So much for Tea Party candidate in AZ

[jillian]

The word "extreme" is in the eye of the beholder jillian;imho. I mean; for some; Obamacare or Universal Healthcare is extreme, I think it is anyway, others think cutting government is extreme; I don't. I looked at Hayworth once and truly was not impressed, he seemed to be John McCain on steroids, about the only difference being immigration, going from memory though and could be wrong on that one

i'd disagree to the extent that saying that people should 'use their second amendment rights' if they lose an election is extreme.

people like michelle bachman and sharon angle are extreme.

fwiw, mccain used to be much more of a thinking person. i don't know what happened to him after bush did the whole push poll thing during the 2000 election.

i think extreme can be gauged by what exactly it does. first of all, the phrase obamacare has always seemed silly to me... particularly when the changes that were made weren't really that sweeping, despite what the health care lobby funded 'movement' said.

do you have any difference in your health coverage? or maybe your college-aged kid gets to retain their coverage for another couple of years til they go to work? i think that's a good thing... not extreme.

 

[uptownlivin90]

went the same way as NY-23 PA-12 and now probably NV Senate along with McCain's victory in AZ and it looks more and more likely that Rubio will get beat by Crist in FL.

So there ya go.

Can you tell me how you come to that conclusion? Race looks pretty tight to me...

Well, except for the democratic...lol

RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Florida Senate - Rubio vs. Meek vs. Crist

because in florida it isn't going to be the democrat. so given a choice between rubio and crist, it's going to be crist. people keep forgetting he has a 60% approval rating as governor.

I wonder what exactly Rubio is going to run on in the general election now that he's won the primaries as a "true republican" running against a "fake republican". There are what 3 million independent voters in Florida? How does he reach them with a tea party message? How does he go to them and say vote for me not the independent because I'm a "true republican"?

It almost seems to me like Rubio ran a compaign thinking that the primary election was actually the general election, and forgetting that once you leave the republican primary and beat Crist there, he'll have to face Crist in a much broader election.

I also just think Meek should withdrawl from the race. Just saying.

 

[masquerade]

Just the competition itself is good...keeps them honest.

No seat should be safe.

Right on the money!

 

[johnrocks]

The word "extreme" is in the eye of the beholder jillian;imho. I mean; for some; Obamacare or Universal Healthcare is extreme, I think it is anyway, others think cutting government is extreme; I don't. I looked at Hayworth once and truly was not impressed, he seemed to be John McCain on steroids, about the only difference being immigration, going from memory though and could be wrong on that one

do you have any difference in your health coverage? or maybe your college-aged kid gets to retain their coverage for another couple of years til they go to work? i think that's a good thing... not extreme.

Like I opined...in the eye of the beholder.. We went from no government involved and healthcare costs being a constant 5-6% of GDP to where we are now in increments; from FDR's wage and price controls giving group insurance a kick start which I think coupling employment with health insurance is one of the dumbest things to have happened in the 20th Century to Medicare to the HMO Act of 1973 to ERISA to Obamacare(I think the term is silly to but I go with it b/c people know what I'm referring to), people blame private markets yet most health insurance is controlled by government and corporations already, there is no "free market" yet THAT is what is called "extreme" by so many.

 

[jillian]

The word "extreme" is in the eye of the beholder jillian;imho. I mean; for some; Obamacare or Universal Healthcare is extreme, I think it is anyway, others think cutting government is extreme; I don't. I looked at Hayworth once and truly was not impressed, he seemed to be John McCain on steroids, about the only difference being immigration, going from memory though and could be wrong on that one

do you have any difference in your health coverage? or maybe your college-aged kid gets to retain their coverage for another couple of years til they go to work? i think that's a good thing... not extreme.

Like I opined...in the eye of the beholder.. We went from no government involved and healthcare costs being a constant 5-6% of GDP to where we are now in increments; from FDR's wage and price controls giving group insurance a kick start which I think coupling employment with health insurance is one of the dumbest things to have happened in the 20th Century to Medicare to the HMO Act of 1973 to ERISA to Obamacare(I think the term is silly to but I go with it b/c people know what I'm referring to), people blame private markets yet most health insurance is controlled by government and corporations already, there is no "free market" yet THAT is what is called "extreme" by so many.

government is already involved in health care costs. do you know what percentage of the population gets medical care paid for by medicare and medicaid?

as for government control of insurance companies... not that i can see. as for coupling insurance with employment, of course it's costly and inefficient. but people went insane at the thought of fixing the system the way it needed to be.

it's not affordable for people to go buy their own insurance. when i worked for myself, i paid $2100 a month for my family... and that was with $1,000 a person deductible b/c it was a small group.

