Thank you for the 47 percent increase in my health care rate

[editec]

Medicare is the only effective cost control medical system in the USA. Why? Because the government has contracted to pay medical costs at a rate that is exactly 6% above the average cost of any device or proceedure. As a result, what Medicare pays for my hospital bill is somewhere areound 10% of what a hospital would bill someonewho had no insurance. If someone has HMO insrance, the Hospital has probably contracted to bill about 15-20% above their actual costs. The only thing that this does not apply to is RX, which the pharmacutical companies have managed to get a law passed forbidding the government from negotiating RX costs. As a result, RX in this country costs 50% more than in any other developed nation. If this country had switched to a simgle payer universal health system, trillions would have been saved over a decade.

I am not just making this stuff up. My career was negotiating HMO provider contracts. The facts are also laid out in full in Time Magazine March 4 special edition, which was solely dedicated to this issue.

As I said. I'm no fan of the current system but I don't see where the ACA is going to be better.

The CBO says this thing is going to cost up the ass.

By law, a hospital must stabilize a patient with an emergency, regardless of whether he has insurance or not. This means that your taxes are already paying for the uninsured. The only thing that ACA is going to do is to shift the cost of this care from the taxes, to the private sector. There will be some increses in costs, because under the present law, a hospital is not required to give you a heart bypass or chemo treratment, since that is not "stabilization". however, in most cases, the uninsured manage to get this done under Medicaid, or other government programs. If all else fails, they simply write it off, and mark up the cost to your insurance comapny, instead, which simply passes it on to you. So, for the most part, all ACA is doing is "cost shifting", "not cost increasing".

I'm somewhat dubious of that happy theory.

As ACA forces the uninsured (mostly young kids) to buy insurance, it WILL be putting more money (in aggregate) into the overall HC coffers.

Now the question that I think TRULY matters is what will the HC establishment (HC insurance companies included) do with that NEW FOUND money?

Will they use it more effectively or will costs imply rise to absorb that new money?

Based on your employment you seem to have been more on board with ACA than I am.

So what cost containment measures do you feel will keep the system from inflating costs?

I don't see any, but like I say, I know that I am not up to snuff on the details of this law.

I'm hoping you can convince me that I am wrong, incidently, more than I can convince you that I am right.

I would be MUCH MUCH more convinced that ACA could do a better job if, for example, ACA did something to increase SUPPLY of HC.

But I do not see anything like that in ACA, do you?

 

[Harry Dresden]

My health care costs have been basically the same for about three years now.

I spent two and a half days over XMas in the hospital with colitis and racked up $14k in bills ... my cost? $150.

my wife last year spent a week in there .....she had Ulcerative colitis and had about 3-4 inches of the Intestines removed Artie....are you at that point yet?....by the way it only cost me $250.00 for the week and her Surgery.........

Yikes.

No, thankfully I'm not at that point. This was the first time it came up for me. It was pretty damn scary at the time. I had no idea what was going on with me. Needless to say when I showed up at the ER and told them my symtoms I was moved immediately to the front of the line.

After I was released I was told I SHOULD be fine but not to eff around if anything doesn't feel right in the future.

if it keeps happening see a gastrointestinologist...dont leave it to a regular Doctor.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

[

LOL Your assuming I voted for Romney?? Oh and BTW I'm not a Rep. I'm an Indi.

No one wants to admit to being a Republican these days...

Now, if you threw away your vote on a third party non-entity, that's your own business.

I will say that Romney was a better choice that the current fuck in the WH. He would have repealed the ACA. The ACA that is going to be anything but affordable. He also was a damned good businessman who would have gotten this economy up and rolling at other than the slower than molassas pace its at now.

First, businessmen make shitty presidents because for the most part, businessmen are shitty human beings. Our "Businessmen" Presidents. Hoover and Bush-43. Nuff said.

Second, Romney would not have repealled the ACA. He invented it! He'd give a few more wet sloppy kisses to big insurance and big pharma and called it a day. Please don't imagine Romney was a small government conservative or teabagger.

[
The only reason you voted for Barry was because Romney is a Mormon. Not a goot reason in my book. Hell. I think he would have made a better POTUS than the current asshole.

Personally I could care what religion someone is. Hell. He can worship an idol in the corner for all I care. Anyone would have been a better choice that Barry boy.

