax losses and pass them along to shareholders.

Not good options, are they? As it sucks more and more money out of employers like Caterpillar, John Deere, AK Steel, AT&T, etc., (this provision alone will cause an estimated $14 billion in sudden losses), can we start referring to ObamaCare as the “un-stimulus?”

Jane

We'll all be in abject poverty with bad teeth... and "equal".

Ain't that the truth.

Clarice, it is your fault. While you were gone no one could find your pistolas.

So please, get to work. Gawd knows I've tried and failed.

boris

In a sensible world it would make sense to cut taxes going into a recession to keep it as shallow as possible, then raise taxes back during the recovery to pay down the debt accumulated.

Of course to the unsensible, such as cleo and S!, that would appear to confirm their deluded worldview that tax cuts caused the recession and the tax increase stimulated the recovery.

Dave (in MA)

OT: Drudge: 70-YEAR OLD PELOSI BRINGS SEXY BACK; SLEEK NEW LOOK FOR SPRING...

And I just ate.

Porchlight

Dan Riehl has some fun with that skill in light of C.J.'s current insanity.

LOL, that is hilarious, centralcal. Kudos to Dan Riehl for beating everyone to it.

I well remember that CJ animated gif of the Rather memo - oh how my lefty brother hated me sending it. "Could you please send me some evidence from a credible site?" As I think Insty put it, who are you going to believe, Dan Rather or your own eyes?

Ol' Dan's grandson goes to elementary school with my daughter. Haven't seen him around yet but others have spotted him at soccer games, etc. My easily starstruck lib BIL went up and shook his hand a couple of months ago. I doubt I'd go up and say anything to him if I saw him, but who knows. Maybe I'll tell him I have a hot tip on the last known address of Lucy Ramirez.

Danube of Thought

I suppose those of us hoping for repeal saw this coming. What we need is Margaret Thatcher. What we have is John Cornyn, Richard Lugar, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.

We might as well bring back Bob Michel.

maryrose

Jarrett is currently trying to cover for goofy Waxman not understanding that corporations have an obligation to report to their shareholders any RADICAL change in healthcare or other benefits. can congresspeople really be this stupid?

Porchlight

That is very intriguing gossip, DoT.

The Ace folks are currently handwringing over Cornyn supposedly walking back the idea of campaigning on repeal. I admit that is depressing, but I wonder if economic events might force their hand, even if they're nervous now. By 2011 the whole country may be screaming for repeal and GOP squishiness won't be a factor.

Porchlight

Oops, posted that too late. The Fox story DoT linked is the one the Ace commenters were flipping about.

Ignatz

--I suppose those of us hoping for repeal saw this coming.--

Repeal and the stomch for it never will and never was going to come from the top down. It will require the grassroots anger to make the Cornyn's of the world more afraid of them than of the Dems.
Elected Dems are borne without brains or ethics but spines of iron.
Elected Repubs have half a brain but require an angry base to supply them with any type of spine.

Porchlight

I'll wait to see what other Repubs say. I'm not a huge Cornyn fan but I certainly don't trust the AP's attempt to portray this as the new GOP consensus. Lot of "Republican strategist says" spin in there.

Agree with Ignatz, they have to be prodded by constituent anger to stay strong. A steady flow of bad economic news (most or some stemming from Obamacare) will assist, and I'm pretty confident that won't be drying up anytime soon.

Jane

Geraghty does okay with the repeal issue.

I really hope those CEO's man up and hand Waxman their hats - in unison. Of course I expect that to be followed with a ban on telephones from this administration, but what do I know.

centralcal

No kidding, Ignatz. Cornyn is such a squish.

Hey, DoT, barber shop news is usually more accurate than the "journalist" kind.

John Cornyn

Look, we've got this new law. We're not happy with it, but there's not getting around that. What American families are concerned with now is jobs and the economy. That's their number one concern, not the totally unrelated issue of the new health car law.

Clarice

An interesting tidbit from the PlumLine (via Insty) on why Dems' effort to pin violence on the right didn't work:
"Gallup has released some new numbers that shed a bit of light on this:

Regardless of whether you favored or opposed the health care legislation passed this week, do you think the methods the Democratic leaders in Congress used to get enough legislation — were [they] an abuse of power, or were [they] an appropriate use of power by the party that controls the majority in Congress?