 

[Modbert]

government is already involved in health care costs. do you know what percentage of the population gets medical care paid for by medicare and medicaid?

We don't want your socialized medicine and keep your hands off my medicare!

 

[johnrocks]

do you have any difference in your health coverage? or maybe your college-aged kid gets to retain their coverage for another couple of years til they go to work? i think that's a good thing... not extreme.

Like I opined...in the eye of the beholder.. We went from no government involved and healthcare costs being a constant 5-6% of GDP to where we are now in increments; from FDR's wage and price controls giving group insurance a kick start which I think coupling employment with health insurance is one of the dumbest things to have happened in the 20th Century to Medicare to the HMO Act of 1973 to ERISA to Obamacare(I think the term is silly to but I go with it b/c people know what I'm referring to), people blame private markets yet most health insurance is controlled by government and corporations already, there is no "free market" yet THAT is what is called "extreme" by so many.

government is already involved in health care costs. do you know what percentage of the population gets medical care paid for by medicare and medicaid?

as for government control of insurance companies... not that i can see. as for coupling insurance with employment, of course it's costly and inefficient. but people went insane at the thought of fixing the system the way it needed to be.

it's not affordable for people to go buy their own insurance. when i worked for myself, i paid $2100 a month for my family... and that was with $1,000 a person deductible b/c it was a small group.

I sell Medicare Supplements for a living (insurance agent) so yeah, I keep up with this jillian.

Government mandates adds dollars to each policy, I can't get a simple catastrophic plan that covers just the major things such as Hospital stays in some states, I have to get comprehensive, things like weight loss counseling or smoking cessation is mandated which adds costs.

$2100 for a family per month is way too high, give the tax credits to the individual instead of the employer, a 49 year old male, his 41 year old wife and two kids can get a policy in my zip code for as little as $189.88 per month, a $5000 deductible geared toward protecting me and my family against the large and expensive illnesses such as heart attacks and cancer that ca wipe me out financially, if I want a comprehensive plan that pays 1st dollar on everything from a sniffling nose at the Doctor's office on up, of course I'm going to pay more but that isn't insurance, it's nothing more than pre paid medical. BTW, that is $1,226.27​ per month with a $500 deductible but it has $20 office visits

 

[jillian]

Like I opined...in the eye of the beholder.. We went from no government involved and healthcare costs being a constant 5-6% of GDP to where we are now in increments; from FDR's wage and price controls giving group insurance a kick start which I think coupling employment with health insurance is one of the dumbest things to have happened in the 20th Century to Medicare to the HMO Act of 1973 to ERISA to Obamacare(I think the term is silly to but I go with it b/c people know what I'm referring to), people blame private markets yet most health insurance is controlled by government and corporations already, there is no "free market" yet THAT is what is called "extreme" by so many.

government is already involved in health care costs. do you know what percentage of the population gets medical care paid for by medicare and medicaid?

as for government control of insurance companies... not that i can see. as for coupling insurance with employment, of course it's costly and inefficient. but people went insane at the thought of fixing the system the way it needed to be.

it's not affordable for people to go buy their own insurance. when i worked for myself, i paid $2100 a month for my family... and that was with $1,000 a person deductible b/c it was a small group.

I sell Medicare Supplements for a living (insurance agent) so yeah, I keep up with this jillian.

Government mandates adds dollars to each policy, I can't get a simple catastrophic plan that covers just the major things such as Hospital stays in some states, I have to get comprehensive, things like weight loss counseling or smoking cessation is mandated which adds costs.