Mormons are fucking evil. Period. They are a batshit crazy cult started by child molestors.

Pretty much the discussion was over when I found out he was a Mormon.

if you threw away your vote on a third party non-entity

the way i look at it Joe YOU are throwing YOUR vote away by voting for the same old shit....and getting the same old shit for it....

 

[Claudette]

[

LOL Your assuming I voted for Romney?? Oh and BTW I'm not a Rep. I'm an Indi.

No one wants to admit to being a Republican these days...

Now, if you threw away your vote on a third party non-entity, that's your own business.



First, businessmen make shitty presidents because for the most part, businessmen are shitty human beings. Our "Businessmen" Presidents. Hoover and Bush-43. Nuff said.

Second, Romney would not have repealled the ACA. He invented it! He'd give a few more wet sloppy kisses to big insurance and big pharma and called it a day. Please don't imagine Romney was a small government conservative or teabagger.

[
The only reason you voted for Barry was because Romney is a Mormon. Not a goot reason in my book. Hell. I think he would have made a better POTUS than the current asshole.

Personally I could care what religion someone is. Hell. He can worship an idol in the corner for all I care. Anyone would have been a better choice that Barry boy.

Mormons are fucking evil. Period. They are a batshit crazy cult started by child molestors.

Pretty much the discussion was over when I found out he was a Mormon.

if you threw away your vote on a third party non-entity

the way i look at it Joe YOU are throwing YOUR vote away by voting for the same old shit....and getting the same old shit for it....

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[Trajan]

As I said. I'm no fan of the current system but I don't see where the ACA is going to be better.

The CBO says this thing is going to cost up the ass.

By law, a hospital must stabilize a patient with an emergency, regardless of whether he has insurance or not. This means that your taxes are already paying for the uninsured. The only thing that ACA is going to do is to shift the cost of this care from the taxes, to the private sector. There will be some increses in costs, because under the present law, a hospital is not required to give you a heart bypass or chemo treratment, since that is not "stabilization". however, in most cases, the uninsured manage to get this done under Medicaid, or other government programs. If all else fails, they simply write it off, and mark up the cost to your insurance comapny, instead, which simply passes it on to you. So, for the most part, all ACA is doing is "cost shifting", "not cost increasing".

I'm somewhat dubious of that happy theory.

As ACA forces the uninsured (mostly young kids) to buy insurance, it WILL be putting more money (in aggregate) into the overall HC coffers.

Now the question that I think TRULY matters is what will the HC establishment (HC insurance companies included) do with that NEW FOUND money?

Will they use it more effectively or will costs imply rise to absorb that new money?

Based on your employment you seem to have been more on board with ACA than I am.

So what cost containment measures do you feel will keep the system from inflating costs?

I don't see any, but like I say, I know that I am not up to snuff on the details of this law.

I'm hoping you can convince me that I am wrong, incidently, more than I can convince you that I am right.

I would be MUCH MUCH more convinced that ACA could do a better job if, for example, ACA did something to increase SUPPLY of HC.

But I do not see anything like that in ACA, do you?

well, those young folks who don't buy a plan or contribute in any way to the 'health care $$ coffers' and say pay the fine, then go off and get sick at 40, 50 and require care treatment etc. costing much mpore than they and their pool has built via plan $$, what then?


as to this-

I would be MUCH MUCH more convinced that ACA could do a better job if, for example, ACA did something to increase SUPPLY of HC.

well, it will be lowering the present levels of care treatment access to those getting it now in the upper 60-70% range and transferring it to the lower 30-40%% range. ( squeezing the balloon so to speak)

Look, Its terribly simple, the government thinks they can do or found a way to do what no free market private industries/entity, etc. has tried to do since thog sold the first arrowhead to thag;

increase customer base using the same amount of services/good(s), keeping prices flat and delivering the same customer care/satisfaction here to fore delivered( and increasing it for some)- all at once....call it the holy grail, super holy market trinity, whatever....

Aint happening.

 

[RDD_1210]

Please, I have worked with oncologists. My Father died of cancer not 6 years ago. He was uninsured and 64 when his treatments began, and the oncologist wrote off 70% of his charges taking only what medicare payed once medicare finally kicked in. Nobody EVER said, "You don't have coverage? Screw you! Just die!!" --- they wrote off 70% and he never paid a dime from his fixed income/savings...