Abuse of power 53%

Appropriate use of power 40%

No opinion 7%

A surprising 58% of independents, too, said Dem tactics constituted an abuse of power.

This suggests, I think, that the claim by Republicans and conservatives that Dems were going to “ram” the bill through Congress via dictatorial fiat really succeeded in riling up people up a great deal — even though Republicans repeatedly used the reconcilation tactic themselves to pass ambitious legislation.

Never mind government takeovers and death panels. What really scared the bejesus out of folks is…”reconciliation.”

Moral of the story: Message discipline works. "

centralcal

I like to go to the Hillbuzz site because it can really be fun sometimes. Like today, they were commenting on Nancy Pelosi looking good for 70 y.o. and Drudge's headlines about her. Then they wrote this howler:

We’ve met her in person and she’s rude, dismissive, and aristocratic. She has about a minute’s worth of prepared speech to deliver to a member of the public on about a dozen topics, and after that she seems lost, confused, and more than a little panic-stricken as she frantically blinks some kind of code to her handlers to be moved on to the next person waiting to shake her hand
.

Isn't that just about the best description of Madame Speaker you can think of?

Ignatz

--as she frantically blinks some kind of code to her handlers--

Must be tough with eyes that no longer close.

MikeS

I don't like ObamaCare at all, but I agree that repeal is a huge challenge. More than that it would be close to impossible before 2112.

I wonder what steps can be taken between now and then. I think a commitment to "fix the mistakes" in ObamaCare would be easier to sell to the public at this stage than "repeal".

A Republican majority in the House could pass a bill in the House to rescind the mandates and use the $10 billions saved in IRS enforcement of the mandates to subsidize those with preexisting conditions. Of course a Democrat Senate would reject the idea. But there would be months long public arguments about the job killing and economy choking effects of ObamaCare.

Clarice

Jane, Geraghty does. I thank you for bringing that article to our attention.His is very sensible advice for all of us steaming mad about thi travesty and the corrupt way it was enacted.

Danube of Thought

She has an unprecedented mix of high shrewdness and really low intelligence. She is virtually incapable of thought, but manages to herd her sheep around like, well, sheep.

I, too, think the grassroots will decide the matter. And if Cornyn et al. go visibly soft before November, they'll lose their base dramatically. To me, this journey begins with a single, all-important first step, and that is gaining the house majority this time around.

After that, we simply can't tolerate talk of "fixing" this thing. As long as every private contract of medical insurance in America is required to meet terms specified by the central government in Washington, the situation is flatly unacceptable.

Rob Crawford

Must be tough with eyes that no longer close.

The nictating membranes still work.

Jim Ryan

Coffee Party. Fweet! Gone.

I think it was simply a money-making venture on the part of the Dem couple who started it.

centralcal

To me, this journey begins with a single, all-important first step, and that is gaining the house majority this time around.

Totally agree, and that is why it is really, really important not to cede any ground to Obama or his nightmare policies - either in word or deed. The media is corrupt - utterly corrupt, as much as the Chicago thugs in the White House. They are going to do everything in their power to make Zero look less dangerous and worthless, hoping to gain some votes in November.

MaryW

Happy Birthday, Melinda! You and my better half share the same birthday.

I wonder if anyone has estimated how many people will be unemployed after the provisions of the Health Care bill are in place?

We are trying to figure out how many people we will be able to keep. Admittedly, we are a small shop but all of our employees have excellent health insurance that we pay for in full. Some have chronic conditions, others have been cancer patients both of which drive up the cost of insurance.

The paid claim ratio is going to make things very difficult for all insurance companies as it does not seem to allow for reserves of any type. Possibly the as yet to be disclosed rules will cover this omission, but who knows?
There is a definite lag between the date premium is paid and the date a claim is reported. Most reserves provide for this lag. An 85% paid claims ratio will cause problems.

centralcal

Changing topics a moment - one of the few reporters I have always really liked and respected was Jennifer Griffin. She reported for Fox News from Israel for many years and only recently returned with her family to the US.

She was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer several months ago and has undergone chemotherapy, prior to having a double mastectomy next week. She will be appearing on Greta this evening. My prayers are certainly with this very brave woman!

Clarice

Need more proof that the public is discounting media hype?