$2100 for a family per month is way too high, give the tax credits to the individual instead of the employer, a 49 year old male, his 41 year old wife and two kids can get a policy in my zip code for as little as $189.88 per month, a $5000 deductible geared toward protecting me and my family against the large and expensive illnesses such as heart attacks and cancer that ca wipe me out financially, if I want a comprehensive plan that pays 1st dollar on everything from a sniffling nose at the Doctor's office on up, of course I'm going to pay more but that isn't insurance, it's nothing more than pre paid medical. BTW, that is $1,226.27​ per month with a $500 deductible but it has $20 office visits

do the government mandates add dollars to each policy? or is it the fact that the insurance industry is the second most profitable industriy (if i recall correctly) after oil companies and punishes the consumer every time they are asked to play nice.

my zipcode is in nyc. i think that might adjust your numbers a bit. plus, i will only use a policy that allows me coverage even if i use unaffliated practitioners. that also affects numbers. i'm ok with that, it's my choice because certain of my doctors won't accept any insurance at all. then try getting 80% of reasonable and customary based on national averages when we're talking about doctors in manhattan. basically, i was paying for catastrophic coverage.

i certainly wouldn't argue with you about your ifo. i tend to not argue with people in their areas of expertise.

what do you think the answer is?

 

[johnrocks]

government is already involved in health care costs. do you know what percentage of the population gets medical care paid for by medicare and medicaid?

as for government control of insurance companies... not that i can see. as for coupling insurance with employment, of course it's costly and inefficient. but people went insane at the thought of fixing the system the way it needed to be.

it's not affordable for people to go buy their own insurance. when i worked for myself, i paid $2100 a month for my family... and that was with $1,000 a person deductible b/c it was a small group.

I sell Medicare Supplements for a living (insurance agent) so yeah, I keep up with this jillian.

Government mandates adds dollars to each policy, I can't get a simple catastrophic plan that covers just the major things such as Hospital stays in some states, I have to get comprehensive, things like weight loss counseling or smoking cessation is mandated which adds costs.

$2100 for a family per month is way too high, give the tax credits to the individual instead of the employer, a 49 year old male, his 41 year old wife and two kids can get a policy in my zip code for as little as $189.88 per month, a $5000 deductible geared toward protecting me and my family against the large and expensive illnesses such as heart attacks and cancer that ca wipe me out financially, if I want a comprehensive plan that pays 1st dollar on everything from a sniffling nose at the Doctor's office on up, of course I'm going to pay more but that isn't insurance, it's nothing more than pre paid medical. BTW, that is $1,226.27​ per month with a $500 deductible but it has $20 office visits

do the government mandates add dollars to each policy? or is it the fact that the insurance industry is the second most profitable industriy (if i recall correctly) after oil companies and punishes the consumer every time they are asked to play nice.

my zipcode is in nyc. i think that might adjust your numbers a bit. plus, i will only use a policy that allows me coverage even if i use unaffliated practitioners. that also affects numbers. i'm ok with that, it's my choice because certain of my doctors won't accept any insurance at all. then try getting 80% of reasonable and customary based on national averages when we're talking about doctors in manhattan. basically, i was paying for catastrophic coverage.

i certainly wouldn't argue with you about your ifo. i tend to not argue with people in their areas of expertise.

what do you think the answer is?

NYC is all I needed to know, New York is one of the most regulated States in America pertaining to insurance, most insurance companies don't even do business there as a result.

Would you be surprised that private insurance premiums makes up only 3% of all healthcare spending... Overview National Health Expenditure Data

Back to New York, an article that you may like.



Massachusetts may have a universal health insurance mandate, but it is New York state that has experimented for the longest time with key components of the new federal health care package, most especially with a mandate that insurers must offer coverage to all comers, and also that insurers have limits on how much they can vary the price of a policy for different demographic groups. Whether the feds can figure out how to avoid all of the pitfalls that have plagued this system in New York remains to be seen.

New York enacted a health reform package with these two mandates - known as guaranteed issue and community rating - in 1993, making it unique among the states (only five others have both mandates but none has requirements as strict as New York's). Back when the state instituted the reforms about 752,000 residents were buying health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual market. But premiums immediately started to soar, and as residents realized they could purchase insurance at any time, even after they got sick, New York's individual health insurance market disappeared, shrinking by 95 percent all the way down to a mere 34,000 individuals. Meanwhile, the ranks of the uninsured spiked to 20 percent by 1997.

New York's response to its vast increase in uninsured residents was to offer more state-subsidized insurance. When the price tag on these plans began to weigh down the state budget, New York slapped new taxes on residents and businesses to pay for them, including a new $275 million assessment against insurance companies on top of some $3 billion in assessments they already pay in the state. All of this so that the state's uninsured rolls would soar as costs spiraled upward and then declined again as government stepped in with subsidized coverage.