"They wrote it off". LOL. Tell me what you think happens when they "write it off". They just eat the cost out of the goodness of their heart.....please tell me thats what you think happens. PLEASE.

I know exactly what happens, been involved in the business for 23 years...
(fist thing and most important to him living on a fixed income is that he never paid a cent)
Why don't you tell me what YOU THINK HAPPENS after that...

My wife is a masters level therapist (LPC) who deals with unpaid bills every year, so don't try to liberalize the truth...


go on... share with us...

You didn't actually tell me what you think happens. You asserted that you know what happens, but I'm still doubting you have any clue what "writing it off" entails. But yeah, you stating that your wife has a masters is plenty of proof

 

[RDD_1210]

You can't do chit all day long. I watched the healht care summit and the GOP was shut down at every turn. Anyone who wasn't for preemptive gov't takeover of healthcare was shut down and ignored. You say my statements are false and then use bogus statements and a video that proves my point!

You can't disprove ANY of my claims because they are all TRUE!

Yet your statement that they weren't invited to the discussions was in fact, false. As I've shown. LOL.

Dumbass!! Those weren't discussion on the draft of the ACA. They were "pre"discussions. You know that you have to manipulate the truth in order to have a defense. Obama to dems, behind closed doors to draft the ACA --- prompting even the democrat, Nanci Pelosi, to tell ALL of America that we will like it ONCE WE GET A CHANCE to find out what's in it....

Your lies will not work with me!

When all else fails....move the goal posts! Good for you.

 

[editec]

By law, a hospital must stabilize a patient with an emergency, regardless of whether he has insurance or not. This means that your taxes are already paying for the uninsured. The only thing that ACA is going to do is to shift the cost of this care from the taxes, to the private sector. There will be some increses in costs, because under the present law, a hospital is not required to give you a heart bypass or chemo treratment, since that is not "stabilization". however, in most cases, the uninsured manage to get this done under Medicaid, or other government programs. If all else fails, they simply write it off, and mark up the cost to your insurance comapny, instead, which simply passes it on to you. So, for the most part, all ACA is doing is "cost shifting", "not cost increasing".

I'm somewhat dubious of that happy theory.

As ACA forces the uninsured (mostly young kids) to buy insurance, it WILL be putting more money (in aggregate) into the overall HC coffers.

Now the question that I think TRULY matters is what will the HC establishment (HC insurance companies included) do with that NEW FOUND money?

Will they use it more effectively or will costs imply rise to absorb that new money?

Based on your employment you seem to have been more on board with ACA than I am.

So what cost containment measures do you feel will keep the system from inflating costs?

I don't see any, but like I say, I know that I am not up to snuff on the details of this law.

I'm hoping you can convince me that I am wrong, incidently, more than I can convince you that I am right.

I would be MUCH MUCH more convinced that ACA could do a better job if, for example, ACA did something to increase SUPPLY of HC.

But I do not see anything like that in ACA, do you?

well, those young folks who don't buy a plan or contribute in any way to the 'health care $$ coffers' and say pay the fine, then go off and get sick at 40, 50 and require care treatment etc. costing much mpore than they and their pool has built via plan $$, what then?

Yeah I understand that that's the argument for why ACA was passed, but that has not a thing to do with my point OR my questions.


as to this-

I would be MUCH MUCH more convinced that ACA could do a better job if, for example, ACA did something to increase SUPPLY of HC.

well, it will be lowering the present levels of care treatment access to those getting it now in the upper 60-70% range and transferring it to the lower 30-40%% range. ( squeezing the balloon so to speak)

How will it be "lowering the present levels of care treatment"?

Followup: What the heck does "lowering the present levels of care treatment" actually mean?

Look, Its terribly simple, the government thinks they can do or found a way to do what no free market private industries/entity, etc. has tried to do since thog sold the first arrowhead to thag;

increase customer base using the same amount of services/good(s),

What?! I can definitely see how they're "increase [ing] customer base". Forcing the uninsured to buy insurance certain will do that,

BUT.....

keeping prices flat and delivering the same customer care/satisfaction here to fore delivered( and increasing it for some)- all at once....call it the holy grail, super holy market trinity, whatever....

What MECHANISMS are in place to keep price flat?

Telling me the GOAL is not telling me anything.

HOW are prices kept flat?