From AP:

[quote] Toyota sales surged 40 percent in March compared with last year after the automaker offered some of its deepest discounts ever to cope with the fallout of millions of recalls. The incentives were scheduled to end April 5, but Toyota Group Vice President Bob Carter said some will continue into the spring, including an offer of free maintenance for return Toyota customers.[/quote]
Of course, the discounts helped--but think--just a few years ago they would have done nothing to life sales in an atmosphere where the media was 24/7 megaphoning stories about brake failures.

Ignatz

A somewhat related question to MaryW's post:
The Senate bill contained the $750 fine for not buying insurance, correct?
Didn't the reconciliation package contain a provision increasing that to $2-3,000?
So what is the current fine or tax for not getting insurance?

Ignatz

--She was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer--

That's not good; no hormonal treatments for negative breast cancer.
I hope it didn't get past her lymph nodes.

Clarice

I like J Griffin, too, and am sorry to hear this.

Ignatz, its my recollection , too, that the fine was increased to $2-3k.But the last I read there's no provision for enforcement.

scott

I find it interesting to wonder if obama really would not sign a repeal law placed on his desk? He serves noone but himself.

If the consequences of this law prove dire as predicted, and I beleive they will be, say the dems lose 50-70 seats in the house and maintain a slight majority in the senate. It's possible a repeal law gets through.

Now imagine obama in the oval office surrounded by his band of clowns with his legacy on the line and the pitchforks at the gate, literally by then. What's he gonna do?

Jane

So what is the current fine or tax for not getting insurance?

It doesn't matter because the law says it can't be enforced.

(What makes a cancer "negative".)

rse

LUN is the most detailed timetable for Obamacare I have seen.

OT-

What would be your reaction to a public high school principal in a district forced to make cutbacks who wants the parents to finance the shortfall so he doesn't have to lay anyone off?

I think so many public employees have no idea how much frustration is building up in the private sector.

jimmyk

Republicans repeatedly used the reconcilation tactic themselves to pass ambitious legislation.

Is that really so? All I've heard of is things like banning smoking on airplanes--hardly on the scale of HCR. Welfare reform? Even that was with a Dem president.

Are there examples of really enormous bills like this HCR that would not have passed but for "reconciliation"? I would think the only bills on the scale of HCR are the stimulus and TARP.

Danube of Thought

There's a lot of discussion among tax lawyers on various blogs about whether it can be enforced; I didn't fly-spec any of it but it now appears to me that it can. But I don't think the individual mandate kicks in until 2014.

Jennifer Griffin has always been a favorite of mine, and she's really good at what she does. She's a St. Agnes girl, like my sister, sister-in-law and niece (and I actually went there myself in 2nd grade--they allowed boys in grades 1 and 2).

I think the Coffee Partiers have just taken a break to catch up on what's going on over at Air America.

Captain Hate

Captain Hate- Is she playing the parts where Obama kept calling him "Nicola" or "Nicolai"? He never once said his first name correctly.

No I don't remember hearing that; just stereotypical inanities about France that would embarrass a grade-schooler.

LUN for a Shelby Steele takedown on Ear Leader and the narcism that drove his "historical" HCR despite the imbecile didn't write a bit of it nor have any insight into its contents. With douches like Cornyn we're so screwed.

MikeS

What's he gonna do?

What if a bill to rescind the personal and coverage mandates came to his desk?

The argument for mandates is that they are needed to get insurance companies to cover those with preexisting conditions. I think it would be cheaper, faster, better, if the government subsidized those folks instead.

My understanding is the this bill would affect about 80,000 to 160,000 people who have exclusions related to preexisting conditions. Most exclusions are limited to 6 to 18 months. My guess is that the $10 billion that would be saved in IRS agents salaries, would go along way toward solving that problem.

rse

I heard the Nicolai remark and couldn't remember hearing a President referring to a foreign leader by his first name.

I thought it showed his disrespect for the offices involved and ignorance of appropriate behavior.

Yes, I know, par for the course.

jimmyk

I think it would be cheaper, faster, better, if the government subsidized those folks instead.

My understanding is the this bill would affect about 80,000 to 160,000 people who have exclusions related to preexisting conditions.

Do you think that number would remain at 80,000 to 160,000 for long? How would you prevent people from just waiting till they are sick to get (subsidized) insurance?

Wouldn't it make more sense to change the system that has resulted in insurance being tied to employment, and deregulate insurance so that individuals can purchase catastrophic coverage?

glasater

I'm not so hard on 'squishes' like Cornyn--after all they may be in a Stockholm Syndrome state after the battle they've just been through.