Moreover, the profile of the uninsured changed. Today, according to a recent Manhattan Institute study, about one-third of all the uninsured in New York earn $50,000 a year or more. Many would be able to afford insurance in most other states, but not in a place where a monthly premium for a single person ranges between $500 and $700, while a family policy costs between $1,400 and $2,600 a month.

The new federal legislation, of course, aims to fix the problems that New York has experienced by requiring that everyone carry insurance, which is a controversial mandate now but will be so much more so if costs spike as they did in the Empire State, or if taxes must rise further to subsidize premiums and keep them affordable. Those without insurance will face a federal fine that has been set at either $695 annually or 2.5 percent of your taxable income, whichever is greater. But that might be a small price for many people to pay for the privilege of not carrying pricey insurance.

To understand how this will work, look to another state, Massachusetts, the first to begin fining people for not having health care coverage. Massachusetts defines acceptable insurance as a policy with a deductible no greater than $2,000 a year. But policies at that level can be very expensive, so taking the fine is worth it, as Massachusetts resident Wendy Williams found. In a Wall Street Journal piece last October, she described how she and her husband were threatened with a $1,000 fine because they had given up their gold-plated and expensive health plan and were paying about $3,600 a year for catastrophic care policy that protected them from big hospital bills but didn't qualify as acceptable coverage in the state. For Williams the choice was easy. To increase her coverage to acceptable limits would have cost her about $6,000 a year more in premiums, because costs jump sharply as the deductible on a policy declines even moderately in a highly regulated place like Massachusetts. So she paid the fine instead and stuck with her "unacceptable" coverage.
RealClearMarkets - Health Care Reform: Welcome to NY, America

I enjoy chatting with you, you seem to be a very nice and civil person

 

[Charles_Main]

Just the competition itself is good...keeps them honest.

No seat should be safe.

Not sure how it keeps them honest. McCain all of the sudden acted like a conservative again, but as soon as he is back in office he will be Maverick McCain again siding with Liberals as often as Conservatives.

Its a freaking show put on to deceive us, Nothing more.

 

[WillowTree]

went the same way as NY-23 PA-12 and now probably NV Senate along with McCain's victory in AZ and it looks more and more likely that Rubio will get beat by Crist in FL.

So there ya go.

Can you tell me how you come to that conclusion? Race looks pretty tight to me...

Well, except for the democratic...lol

RealClearPolitics - Election 2010 - Florida Senate - Rubio vs. Meek vs. Crist

because in florida it isn't going to be the democrat. so given a choice between rubio and crist, it's going to be crist. people keep forgetting he has a 60% approval rating as governor.

Oh hell no, not now he doesn't. He is a slimey little snake who took Republicans money and left town with it. He's an asshole. Senator Rubio sounds good to me.

 

[Gadawg73]

I sell Medicare Supplements for a living (insurance agent) so yeah, I keep up with this jillian.

Government mandates adds dollars to each policy, I can't get a simple catastrophic plan that covers just the major things such as Hospital stays in some states, I have to get comprehensive, things like weight loss counseling or smoking cessation is mandated which adds costs.

$2100 for a family per month is way too high, give the tax credits to the individual instead of the employer, a 49 year old male, his 41 year old wife and two kids can get a policy in my zip code for as little as $189.88 per month, a $5000 deductible geared toward protecting me and my family against the large and expensive illnesses such as heart attacks and cancer that ca wipe me out financially, if I want a comprehensive plan that pays 1st dollar on everything from a sniffling nose at the Doctor's office on up, of course I'm going to pay more but that isn't insurance, it's nothing more than pre paid medical. BTW, that is $1,226.27​ per month with a $500 deductible but it has $20 office visits

do the government mandates add dollars to each policy? or is it the fact that the insurance industry is the second most profitable industriy (if i recall correctly) after oil companies and punishes the consumer every time they are asked to play nice.

my zipcode is in nyc. i think that might adjust your numbers a bit. plus, i will only use a policy that allows me coverage even if i use unaffliated practitioners. that also affects numbers. i'm ok with that, it's my choice because certain of my doctors won't accept any insurance at all. then try getting 80% of reasonable and customary based on national averages when we're talking about doctors in manhattan. basically, i was paying for catastrophic coverage.

i certainly wouldn't argue with you about your ifo. i tend to not argue with people in their areas of expertise.

what do you think the answer is?