I WANT you to be right, ya know?

But right now you have shown me nada to support the claims you've made.

 

[Trajan]

this savings which you claim is going benefit obamacre costs ( you actually said health costs btw) , obamacare did not foresee nor schedule for, its a windfall. Plain and simple
( if in fact it exists) so, in effect, IF this had not occurred, would obamacare be budget neutral? No.

Sure it was, even under the (as it turns out, overly pessimistic) spending growth estimates they used. But it's a moot point now, given how quickly health care cost growth has mitigated.

I get that in the rightwing fantasy world it wasn't (or still isn't?) deficit neutral because health spending was supposed to speed up. In the real world, health spending growth has slowed to historic lows.

I'll continue to deal with my real world, you continue to analyze it through the prism of your made-up world.

serendipity is the real world folks!!!

You are delusional, seriously......, you actually state right above that spending on health care has slowed (and to fit your rubric must stay slow), thats your out ( for now) , meanwhile, an avalanche of boomers rolling into their prime Medicare years, less productivity due to technology and worker replacement etc......jesus, you're really fucking nuts

you haven't dealt in the real world since you came thru the birth canal sonny......its pathological.



increase customer base using the same amount of services/good(s), keeping prices flat and delivering the same customer care/satisfaction here to fore delivered ( and increasing it for some)- all at once....call it the holy grail, super holy market trinity, whatever....


I have watched this 'actualize' my entire lifetime, the government , whom has failed at every endeavor in this context will, fail again. I don't need several massive failures before I learn, then again, I am not into desperate denial either. I am not even sure if the DSM has a category for folks like you. ..

but hey you keep up the party line.

class act dies? hey we stumbled upon 'savings' we had exactly zero to do with, so we don't need that cash, its all good!!!!

 

[Trajan]

I'm somewhat dubious of that happy theory.

As ACA forces the uninsured (mostly young kids) to buy insurance, it WILL be putting more money (in aggregate) into the overall HC coffers.

Now the question that I think TRULY matters is what will the HC establishment (HC insurance companies included) do with that NEW FOUND money?

Will they use it more effectively or will costs imply rise to absorb that new money?

Based on your employment you seem to have been more on board with ACA than I am.

So what cost containment measures do you feel will keep the system from inflating costs?

I don't see any, but like I say, I know that I am not up to snuff on the details of this law.

I'm hoping you can convince me that I am wrong, incidently, more than I can convince you that I am right.

I would be MUCH MUCH more convinced that ACA could do a better job if, for example, ACA did something to increase SUPPLY of HC.

But I do not see anything like that in ACA, do you?

Yeah I understand that that's the argument for why ACA was passed, but that has not a thing to do with my point OR my questions.


as to this-




How will it be "lowering the present levels of care treatment"?

Followup: What the heck does "lowering the present levels of care treatment" actually mean?





What?! I can definitely see how they're "increase [ing] customer base". Forcing the uninsured to buy insurance certain will do that,

BUT.....

keeping prices flat and delivering the same customer care/satisfaction here to fore delivered( and increasing it for some)- all at once....call it the holy grail, super holy market trinity, whatever....

What MECHANISMS are in place to keep price flat?

Telling me the GOAL is not telling me anything.

HOW are prices kept flat?


I WANT you to be right, ya know?

But right now you have shown me nada to support the claims you've made.

editec-

How will it be "lowering the present levels of care treatment"?

Follow-up: What the heck does "lowering the present levels of care treatment" actually mean?

When you offer ‘free’ stuff, more people will avail themselves of the services or goods. Now, I am not saying you feel that way, I think you ( and I ) both know that nothing is free, but to the avg. dope who for instance buys greenbeards rap, they do.

You think the present system is built ( or will be built at gov. direction) for an infusion of 30- 40 million people?

You don’t think that access will be curtailed? Treatments will become scarcer for those who formerly had it, and were satisfied with it, to service those that are now introduced into the system?

editec-

What MECHANISMS are in place to keep price flat?

Telling me the GOAL is not telling me anything.

HOW are prices kept flat?

Wait, I am just relaying in simple terms how they are trying to thread the needle, That’s what obamacare claims it will do, for god sakes that’s now what I think will happen, its what and how obama sold this pig and what they claim.