What is really going to be Zero's problem is per this ADP report which CNBC is trying to play down--to no avail...

The ADP report is based on data from about 360,000 businesses with more than 22 million workers on payrolls. ADP began keeping records in January 2001 and started publishing its numbers in 2006.
Clarice

Surely, Rick Ballard can write the explanation for laid off workers which explains in crayon and butcher paper that the employer must do this to offset the extra costs of Obamacare.

Do not keep the layoff reasons muddied or secret.

It's never too late for voters to learn about economics.

MikeS

Wouldn't it make more sense to change the system that has resulted in insurance being tied to employment, and deregulate insurance so that individuals can purchase catastrophic coverage?

Yes! Absolutely jimmyk.

Thing is we need a strategy to get rid of what is now the law. I'm no expert, but I think without mandates the whole thing would collapse. The mandates are widely disliked. So, why not just argue to fix the unnecessary mandates?

What's the counter argument? Will Obama say, "Well we must have mandates. Without the mandates we won't have an excuse to spend $2.5 Trillion"?

Porchlight

Do you think that number would remain at 80,000 to 160,000 for long? How would you prevent people from just waiting till they are sick to get (subsidized) insurance?

That would be my worry, too. But just because we make it easier/cheaper for people to purchase catastrophic coverage, doesn't mean they'll do it.

At some point we have to deal with the sheer unwillingness of a certain portion of the population to purchase insurance. What do you do with people who would rather put the money toward mortgage/rent/car/cable/cell phone/you name it? It seems they are either forced to purchase, or they go without and the taxpayer ends up paying for them one way or another.

Clarice

Certain religions are exempt from the HC taxes and penalties--I can't believe this will pass muster:

< a href=http://www.examiner.com/x-38904-Phoenix-Small-Business-Management-Examiner~y2010m3d26-If-you-are-muslim-you-can-opt-out-of-the-Obamacare-health-care-reform-laws-with-no-penalties>free pass for Muslims, Amish and Christian Scientists

Clarice

http://www.examiner.com/x-38904-Phoenix-Small-Business-Management-Examiner~y2010m3d26-If-you-are-muslim-you-can-opt-out-of-the-Obamacare-health-care-reform-laws-with-no-penalties>free pass for Muslims, Amish and Christian Scientists

narciso the harpoon

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at Cornyn,
"Feeding the Crocodile" so it will eat him
last, on the presumption of all the gas it will get having consumed the rest of us, But
I expected a little more from a Texan, silly me,

So, L.L. is upset because his positive story will be appearing on Sarah's show, but being part of a show, where Iraq veterans are depicted as suicide bombers, I haven't recorded an episode of either NCIS since, that Christmas twin bill, that's OK
I guess

MikeS

What do you do with people who would rather put the money toward mortgage/rent/car/cable/cell phone/you name it?

I would not interfere with them. They should be able to spend their money anyway they want. A subsidy need not be a carte blanc subsidy for 100% of Cadillac style coverage.

Ignatz

This article says the fine is $2,250 or 2% of your income and that the IRS can confiscate your tax refund to enforce it. I saw a headline at Hotair earlier saying that the IRS can enforce it as it stands but didn't click on it and now I don't see it anymore.

bgates

The headline on glasater's link:
ADP Says U.S. Companies Unexpectedly Cut Payrolls

I always wondered what happened to Charlie Brown after he gave up his dream of becoming a punter. Apparently he went into financial reporting.

Ignatz

--(What makes a cancer "negative".)--

Jane,
Most breast cancers are fueled by estrogen, progesterone or something called, I think, Her2. These are 'positive' breast cancers becuse they're positive for those factors and hormone blocking drugs are effective at slowing or stopping the cancer's progression (HER2 less so).
Cancers without those factors are 'negative' for them and have essentially no treatment beyond standard chemo/radiation. Once those are shot they're out of bullets.

Porchlight

A subsidy need not be a carte blanc subsidy for 100% of Cadillac style coverage.

Yes, but anything less becomes fodder for that "we have to do something for all the uninsured peeeeeple" handwringers. Not saying I agree with them, of course.

The high risk pools that some states have could be a starting point. Yeah, you'll get insured, but it's going to cost you. Of course the same suspects will claim they can't afford it and the cycle starts again.

Porchlight

"for that" s/b "for the"

jimmyk

It seems they are either forced to purchase, or they go without and the taxpayer ends up paying for them one way or another.