NYC is all I needed to know, New York is one of the most regulated States in America pertaining to insurance, most insurance companies don't even do business there as a result.

Would you be surprised that private insurance premiums makes up only 3% of all healthcare spending... Overview National Health Expenditure Data

Back to New York, an article that you may like.



Massachusetts may have a universal health insurance mandate, but it is New York state that has experimented for the longest time with key components of the new federal health care package, most especially with a mandate that insurers must offer coverage to all comers, and also that insurers have limits on how much they can vary the price of a policy for different demographic groups. Whether the feds can figure out how to avoid all of the pitfalls that have plagued this system in New York remains to be seen.

New York enacted a health reform package with these two mandates - known as guaranteed issue and community rating - in 1993, making it unique among the states (only five others have both mandates but none has requirements as strict as New York's). Back when the state instituted the reforms about 752,000 residents were buying health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual market. But premiums immediately started to soar, and as residents realized they could purchase insurance at any time, even after they got sick, New York's individual health insurance market disappeared, shrinking by 95 percent all the way down to a mere 34,000 individuals. Meanwhile, the ranks of the uninsured spiked to 20 percent by 1997.

New York's response to its vast increase in uninsured residents was to offer more state-subsidized insurance. When the price tag on these plans began to weigh down the state budget, New York slapped new taxes on residents and businesses to pay for them, including a new $275 million assessment against insurance companies on top of some $3 billion in assessments they already pay in the state. All of this so that the state's uninsured rolls would soar as costs spiraled upward and then declined again as government stepped in with subsidized coverage.

Moreover, the profile of the uninsured changed. Today, according to a recent Manhattan Institute study, about one-third of all the uninsured in New York earn $50,000 a year or more. Many would be able to afford insurance in most other states, but not in a place where a monthly premium for a single person ranges between $500 and $700, while a family policy costs between $1,400 and $2,600 a month.

The new federal legislation, of course, aims to fix the problems that New York has experienced by requiring that everyone carry insurance, which is a controversial mandate now but will be so much more so if costs spike as they did in the Empire State, or if taxes must rise further to subsidize premiums and keep them affordable. Those without insurance will face a federal fine that has been set at either $695 annually or 2.5 percent of your taxable income, whichever is greater. But that might be a small price for many people to pay for the privilege of not carrying pricey insurance.

To understand how this will work, look to another state, Massachusetts, the first to begin fining people for not having health care coverage. Massachusetts defines acceptable insurance as a policy with a deductible no greater than $2,000 a year. But policies at that level can be very expensive, so taking the fine is worth it, as Massachusetts resident Wendy Williams found. In a Wall Street Journal piece last October, she described how she and her husband were threatened with a $1,000 fine because they had given up their gold-plated and expensive health plan and were paying about $3,600 a year for catastrophic care policy that protected them from big hospital bills but didn't qualify as acceptable coverage in the state. For Williams the choice was easy. To increase her coverage to acceptable limits would have cost her about $6,000 a year more in premiums, because costs jump sharply as the deductible on a policy declines even moderately in a highly regulated place like Massachusetts. So she paid the fine instead and stuck with her "unacceptable" coverage.
RealClearMarkets - Health Care Reform: Welcome to NY, America

I enjoy chatting with you, you seem to be a very nice and civil person

No, private insurance premiums does not make up just 3% of health care spending.
If that was the case how would they make any $$?
85% of Americans have some form of insurance so your data is incorrect.
In 2006 private insurance companies paid 55% of all the health care bills in America.
And you claim they did it collecting 3% of the total spent.
No way Jose.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Hayworth is a hypocrite. He talked about being for limited government, but he was on video telling people how they can get all kinds of money from the Federal government.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

McCain defeats conservative primary challenger - Yahoo! News

McCain, that guy that Republicans wanted for President in 2008 then suddenly didn't want in 2010....beats his crazy tea party challenger in AZ Republican primary.

It seems that the tea party guy in Alaska, however, is going to defeat Murkowski once the count is final.