You can keep your doctor, keep your plan, not pay more and get better access and better services ( thats for the 30-40 million Newbys)…for people like me and that other 74% who are fine with their health care experiences ( and the 44% say that BUT say to, think the system, note the system sux) we, will see our access curtailed, our costs go up…and that before Ipab -The Independent Payment Advisory Board- even gets rolling and begins rationing ( and yes your insurer, private etc. rations too, but, according to the contract you sign)


I am not claming anything other than the gov. will fuck this up even worse, obamacre answers none of the issues we have and hey, we have issues with healthcare, on that I agree 100%.

 

[Vandalshandle]

As I said. I'm no fan of the current system but I don't see where the ACA is going to be better.

The CBO says this thing is going to cost up the ass.

By law, a hospital must stabilize a patient with an emergency, regardless of whether he has insurance or not. This means that your taxes are already paying for the uninsured. The only thing that ACA is going to do is to shift the cost of this care from the taxes, to the private sector. There will be some increses in costs, because under the present law, a hospital is not required to give you a heart bypass or chemo treratment, since that is not "stabilization". however, in most cases, the uninsured manage to get this done under Medicaid, or other government programs. If all else fails, they simply write it off, and mark up the cost to your insurance comapny, instead, which simply passes it on to you. So, for the most part, all ACA is doing is "cost shifting", "not cost increasing".

I'm somewhat dubious of that happy theory.

As ACA forces the uninsured (mostly young kids) to buy insurance, it WILL be putting more money (in aggregate) into the overall HC coffers.

Now the question that I think TRULY matters is what will the HC establishment (HC insurance companies included) do with that NEW FOUND money?

Will they use it more effectively or will costs imply rise to absorb that new money?

Based on your employment you seem to have been more on board with ACA than I am.

So what cost containment measures do you feel will keep the system from inflating costs?

I don't see any, but like I say, I know that I am not up to snuff on the details of this law.

I'm hoping you can convince me that I am wrong, incidently, more than I can convince you that I am right.

I would be MUCH MUCH more convinced that ACA could do a better job if, for example, ACA did something to increase SUPPLY of HC.

But I do not see anything like that in ACA, do you?

ACA is not going to reduce costs. It is going to shift health care payments from taxes to businesses and individuals. Unfortunately, the only effective way to reduce health insurance costs is through a single payer universal health care system, whereby the government contracts provider contracts the same way it does with Medicare. Since that is not going to fly in this country, the second best way is to have universal health care with coverage provided by private companies, as is also done with Medicare. They will add a profit level to the premium. This is what is going to happen someday, which is why I own lots of stock in health insurance companies..Saddaling businesses with employee health care costs is not sustainable, in a world market where no other country ties health insurance to employment. Ford has been paying more for health insurance than they pay for steel since 1978.

 

[Synthaholic]

Of course I know and have known that we all pay for those that can't pay. We pay higher premiums and pay for Medicaide. We pay for all of it.

The ACA isn't going to change that. There is no reform in it as regards to cost.

Oh yeah. And I'm really, really fucking stupid because I don't have any moral push to cover anyones bills.

Gottcha

I'm sure I'll give that factoid all the consideration that its due.

That's it, huh? After all the specifics I gave? That's all?

Okay.

You're not stupid, you're just intellectually paralyzed by your ideology.

.

Nope. I just don't like being forced to pay for others people responsibilities. Doubt ideology has anything to do with it.

If someone showed up at my house asking for a meal. I'd be happy to give him all the food he could eat. Why you ask?? Because its is my choice to do so. It comes down to MY CHOICE. Not some asshole Govt taking that choice away.

Its really just that simple.

Please describe what buying choices you have when you are rushed to the hospital, say, after getting hit by another car?

Do you get to shop around?

Do you get to say "How much will this test cost, and can I get an outside practitioner to do that test instead?"

Do you get to say you won't pay for that $77 box of gauze? That $24 niacin pill that actually costs a nickel?


Please describe what power you have, financially, in that situation.

 

[Vandalshandle]

There is no free market sytem in the world of American health care.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm not interested in assuming someone elses responsibilities."

...and yet, you have no problem with the present health care system whereby 67% of hospitals bills are not collected because people simply can not pay them, so the hospitals are kept afloat by state and federal tax money....

"

Where did I say that??

Who says I have no problem with the present system?? Certainly not me.