Yes, that argument has been made about Social Security as well, but as with SS, the remedy need not be so drastic. You could tax everyone to cover the cost of a catastrophic policy, but with an exemption if you purchase your own insurance.

I'm not averse to having some kind of backup really minimal insurance for anyone who doesn't take the responsibility to purchase it themselves. The subsidy should be for people who do purchase it, since they are taking themselves off the dole by doing so. But apart from that, why does the government have to get involved between me and my insurer?

Dave (in MA)

How dare TM have a post about President Obama with "Gallup Poll" in the title! It sounds a lot like "gallows pole". !!!11!! This is a high-tech virtual lynching of a black man !! !11!!

scott

**repeal bill**

and by this I mean the whole shibang:

H.R. blah, blah is repealed in its entirety blah, blah...

narciso the harpoon

"nuke it from orbit, only way to be sure" Here's the very transparent excuse for what will come of this, in the LUN

Porchlight

The subsidy should be for people who do purchase it, since they are taking themselves off the dole by doing so. But apart from that, why does the government have to get involved between me and my insurer?

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me, jimmyk.

Pagar

" to offset the extra costs of Obamacare."

Remember that story that the college loan takeover had to be thrown in with Obamacare to get CBO to give a positive figure for Obamacare?

"Obama’s Student Loan Takeover Adds $52 Billion to Deficit According to 'Fair Value' Accounting, Says CBO.."

Ignatz

Here's some discouraging Iraq election news from David Horowitz's Newsreal.

MikeS

"we have to do something for all the uninsured peeeeeple"

Yes. You're exactly right on the above and on the high risk pools.

As you imply, there are already market based solutions that encourage people to buy insurance. I mentioned most exclusions are time limited. Meaning that some time passes before the coverage begins.

But your first point regarding the politics involved is my main concern. I think some replacement for ObamaCare's coverage of preexisting conditions will be necessary to swing a major change in the law.

Porchlight

I mentioned most exclusions are time limited. Meaning that some time passes before the coverage begins.

That is something I actually didn't know. I thought people were permanently excluded. I have a feeling there are lots more people like me who are ignorant on that point.

I agree with you about the politics - I don't see any "repeal and replace" platform by the GOP making headway unless pre-existing conditions are very specifically addressed, preferably of course with market-based solutions other than "make the insurance companies eat the costs."

Ignatz

--That is something I actually didn't know. I thought people were permanently excluded. I have a feeling there are lots more people like me who are ignorant on that point.--

I think what MikeS is referring to is that you cannot make a claim for a condition until a period of time has passed thereby demonstrating it either was not a pre existing condition or it was unknown to you.
Whereas if you actually have a known pre existing condition, which you must disclose, it is permanently excluded.
If that's wrong I welcome a correction.

Janet

It sounds like we are already content to nibble around the edges rather than get rid of the whole d#%n thing. The federal government has no business in our health care. It is not their job or responsibility.

Janet

It is not okay to just suck less than the Democrats/Progressives/Socialists/Marxists/...

Danube of Thought

I believe there are lots of people who are, or would be, permanently excluded.

My proposal would be for a nationwide high-risk pool, as is done in many states today. The premiums would be significantly higher--as they very well should be--and there would necessarily be caps. That, in and of itself, should encourage uncovered individuals to buy insurance before they become sick or injured. Those who are demonstrably needy could get subsidized catastrophic coverage.

Apart from that, the whole idea of this mandatory, top-down, nationalized system is not only an affront to individual liberty, in an age of the Internet,Travelocity, E-bay and all the rest is simply insane.

Danube of Thought

It's my understanding that the individual mandate does not kick in until 2014, and that when it does so it begins at a trivial level and escalates gradually over a period of time.

Old Lurker

JimmyK, MikeS, if I could wave a magic wand, I would take us back to a time when individuals and families were responsible for their health, and employers were not involved, and neither was the government, especially through tax policy. Individuals and families who desired to hedge their risks could buy any form of private insurance that seemed worth it to them, just as we do with the myriad of other insurance policies in our lives, and folks who wanted to join service groups (to negotiate with providers and to process bills) could do the same.

Use local welfare to help those a community wishes to assist.

I'm see if I can get Norman Rockwell to paint that up for us.