The tea party endorsed candidates seem to have about a 50/50 record in winning their races which is pretty decent in my opinion. I realize that someone like you who thinks that the government should be running everybody's lives from cradle to grave gets some kind of solace every time a tea party backed candidate loses, but you conveniently gloss over the plenty of ones who win. Regardless, the people you voted for in the last election cycle will be out of power come January and we'll all be better for it.

 

[Toro]

McCain defeats conservative primary challenger - Yahoo! News

McCain, that guy that Republicans wanted for President in 2008 then suddenly didn't want in 2010....beats his crazy tea party challenger in AZ Republican primary.

went the same way as NY-23 PA-12 and now probably NV Senate along with McCain's victory in AZ and it looks more and more likely that Rubio will get beat by Crist in FL.

So there ya go.

Meeks's victory increases the chances of Rubio winning. Meeks has no chance of winning but he'll draw liberals away from Crist, forcing Crist to the left. That wouldn't have happened if Greene had won the nomination.

 

[johnrocks]

do the government mandates add dollars to each policy? or is it the fact that the insurance industry is the second most profitable industriy (if i recall correctly) after oil companies and punishes the consumer every time they are asked to play nice.

my zipcode is in nyc. i think that might adjust your numbers a bit. plus, i will only use a policy that allows me coverage even if i use unaffliated practitioners. that also affects numbers. i'm ok with that, it's my choice because certain of my doctors won't accept any insurance at all. then try getting 80% of reasonable and customary based on national averages when we're talking about doctors in manhattan. basically, i was paying for catastrophic coverage.

i certainly wouldn't argue with you about your ifo. i tend to not argue with people in their areas of expertise.

what do you think the answer is?

NYC is all I needed to know, New York is one of the most regulated States in America pertaining to insurance, most insurance companies don't even do business there as a result.

Would you be surprised that private insurance premiums makes up only 3% of all healthcare spending... Overview National Health Expenditure Data

Back to New York, an article that you may like.



Massachusetts may have a universal health insurance mandate, but it is New York state that has experimented for the longest time with key components of the new federal health care package, most especially with a mandate that insurers must offer coverage to all comers, and also that insurers have limits on how much they can vary the price of a policy for different demographic groups. Whether the feds can figure out how to avoid all of the pitfalls that have plagued this system in New York remains to be seen.

New York enacted a health reform package with these two mandates - known as guaranteed issue and community rating - in 1993, making it unique among the states (only five others have both mandates but none has requirements as strict as New York's). Back when the state instituted the reforms about 752,000 residents were buying health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual market. But premiums immediately started to soar, and as residents realized they could purchase insurance at any time, even after they got sick, New York's individual health insurance market disappeared, shrinking by 95 percent all the way down to a mere 34,000 individuals. Meanwhile, the ranks of the uninsured spiked to 20 percent by 1997.

New York's response to its vast increase in uninsured residents was to offer more state-subsidized insurance. When the price tag on these plans began to weigh down the state budget, New York slapped new taxes on residents and businesses to pay for them, including a new $275 million assessment against insurance companies on top of some $3 billion in assessments they already pay in the state. All of this so that the state's uninsured rolls would soar as costs spiraled upward and then declined again as government stepped in with subsidized coverage.

Moreover, the profile of the uninsured changed. Today, according to a recent Manhattan Institute study, about one-third of all the uninsured in New York earn $50,000 a year or more. Many would be able to afford insurance in most other states, but not in a place where a monthly premium for a single person ranges between $500 and $700, while a family policy costs between $1,400 and $2,600 a month.

The new federal legislation, of course, aims to fix the problems that New York has experienced by requiring that everyone carry insurance, which is a controversial mandate now but will be so much more so if costs spike as they did in the Empire State, or if taxes must rise further to subsidize premiums and keep them affordable. Those without insurance will face a federal fine that has been set at either $695 annually or 2.5 percent of your taxable income, whichever is greater. But that might be a small price for many people to pay for the privilege of not carrying pricey insurance.

To understand how this will work, look to another state, Massachusetts, the first to begin fining people for not having health care coverage. Massachusetts defines acceptable insurance as a policy with a deductible no greater than $2,000 a year. But policies at that level can be very expensive, so taking the fine is worth it, as Massachusetts resident Wendy Williams found. In a Wall Street Journal piece last October, she described how she and her husband were threatened with a $1,000 fine because they had given up their gold-plated and expensive health plan and were paying about $3,600 a year for catastrophic care policy that protected them from big hospital bills but didn't qualify as acceptable coverage in the state. For Williams the choice was easy. To increase her coverage to acceptable limits would have cost her about $6,000 a year more in premiums, because costs jump sharply as the deductible on a policy declines even moderately in a highly regulated place like Massachusetts. So she paid the fine instead and stuck with her "unacceptable" coverage.
RealClearMarkets - Health Care Reform: Welcome to NY, America

I enjoy chatting with you, you seem to be a very nice and civil person

No, private insurance premiums does not make up just 3% of health care spending.
If that was the case how would they make any $$?
85% of Americans have some form of insurance so your data is incorrect.
In 2006 private insurance companies paid 55% of all the health care bills in America.
And you claim they did it collecting 3% of the total spent.
No way Jose.

Take it up with the US Census, that is them saying it, not me.

 

[bodecea]

NYC is all I needed to know, New York is one of the most regulated States in America pertaining to insurance, most insurance companies don't even do business there as a result.

Would you be surprised that private insurance premiums makes up only 3% of all healthcare spending... Overview National Health Expenditure Data

Back to New York, an article that you may like.



Massachusetts may have a universal health insurance mandate, but it is New York state that has experimented for the longest time with key components of the new federal health care package, most especially with a mandate that insurers must offer coverage to all comers, and also that insurers have limits on how much they can vary the price of a policy for different demographic groups. Whether the feds can figure out how to avoid all of the pitfalls that have plagued this system in New York remains to be seen.

New York enacted a health reform package with these two mandates - known as guaranteed issue and community rating - in 1993, making it unique among the states (only five others have both mandates but none has requirements as strict as New York's). Back when the state instituted the reforms about 752,000 residents were buying health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual market. But premiums immediately started to soar, and as residents realized they could purchase insurance at any time, even after they got sick, New York's individual health insurance market disappeared, shrinking by 95 percent all the way down to a mere 34,000 individuals. Meanwhile, the ranks of the uninsured spiked to 20 percent by 1997.

New York's response to its vast increase in uninsured residents was to offer more state-subsidized insurance. When the price tag on these plans began to weigh down the state budget, New York slapped new taxes on residents and businesses to pay for them, including a new $275 million assessment against insurance companies on top of some $3 billion in assessments they already pay in the state. All of this so that the state's uninsured rolls would soar as costs spiraled upward and then declined again as government stepped in with subsidized coverage.

Moreover, the profile of the uninsured changed. Today, according to a recent Manhattan Institute study, about one-third of all the uninsured in New York earn $50,000 a year or more. Many would be able to afford insurance in most other states, but not in a place where a monthly premium for a single person ranges between $500 and $700, while a family policy costs between $1,400 and $2,600 a month.

The new federal legislation, of course, aims to fix the problems that New York has experienced by requiring that everyone carry insurance, which is a controversial mandate now but will be so much more so if costs spike as they did in the Empire State, or if taxes must rise further to subsidize premiums and keep them affordable. Those without insurance will face a federal fine that has been set at either $695 annually or 2.5 percent of your taxable income, whichever is greater. But that might be a small price for many people to pay for the privilege of not carrying pricey insurance.

To understand how this will work, look to another state, Massachusetts, the first to begin fining people for not having health care coverage. Massachusetts defines acceptable insurance as a policy with a deductible no greater than $2,000 a year. But policies at that level can be very expensive, so taking the fine is worth it, as Massachusetts resident Wendy Williams found. In a Wall Street Journal piece last October, she described how she and her husband were threatened with a $1,000 fine because they had given up their gold-plated and expensive health plan and were paying about $3,600 a year for catastrophic care policy that protected them from big hospital bills but didn't qualify as acceptable coverage in the state. For Williams the choice was easy. To increase her coverage to acceptable limits would have cost her about $6,000 a year more in premiums, because costs jump sharply as the deductible on a policy declines even moderately in a highly regulated place like Massachusetts. So she paid the fine instead and stuck with her "unacceptable" coverage.
RealClearMarkets - Health Care Reform: Welcome to NY, America

I enjoy chatting with you, you seem to be a very nice and civil person

No, private insurance premiums does not make up just 3% of health care spending.
If that was the case how would they make any $$?
85% of Americans have some form of insurance so your data is incorrect.
In 2006 private insurance companies paid 55% of all the health care bills in America.
And you claim they did it collecting 3% of the total spent.
No way Jose.

Take it up with the US Census, that is them saying it, not me.

That's the EVIL US Census, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama and the DNC will toss Meeks under the bus, you watch

 

[Gadawg73]

NYC is all I needed to know, New York is one of the most regulated States in America pertaining to insurance, most insurance companies don't even do business there as a result.

Would you be surprised that private insurance premiums makes up only 3% of all healthcare spending... Overview National Health Expenditure Data

Back to New York, an article that you may like.



Massachusetts may have a universal health insurance mandate, but it is New York state that has experimented for the longest time with key components of the new federal health care package, most especially with a mandate that insurers must offer coverage to all comers, and also that insurers have limits on how much they can vary the price of a policy for different demographic groups. Whether the feds can figure out how to avoid all of the pitfalls that have plagued this system in New York remains to be seen.

New York enacted a health reform package with these two mandates - known as guaranteed issue and community rating - in 1993, making it unique among the states (only five others have both mandates but none has requirements as strict as New York's). Back when the state instituted the reforms about 752,000 residents were buying health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual market. But premiums immediately started to soar, and as residents realized they could purchase insurance at any time, even after they got sick, New York's individual health insurance market disappeared, shrinking by 95 percent all the way down to a mere 34,000 individuals. Meanwhile, the ranks of the uninsured spiked to 20 percent by 1997.

New York's response to its vast increase in uninsured residents was to offer more state-subsidized insurance. When the price tag on these plans began to weigh down the state budget, New York slapped new taxes on residents and businesses to pay for them, including a new $275 million assessment against insurance companies on top of some $3 billion in assessments they already pay in the state. All of this so that the state's uninsured rolls would soar as costs spiraled upward and then declined again as government stepped in with subsidized coverage.

Moreover, the profile of the uninsured changed. Today, according to a recent Manhattan Institute study, about one-third of all the uninsured in New York earn $50,000 a year or more. Many would be able to afford insurance in most other states, but not in a place where a monthly premium for a single person ranges between $500 and $700, while a family policy costs between $1,400 and $2,600 a month.

The new federal legislation, of course, aims to fix the problems that New York has experienced by requiring that everyone carry insurance, which is a controversial mandate now but will be so much more so if costs spike as they did in the Empire State, or if taxes must rise further to subsidize premiums and keep them affordable. Those without insurance will face a federal fine that has been set at either $695 annually or 2.5 percent of your taxable income, whichever is greater. But that might be a small price for many people to pay for the privilege of not carrying pricey insurance.

To understand how this will work, look to another state, Massachusetts, the first to begin fining people for not having health care coverage. Massachusetts defines acceptable insurance as a policy with a deductible no greater than $2,000 a year. But policies at that level can be very expensive, so taking the fine is worth it, as Massachusetts resident Wendy Williams found. In a Wall Street Journal piece last October, she described how she and her husband were threatened with a $1,000 fine because they had given up their gold-plated and expensive health plan and were paying about $3,600 a year for catastrophic care policy that protected them from big hospital bills but didn't qualify as acceptable coverage in the state. For Williams the choice was easy. To increase her coverage to acceptable limits would have cost her about $6,000 a year more in premiums, because costs jump sharply as the deductible on a policy declines even moderately in a highly regulated place like Massachusetts. So she paid the fine instead and stuck with her "unacceptable" coverage.
RealClearMarkets - Health Care Reform: Welcome to NY, America

I enjoy chatting with you, you seem to be a very nice and civil person

No, private insurance premiums does not make up just 3% of health care spending.
If that was the case how would they make any $$?
85% of Americans have some form of insurance so your data is incorrect.
In 2006 private insurance companies paid 55% of all the health care bills in America.
And you claim they did it collecting 3% of the total spent.
No way Jose.

Take it up with the US Census, that is them saying it, not me.

I didn't see it from your link. Where is it?

 

[midcan5]

Our Founding Fathers were extremist Tea Party people too

You mean billionaire oil tycoons and right wing think tanks supported them too! jeez, your view of history is certainly unique.

And you think they talked like this too?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCqQRflUWd4]YouTube - Learn to Speak Tea Bag[/ame]