This system isn't the greatest but the ACA isn't any better. Neither do anything about the real problem, the cost.

As I said. The ACA is going to be anything but affordable. There is no reform as regards to cost in it and your adding loads of folks onto the system. It will be costly.

So, what would you do to control costs?

 

[Synthaholic]

Oh and how are your HC costs in MA?

My health care costs have been basically the same for about three years now.

I spent two and a half days over XMas in the hospital with colitis and racked up $14k in bills ... my cost? $150.

Yet your $14,000 bill, in real world costs, was most likely closer to $1,500.

That's what that Steven Brill Time Magazine story illuminates.

We have a health care cost problem, not a health care problem.

 

[Trajan]

There is no free market sytem in the world of American health care.

got that right...what, publicly financed HC is already over....45%(?)

 

[Synthaholic]

So asking a question about ACA is championing ACA. Got it.

Sorry I asked. I surely won't ask again.

Please don't, unless you are looking for information. You are woefully under-educated when it comes to the ACA, which I wish you would go back to calling Obamacare, because it's going to end up as a great legacy for the President.

It is the first step toward getting the price-gouging out of medicine. For that alone, it is monumental.

If Congresscritters weren't so beholden to lobbyists we would be farther along. So maybe there should be a renewed push for lobby reform.

 

[Synthaholic]

Thank you for the 47 percent increase in my health care rate

Always with the 47 percent! Don't you people ever learn?

I've been waiting for this post.

This country used to have a top marginal tax rate of 90%

And the very rich did very well during those years. A great example is George Romney. H. Ross Perot. Warren Buffett. T. Boone Pickens. Lee Iaccoca. Elvis Presley.

They all had the means to live a very luxury lifestyle, from cars to houses to travel to banking money. That's the American Dream. Not making $108 million in bonuses for running a failed financial institution that has only taken from the American taxpayer. And continues to take $85 billion per year, with no return.

And I never heard any of them bitch about their tax rates. It would have been seen as ungrateful, and gauche. The rich had manners, and more importantly, perspective.

I'm ignorant? Your beginning to sound pretty damned ignorant yourself.

Of course cancer treatments as well as other can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why do you think I don't want to pay for someone elses HC you idiot. Why should I pay higher premiums so someone can get free HC??

I wonder if someone is paying for your HC. Thats why your so sure that everyone should foot the bill.

So you're ok with other people paying for your treatment but you don't want to pay anyone elses bills. Hypocritical much?

This is where you say..."I never said that". But the fact that you have insurance is proof enough that you're ok with a shared pool system where other people will pay for your treatment when the bills get expensive. That's the way insurance works, people pitching in to pay for others bills when they need it the most.

Don't like paying for others, then you should drop your insurance and show how personally responsible you really are.

Your just being silly now. I have no control over how the insurance system works. Neither do you. Can't change it and neither can you. Nothing hypocritical about it. It is what it is.

I don't agree with you so I'm wrong and your're right. Got it.

I will never agree with you and you won't agree with me. No sweat. I sure as shit don't need your approval for anything.

I live a pretty good life. Have a great job that I'm damned good at.

Don't owe anyone a dime and I do as I please. That personal responsibility you seem to abhorr pays dividends down the road. It sure has for me.

Hope you can say the same.

You are extremely confident that this bolded situation will continue indefinitely. Shit happens, Claudette. You, hubby, son, daughter, could get an illness, then be dropped from your coverage. You could het blindsided in your car and be confined to a wheelchair, while being dropped from your insurance coverage. You could have a few of the common situations that are described in that Time article (HAVE YOU READ IT?) and all of a sudden be looking at an $83,900 hospital bill.

You cannot predict the future, and you cannot negotiate cost, and you can not 'shop'. As it says in the article, the medical industry is the "ultimate seller's market".

 

[Synthaholic]

Get back to us in 2014 when the whole thing kicks in there sparky.

Let us know if your rates go up because they sure as hell won't be going down.

What goes down in price over the years?

Nothing will go down. News will be an "unexpected price hike" will be the reason why it will go up.

Like what oil companies and wall street speculators do?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What goes down in price over the years?

Nothing will go down. News will be an "unexpected price hike" will be the reason why it will go up.

Like what oil companies and wall street speculators do?

like when Bush lift the president offshore drilling ban, and obama m,ade anothe ban?