Clarice

Janet..you are too honest and straight forward to be in politics. I think the point geraghty is making is that it would not be stupid to pick out a couple of popular parts of the bill and say you'll keep them (like allowing parents who choose to pay the premiums) to keep their kids on their insurance plans until they are 26 and scrapping the rest, without actually calling it "repeal".

Danube of Thought

This is from Business Week. Note that it refers to the October 13 Finance C'ee bill; don't know what changes may have occurred in the final version:

In the bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee on Oct. 13, there are no fines at all the first year it goes into effect, in 2013. In 2014 individuals would have to shell out $200 in annual penalties if they choose to forgo insurance, and by 2017, the number jumps to $750. That's starting to sound like a meaningful sum. But consider that the average yearly insurance premium for an individual policy is around $5,000. For just a few hundred dollars during the first years the law is in place, a healthy person might decide to forgo the costly security of insurance.
Old Lurker

Iggy, sometimes the known pre-existing condition, disclosed of course, is excluded for a preset period, but the exclusion goes away if no recurrance occurs in that time. These are usually negotiated on a case by case basis, but we have done that even with BCBS.

Old Lurker

I'm = I'll

Clarice

Why do you suppose Obama's suit i so filthy as he reviews the Afghan troops with Karzai?

MikeS

If that's wrong I welcome a correction.

I can't find the article I read in the last week that explained that. Most preexisting conditions are actually covered after 6 to 18 months. The most serious obviously are not, but this was a surprise to me. The end result has been that few people are excluded even from treatment for the preexisting condition.

narciso the harpoon

I guess there is a certain logic to that, but how do you enforce the 'up to 26' and the prexisting condition without hiking costs

Clarice

Up to 26 should be at a higher cost to those who opt for it..Those with pre-existing conditions will eed to pay more and if they need assistance should get subsidies..It's cheaper than the off ball of wax Congress mushed together last week.

glasater

bgates-

Well if the other ADP article/link didn't impress you--will this one?

Goldman Shaken By ADP Number, Unstirred, As It Keeps Friday NFP Estimate At +275,000 :-)

jimmyk

Why do you suppose Obama's suit i so filthy as he reviews the Afghan troops with Karzai?

He had been prostrating himself, either before some foreign dignitary or in prayer at a mosque.

Bill in AZ

"Why do you suppose Obama's suit i so filthy as he reviews the Afghan troops with Karzai?"

That's what GWB's suit always looked like when he went grovelling before foreign leaders... oh wait, GWB never did that. Zero should wear a brown suit so it doesn't show.

Jane says obamasucks

Cancers without those factors are 'negative' for them and have essentially no treatment beyond standard chemo/radiation.

Thanks Ignatz. I'm lucky to know very little about cancer.

Judge Napoletano had Bill MCcullom and Randy Barnett on the Beck show today talking about the legal challenge to Obamacare. They had a discussion about states issuing rights to the feds under the constitution not the other way around. (I'm always stunned at how little I know). At any rate it gave me some hope for the legal challenge.

Then there was a guy from Utah who is trying to seize back the state's property from the Feds under eminent domain.

The country is getting very busy.

Clarice

It looks like he fell in the dirt or, yes, prostrated himself. It's not photoshopped and the dirt is even more obvious in related pictures taken of the event.

JeanD

I have a friend who has polycystic kidney disease, and is not a candidate for a transplant. Because the condition makes his life intolerable on an intermittent basis, he voluntarily left his job and started to work for himself. Some weeks, he can work a full week; other weeks, not so much.

He has made exhaustive efforts to privately insure, but cannot afford the premiums. In some cases, he is refused outright, and in other cases he is offered coverage that he simply cannot afford. As a result, he is uninsured.

The good news is that, given his circumstances, both the drug companies and the doctors have been willing to work with him. The drug companies have programs to assist with prescription prices, and the doctors have been willing to discount their charges to him.

How much of this will be left under the new law?

Ironically, even though this new law should benefit him, he wants no part of it.

As an aside, much of what is being discussed applies to insurance through an employer. For those of us who privately insure, we get no tax benefit but will be assured both a big rate increase and a loss of choice in our coverage. To which, I say NO.

MikeS

I'm with Lurker. I grew up on home remedies. I think too many doctor hours are spent on sniffles and minor scrapes.

JeanD

MikeS and OL, I agree, too. Instead of giving everyone a safety net of catastrophic coverage, and letting consumers feel the costs of their doctor visits, we now have a law that goes the opposite direction. More "free" always leads to more demand.

cathyf
...pre-existing conditions are very specifically addressed, preferably of course with market-based solutions...
Ok, here's my idea: make the uninsurability of pre-existing conditions something that can be discharged in bankruptcy.

In the pre-HCR world, as long as you had insurance when you got sick with a chronic condition, your insurance company couldn't cancel you, and you could demand insurance from a new company at the group rate, as long as you continuously kept yourself covered. (This went in to effect on July 1, 1997.) So somebody with insurance who developed, say, a seizure disorder, could change jobs and their new health insurer couldn't exclude the seizure disorder as long as the old insurer covered it.

So suppose somebody who doesn't have health insurance develops one of these chronic conditions and can't get insurance. Then fix the bankruptcy code so that if the person goes completely broke from their uninsured bills, then they get some window after the bankruptcy is granted where they can get insurance and the bankruptcy acts just like they were covered by insurance before.

This still has a huge penalty for getting sick without insurance, but it's much more proportional to the crime than a life sentence of no insurance.

MikeS

More "free" always leads to more demand.

Yes, and we've been moving more and more in that direction.

Imagine the potential savings of 30% by getting rid of defensive medicine. And more savings by treating our own minor illnesses. And what about internet medicine? Can that develop into something good?

Rick Ballard

Glasater,

I don't believe the ADP number accounts for the 400K Census temp hires. March tax deposits will come in at -2.6% MoM (adjusted for unequal working day count) and Q1 '10 is dead even with Q1 '09.

The Friday NDP number is going to draw raves but the economy is in Park (at best). I keep looking for a story on the fact that tax receipts at mid-year make a joke out of both the Maladministration and the CBO's deficit projections for the current year but it appears that I'm going to have to be very patient.

Old Lurker

"More Free" is pretty apt already for that half of the population that pays only 3% of the taxes. Explains a lot, doesn't it?

rse

Here are the specs on the individual mandate:

"Under the legislation, most Americans will have to have insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. The penalty would start at $95, or up to 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, and rise to $695, or 2.5 percent of income, by 2016. This is an individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085."

scott

OL: "I would take us back to a time when individuals and families were responsible for their health, and employers were not involved, and neither was the government"

I recall reading in George Jones autobiogaphy last year that one of his siblings died for want of penicillin because his parents were to proud to take it as charity. This was 1940's Texas. Thats hard defined (and heartbreaking).

I like to think some of that personal responsibility survives today. (by the way, George and his crew were in serious need of some healthcare back in the day!)

Old Lurker

Well I read just last year of some kids dying because their parents refused medical attention for religous reasons. And lots of people die because they don't get around to getting the free help we provide now.

Why, I received a letter just the other day from a poor lady....oh never mind.

So much for Policy by Anecdote.

glasater

Rick B-

As usual you cut to and through the bone with trenchant words. The reason I've been making such a big deal out of the ADP report is that the Labor Department's employment report is coming out on Good Friday when the markets are closed. Could have some traders nervous.
I'm still trying to recover from reading Porch's Spectator--Obama in Rude Denial :-)

scott

My point with the Jones anecdote was that that in a time not so distant most people would not submit to gov't healthcare and maybe times have not changed so much(re-reading maybe it was not so clear). They would have run-off the taxman when he came to collect the fine. I agree with this type of self-reliance. People are allowed to do stupid things like not go to a doctor when sick. Obamacare won't change that.

The Jones family, it seems, just didn't know any better. They refused to take the child to the doctor because they couldn't pay. If they had known just some antibiotics would save him they probably would have accepted.

Another keeper from that book is Johnny Paycheck riding a moped from St. Paul to Muscle Shoals with a bottle of Jim Beam in one hand most of the way.

Rick Ballard

Glasater,

If BLS doesn't provide an accurate breakout of the number of part time Census workers in the NDP it will be worthless until September. I would anticipate that the market will react to the ADP numbers more strongly than to the NDP numbers until September for that reason. I can tell you that the tax deposit and HI contribution numbers strongly suggest that the Feb/Mar "green shoots" are even weaker this year than last.

I'm wondering if public companies won't turn the screw one more time wrt layoffs in order to generate earnings in Q2. I lean toward "that's the only open path" 'cause sales growth just ain't there.

Old Lurker

Sorry, Scott. I did misunderstand your point.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame