February 12, 2014
The WA health care exchange - still a success?

Since we can expect little timely - or especially accurate - information from the Washington State Health Care exchange, it seemed like a good time for an update, with a little historical context.

The day before Washington's health exchange went live, Gov. Jay Inslee said "Despite the shenanigans in D.C., we're ready to [launch our health care exchange]."

They weren't.

Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler responded, "Don't put too much on the first couple of days. The system is going to work."

Except when it didn't, Mike.

Despite the problems, Washington's exchange was highlighted as an Obamacare bright spot compared to other state exchanges and the federal exchange. That's a pretty low bar.

Consider that Washington's exchange officials predicted 130,000 would buy policies by the end of 2013. A nice goal.

67,198 did.

Because of glitches leading up to the December 23 deadline to enroll for 2014, the exchange bent the rules and allowed customers who made a first payment by January 15 to receive coverage retroactive to January 1. If all enrollees through mid-January were included for the 2013 goal, the figure would still stand at only about 79,500, or 61% of goal enrollment.

Since the mid-January surge, the latest figures show enrollments have expectedly tapered off, with only 4,692 people signing up during the two-week period of January 24-February 6.

Now officials are turning their attention to the next deadline: On March 31, open enrollment for 2014 closes. Observers will be watching to see if policy purchases surge ahead of the deadline, which is not only the end of open enrollment but also the date individuals must purchase a qualifying health plan that meets IRS approval.

The question now is, will Washington's exchange even hit its 2013 goal by the end of open enrollment on March 31, 2014? It's going to take a lot of sign-ups before the end of next month to hit that mark.

Posted by Adam Faber at February 12, 2014 02:56 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Adam: "Washington's exchange officials predicted 130,000 would buy policies by the end of 2013."

The source you linked to: "Exchange officials hope that at least 130,000 state residents will enroll in health plans through the exchange by the end of this year."

Try to get the distinction between "predict" and "hope". Otherwise you will seem as silly as Karl Rove making election predictions.

(The results do sound disappointing, though I'm not sure what that means we should have done, or should do, differently. And you don't suggest that, preferring to just complain.)

Posted by: Bruce on February 12, 2014 03:48 PM
2. Adam,

Thanks for pointing out the obvious that "Washington's exchange officials predicted 130,000 would buy policies by the end of 2013," but that they now hope that at least 130,000 will enroll by the end of 2014.
While there is a difference between predict and hope in this context it hardly matters because what it proves is that Obamacare is a complete failure.

Any sane commentator can see that we should not try to do idiotic things like the ACA that have no possibility of success; especially where the vital interests of so many people are involved.

That liberals somehow don't get this is quite humorous indeed but no longer surprising.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 12, 2014 04:06 PM
3. Adam's completely right on this. The ACA hasn't helped enough people.

As of Feb 1, it's only helped 3.2 million people find private insurance and another 3.2 million obtain coverage through Medicaid or CHIP. That's only 6.4 million helped so far! Not enough,,,

Sure it's helped other families keep their children insured up through age 26 (I'm lookin' at you, Ragnar!). And all of us benefit from not having to worry about being locked out of the health insurance system by pre-existing conditions, including some fairly minor and easily treatable ones.

But for once, I agree with Adam. We should be doing more.

Any ideas on how to do this?

Posted by: scottd on February 12, 2014 04:47 PM
4. .
Adam Faber you sad hopeless HACK.

In addition to not understanding the difference between "hope" and "predicted", you must believe your readers suffer from the same shortage of reading comprehension skills as you do (well, Amused doesn't prove you wrong, does he?)

The context of the ST article you incorrectly cited is about the launch of the website.

Exchange officials hope that at least 130,000 state residents will enroll in health plans through the exchange by the end of this year and that 280,000 people will enroll in 2014. People who get their insurance through their employers won't have to bother with the exchange.

The number of WA residents who utilize the exchange feature of ObamaCare is important for those who plan, build and run the software and for those who sell insurance, as a self service website is a less expensive way to sell insurance.

As the story of "Bette in Spokane," the woman who was featured in the nationally watched GOP response to the State of the Union
and the person "chronicling" RagnarDanneskold's (ObamaCare beneficiary since at least 2013!ObamaCare beneficiary since at least 2013!) opinions and private information here @(un)SP.com have shown, a WA resident doesn't need to utilize www.wahealthplanfinder.org if you're will to pay much more than you need to pay.

Bottom line, if www.wahealthplanfinder.org only comes in at 1% of what was "hope"d for, what difference does it make to Washingtonians?

To the chagrin of Adam Faber (HACK!), the GOP and the (un)SP peanut gallery, ObamaCare is here to stay ... until Americans realize they can spend less for better health insurance with a single payer program like Medicare.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 12, 2014 04:52 PM
5. @3 scottd on February 12, 2014 04:47 PM,

Yes. Single payer or Medicare for all.

You're right, ObamaCare is not helping enough people, but it is very early in the implementation, there were preventable software problems at the launch and the scary propaganda issued from the likes of Adam Faber (HACK!) all limit the effectiveness at helping more people at this point.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 12, 2014 05:00 PM
6. For once I agree with scottd.
"The ACA hasn't helped enough people."
It hasn't helped anyone and it never will especially because that was not what it was created to do.

Any responsible sane person understands without being told that seizing money from one family to insure another family's children especially up through age 26 is a bad idea doomed to failure.

The best idea on how to solve this problem is to simply watch as bongo continues to lie and manipulate things and idiots like scottd supports him and plays pretend.
Eventually when enough people get tired of the disruption and stupidity this form of creative destruction will lead to a political sea change.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 12, 2014 05:02 PM
7. Any person dishonest and dumb enough to consider stealing from one person to disable another "helping people" deserves to be punked by bongo.

Liberal people are going down hard and soon.

I will still find them amusing though.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 12, 2014 05:08 PM
8. Any responsible sane person understands without being told that seizing money from one family to insure another family's children especially up through age 26 is a bad idea doomed to failure.

You truly have no idea of how that particular provision works, do you?

Liberal people are going down hard and soon.

So you say. You've been saying that for a long time. Now that is amusing. Thanks!

Posted by: scottd on February 12, 2014 05:55 PM
9. At # 4,

Amusing to see there are people dumb and arrogantly dishonest enough to pretend that Americans might ever be able to
spend "less" for "better" health insurance (a literal practical impossibility) with a single payer government program.
But nothing is ever impossible for someone who lives in loopy la la land.

There has never been and never will be any system on earth where such a thing will exist.
There is simply no wonder why everything liberal assholes do fails and hurts people and why they are so arrogantly obtuse about it.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 12, 2014 05:58 PM
10. At #8,

"that You truly have no idea of how that particular provision works, do you?"

As if you do.
Right, show me where I'm supposedly wrong genius.
Fat chance.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 12, 2014 06:10 PM
11. Scottd @ 3:

The estimate is that 6.4 million now have health insurance; of course, there is at least 4.7 million who lost coverage because of Obamacare. The net is quite a very little number, especially for a complete rewrite of health insurance laws by and for the benefit of insurance companies...

Obamacare isn't about "helping people" - it's about guaranteeing income and profits for the health insurance industry. It's yet more crony capitalism, this time shrouded in a "helping people!" mantra and with wanton disregard for anyone who actually had health insurance that they liked.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 12, 2014 06:19 PM
12. Dan: It is estimated that 4.7 million people received notice that their current policies would no longer be available. Some of those people (like Ragnar) moved to other policies offered by their insurer without going through the exchanges, Others purchased policies from other insurers, also bypassing the exchanges. Due to the nature of the individual market, many of those receiving notices were simply between jobs and may have been on their way to employer-sponsored coverage.

Many of the remaining folks signed up for policies on the exchanges for better coverage and/or lower rates.

You simply have no idea how many people "lost" their coverage due to cancellation notices.

Even accepting your notion of 1.8 million net (so far), it's interesting that you don't consider that to be a significant number of people. Plus you ignore those helped by the other provisions I mentioned.

But I accept your notion that we should be working to help more.

Posted by: scottd on February 12, 2014 06:28 PM
13. Right, show me where I'm supposedly wrong genius.

The ACA requires that insurers allow parents the option of paying premiums to maintain coverage of children under 26. That provision doesn't "seize money" from anyone.

Will you admit your mistake?
Fat chance..

Posted by: scottd on February 12, 2014 06:36 PM
14. At # 12,

To the extent that it was estimated that 4.7 million people received notice that their current policies would no longer be available, somewhere around 4.7 million people "lost" their coverage.
Claiming as you do that no one has any idea how many people "lost" their coverage due to cancellation notices simply because they may have obtained other coverage is flat out stupid.

None of the remaining folks signed up for policies on the exchanges for better coverage and/or lower rates because they simply do not exist. All of those plans cost more and offer less coverage.
Why not come up with some better lies?
Even your own news outlets are reporting that your claims are false.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 12, 2014 06:41 PM
15. At # 13,

Predictably, you know nothing about insurance or the provision.

In order for insurance companies to comply with this regulation they are required to increase premiums across the board to insured's who neither need nor use such coverage to pay for it.
That means that in order for me to obtain insurance I must pay more to help you cover your 26 year old child.
It amounts to nothing more than a form of enforced re-distribution of wealth through the mechanism of insurance.

Like mine I had decent parents who became adults at age 18. If you had any decency or class you would require that your child obtain his or her own coverage. Instead like the dumb ass you are you penalize others to shift responsibility for the rearing of your children to others.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 12, 2014 06:49 PM
16. Congratulations, Adam, you've saved (un)SP once again. One more Jim Miller post and I'm sure this place would have slipped back into a coma.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 12, 2014 07:00 PM
17. amused@15: You are confused.

Insurers set premiums based on expected claims for each age class. Requiring them to allow maintenance of coverage for children in the 18 - 25 age range has no effect on premiums for children under 18 or adults over 25. Parents who chose to use this provision are paying for it.

I don't expect you to understand or admit this and I don't care. Feel free to continue using this forum to ignorantly whine about the ACA. It will have no effect, but it amuses me.

Posted by: scottd on February 12, 2014 07:18 PM
18. "Single payer or Medicare for all."

The right answer, and I'm sure Hillary will take care of that*, but given the level of anger that the mere ACA provision for 26 year-olds brings out in Amused, I have concerns his head might explode.

*1075 days and counting until Hillary is in the White House, messing with Rags' and Amused's health care again. Heh. Schadenfreude.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 12, 2014 07:31 PM
19. At # 17,

You don't know what you are talking about.
And you certainly don't understand insurance.

All insurance is based upon spreading the cost of a range of coverages across a sufficient number of insureds to cover the cost.
Before the ACA there were policies offered that covered children well beyond the age of majority but they were prohibitively expensive. I know a family that purchased such coverage.

The ACA by requiring insurance companies to cover your children increases the premiums for ALL HC covered insureds.

I don't expect you to understand or admit this and I don't care. Feel free to continue using this forum to arrogantly and falsely promote the ACA.
Nothing resembling the truth has ever fazed you before so why change now?
The ACA has failed and will continue to fail because of idiots like you who make it up any way you like.

Posted by: Amused by Liberal dumb asses on February 12, 2014 07:35 PM
20. At # 18,

My head explode?
Why?

You are losing not me.
Go back top picking your nose and eating it while insulting your mother - moron.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 12, 2014 07:51 PM
21. It is possible that I have been mistaken here.

Given the pattern of dishonest arrogant nonsense puked up in print on this blog by scottd and others, his obvious complete misunderstanding of the basic nature of insurance is understandable.
Our education system that favors sentimentality over facts and creativity at the direct cost of discipline has certainly done its damage.
I may have forgotten that part of the reason why liberals buy into the ACA is simply because they don't understand economics, insurance, or human nature.

Many liberals have such a short attention span and limited life's experience it is understandable that they would be suckered into something by the likes of bongo and pelosi.
Still, it is amusing that they could function while embracing such idiotic ideas.

The left and the ACA are going down - hard.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 12, 2014 08:11 PM
22. Confused@19 writes, "The ACA by requiring insurance companies to cover your children increases the premiums for ALL HC covered insureds."

Huh? Doesn't the ACA allow insurance companies to charge children an appropriate rate just like they charge anyone else? How does this affect anyone else's premiums?

Posted by: Bruce on February 12, 2014 08:13 PM
23. "The left and the ACA are going down - hard."

Got an estimate - y'know, a date range -- on when that'll happen, genius? Or is it like Social Security or Medicare, failures of which reactionaries have been predicting non-stop for decades now?

Posted by: tensor on February 12, 2014 08:32 PM
24. At # 22,

"Duh? Doesn't the ACA allow insurance companies to charge children an appropriate rate just like they charge anyone else? How does this affect anyone else's premiums?

If they charge children an appropriate rate just like they charge anyone else what would be different about the ACA's requirement allowing coverage of children until they are 26 on their parent's policy?

Honestly you guys need to get off the bong and pay attention.
No wonder you favor the ACA, you have no idea what it does.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 12, 2014 08:42 PM
25. It is all to obvious even to morons like those on the left here at SP that the ACA has failed AND WILL NOT SUCCEED.

For it to succeed 48% of those targeted must be signed up by March 2014 (23 million).

Why do liberals defend the ACA and favor individual features of the ACA unless they believe it was created to succeed?
Yet, since they know that it was created to fail and thus pave the way toward a single payer system how can they expect that anyone would believe them?

Posted by: Amuzed by Liberals on February 12, 2014 08:59 PM
26. Also take note of the paltry payment rate of "enrollees" in Washington State so far, illustrated in the graph on the right:Washington has a payment rate of just 50 percent, with Nevada sitting at 66 percent. Both states are far off pace to hit their 2014 targets, even counting unpaid "enrollments."


Credere, Obbedire, Combattere!


Loud lefty logic. "You're not as brilliant as you think"...

1072 days enjoy the SCHADENFREUDE and laughing every day at Incompetent (be glad I have the discretion to not say DumbAss) in Chief and his rapidly sinking ship of fools.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 12, 2014 09:03 PM
27. For it to succeed 48% of those targeted must be signed up by March 2014 (23 million).

I can't think of anything less important than whether you consider the ACA to be successful.

Posted by: scottd on February 12, 2014 09:12 PM
28. Dear MB Stalker, You are so utterly clueless you can't even figure out what it is you're missing. You should huddle with your fellow devotees of the RagnarDanneskold fan club and try to figure it. In the mean time, I'll keep laughing and appreciate the attention of being your pathetic "Look! there's a squirrel!" distraction attempt. However, even your devotion to me will not distract from the delicious utter failure of both Obama and his 'care'.

Attenzione piccole pecore! Credere, Obbedire, Combattere!


Loud lefty logic. "You're not as brilliant as you think"...

1072 days enjoy the SCHADENFREUDE and laughing every day at Incompetent (be glad I have the discretion to not say DumbAss) in Chief and his rapidly sinking ship of fools.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 12, 2014 09:15 PM
29. We all owe Adam huge thanks for the update.

The reason false and hazy information is provided by the left about the ACA is because they are lying.
The day before Washington's health exchange went live, Gov. Jay Inslee said they were ready but they weren't and his liberal acolytes assured other liberal idiots that the system is going to work.

Then it didn't.

No one was ready to start the ACA but no one is ready to sustain it either because it is functionally idiotic and destructive and as it continues to fail, the left will simply become more and more arrogant and foolish in their denials and obfuscations (see scottd, tensor, bruce and rootie gazootie).

Putting a happy face on a turd is their way to convince their supporters that their dumb-ass dreams are valid.
Even when publicly prominent leftist pretenders make predictions, they are embarrassed at their own stupidity and arrogance. So how will Washington's exchange hit its 2013 goal by the end of open enrollment on March 31, 2014?

It won't.

Very amusing indeed.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 12, 2014 09:22 PM
30. Well, if it isn't (u)SP's most well-known ACA beneficiary, Rags, still throwing around frivolous charges of stalking. We now have to add "women who've been seriously harrassed by creeps" to the very long list of innocent persons whose suffering Rags has now mocked.

All anyone has done is to compare some words Rags wrote here with some other words Rags wrote here. While we can understand how that might be excruciatingly painful for her, it's not illegal. Just funny. Very, very funny.

Posted by: tensor on February 12, 2014 09:33 PM
31. At # 28,

I must say I was glad you had the discretion (in referring to bongo) to not say "DumbAss" Incompetent in Chief.

Even though his governance is marked by racism, arrogance, and low-brow liberal stupidity, we should be sure to accord him the dignity of the office.

Accordingly and in the spirit of comity and respect, I will refrain from referring to him as the ("DumbAss" Incompetent in Chief).

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 12, 2014 09:33 PM
32. At # 30,

This thread is about the failure of the ACA.
Don't you realize that your your silly-ass off topic attacks against someone you don't know
and who is obviously your proven vast intellectual superior, only proves that you are a petty feckless fool?

Probably not.
How amusing.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 12, 2014 09:48 PM
33. With the pathetic results of the ACA on the Fed and state level, especially in Deep Blue Oregon, I guess this is what Obama meant in 2008 with his slogan.

Only Obama had it backwards, like he does everything. You make change and then you hope it works.

Posted by: Leftover on February 12, 2014 09:56 PM
34. "This thread is about the failure of the ACA."

No, as Bruce described in the very first comment, this thread is about Adam hacking some words out of context, misinterpreting them in a most obvious and foolish manner, and still swindling the brain trust here at (u)SP.

"... silly-ass off topic attacks .."

Thank you for agreeing that what Rags did here was wrong.

Posted by: tensor on February 12, 2014 10:02 PM
35. Confused@24 wonders, "If they charge children an appropriate rate just like they charge anyone else what would be different about the ACA's requirement allowing coverage of children until they are 26 on their parent's policy?"

Your syntax is nonsensical -- what is a "requirement allowing"? And you mention the word "different" but then you need to specify 2 things to compare. So I honestly can't be sure what you are asking or believing.

But I think you are asking about the difference between the ACA's requirement that children under 26 can't be dropped from their parents' policies, and the previous state of affairs (under which children could be dropped for any reason). The answer: it means just what it says.

And while apparently you believe that it means raising rates on other people, you have no basis for that, and it's a complete fabrication.

Got it?

Posted by: Bruce on February 12, 2014 10:18 PM
36. What will be very interesting is when the American people discover (as they are doing) that Obamacare is an illusory con artist program aimed at idiots like scottd and
designed to ruin our heath care system and seize power away from Americans to make their own decisions.

Once enough average people (liberals and conservatives) turn and look at idiots like scottd and ask why they are so frigging stupid, things will change.
Granted there will always be idiots like scottd that know little about anything, but it will be more obvious they are idiots and the general tide will turn.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 12, 2014 10:50 PM
37. At # 35,

Yes . . . got it.

You are too friggin' stupid for real life.
Since you (and scottd) are so dumb that you don't understand that insurance is based upon large numbers of people I cannot help you.

This leaves anyone reading your post to recognize that you are a complete idiot.

Thanks for amusing me with your dim-witted inanity.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 12, 2014 10:58 PM
38. Confused@37 attempts to explain previous nonsense with "insurance is based upon large numbers of people".

Please, please edify us on how that has anything to do with your claim that "The ACA by requiring insurance companies to cover your children increases the premiums for ALL HC covered insureds."

To the extent that large numbers are relevant, this ACA provision ought to reduce, not increase, premiums. In fact, the number of insured was already so large (even before ACA) that ACA's benefits have nothing to do with large numbers. They have a lot to do with the composition of the insurance pool, but not the size of it.

I'm sure a smart guy like you understands this, and you just made a typo.

Posted by: Bruce on February 12, 2014 11:20 PM
39. "I'm sure a smart guy like you understands this, and you just made a typo."

Oh, he's more than smart. Amused is self-described "brilliant". And he knows brilliance when he sees it. Just look how he schooled Tensor about Rags, laying it on him that she is "obviously your proven vast intellectual superior".

Unless someone can come up with a better explanation, I'd say we're dealing with people living in an alternate reality and that communication is hopeless. Fun maybe, but hopeless.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 13, 2014 07:56 AM
40. At #'s 38, 39,

It is clear (and unfortunate for all of us) that you guys are doing the best you can.

Thanks for interacting with my comments.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 13, 2014 10:04 AM
41. scottd, tensor, boy scout bs, rootie gazooti (the proud public nose pickin's eater),

I'm curious.

For the ACA to succeed 48% of those targeted must be signed up by March 2014 (23 million); something that is simply NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
If you disagree with that, O.K.

NEVERTHELESS, that notwithstanding, why do you guys so fervently and feverishly defend the ACA and favor individual features of the ACA (like mandatory coverage of pre-existing conditions) unless you believe it was created to succeed and such provisions would prevail?

"Do you not recognize" that the ACA was created to fail and thus pave the way toward a single payer system. And don;t you recognize that under a single payer system you have no choices whatsoever?

Is this LIBERAL?

Or do you hold both mutually conflicting ideas in your little brains at the same time as if that can promote better health care?

So why bother?
If you are that smart, why not quietly watch as the ACA collapses and is transmuted into a single payer system?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 13, 2014 10:26 AM
42. "NEVERTHELESS, that notwithstanding"

You're certainly a brilliant grammarist.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 13, 2014 10:55 AM
43. "And don;t you recognize that under a single payer system you have no choices whatsoever?"

How about a survey of countries with single-payer systems, and the choices of treatments therein? How about you provide some data to support your long-neglected claim of the American health care system being "the best in the world, by any measure"?

But facts are not your friends, and math is hard. Thanks for playing!

Posted by: tensor on February 13, 2014 10:58 AM
44. Amused@41 writes, "For the ACA to succeed 48% of those targeted must be signed up by March 2014 (23 million); something that is simply NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. If you disagree with that, O.K."

Good, because I disagree with that. The world is not black and white. Sure, 100% coverage would be even better, but ACA has already "succeeded" in helping lots of people.

"NEVERTHELESS, that notwithstanding, why do you guys so fervently and feverishly defend the ACA and favor individual features of the ACA (like mandatory coverage of pre-existing conditions) unless you believe it was created to succeed and such provisions would prevail?"

I don't understand this sentence. I defend/favor those provisions because they help people. That, to me, is success.

"don;t you recognize that under a single payer system you have no choices whatsoever?"

Under single-payer you have no choices in who your insurer is, but I don't wake up each morning thanking my lucky stars for my wonderful insurer. Under single-payer you still choose your healthcare providers, with roughly the same restrictions as with private insurance.

Posted by: Bruce on February 13, 2014 11:37 AM
45. Clearly you have been listening to people who know nothing about other HC systems around the world.
Maybe you are one of the hate America crowd who believes we do nothing right and Europe knows better?
What a sick joke.

In Canada alone the difference between the individual cost through taxation of their socialized HC system and a market based system is staggering especially given the low quality of their HC delivery systems. Per capita, Canadians pay considerably more for HC than Americans do.
Of course out-of-pocket they pay very little, but that's if they have anything left with which to line their pockets.
For the difference in a market based system, Canada could have one of the best systems in the world, but instead they have a mediocre one at best.

Moreover, in Canada more people die annually from not being able to obtain timely treatment (especially diagnostics) that would otherwise have saved many lives.
I have relatives and friends who live in Canada and this has been the running joke for many decades now that we see family when they come to America to get basic health care treatment.

The biggest problem in places like Canada, Britain and the Netherlands is the quota systems (death panels) they impose. If you are diagnosed soon enough before you perish that you have a severe illness, you will find that their systems offer no treatments. In America unlike anywhere else, even our own government systems are saved by the free market. All anyone needs to do is look at the way our veterans have been treated for so many years to see what happens when government gets involved in HC. That is why there are so many organizations willing to step up and fill the gap. In Europe, that is strictly illegal.

With Medicare today, if you are a senior with a severe problem, and you cannot pay for supplemental HC coverage, you will find that many charitable organizations will help. My brother (a combat vet) has the severest form of cancer there is (agent orange) and he received a large portion of his treatment and surgeries pro-bono. He lives with his family today because of the free market system. Had he counted on the government in Canada, just as in America under the vets administration or ObamaCare (let alone single payer) he would be dead today.

In other countries around the world pro-bono treatment is strictly illegal (not to say impossible) unless you are an elite like a government leader or the like.
Those people invariably come to America to be treated.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 13, 2014 11:41 AM
46. Clearly you have been listening to people who know nothing about other HC systems around the world.
Maybe you are one of the hate America crowd who believes we do nothing right and Europe knows better?
What a sick joke.

In Canada alone the difference between the individual cost through taxation of their socialized HC system and a market based system is staggering especially given the low quality of their HC delivery systems. Per capita, Canadians pay considerably more for HC than Americans do.
Of course out-of-pocket they pay very little, but that's if they have anything left with which to line their pockets.
For the difference in a market based system, Canada could have one of the best systems in the world, but instead they have a mediocre one at best.

Moreover, in Canada more people die annually from not being able to obtain timely treatment (especially diagnostics) that would otherwise have saved many lives.
I have relatives and friends who live in Canada and this has been the running joke for many decades now that we see family when they come to America to get basic health care treatment.

The biggest problem in places like Canada, Britain and the Netherlands is the quota systems (death panels) they impose. If you are diagnosed soon enough before you perish that you have a severe illness, you will find that their systems offer no treatments. In America unlike anywhere else, even our own government systems are saved by the free market. All anyone needs to do is look at the way our veterans have been treated for so many years to see what happens when government gets involved in HC. That is why there are so many organizations willing to step up and fill the gap. In Europe, that is strictly illegal.

With Medicare today, if you are a senior with a severe problem, and you cannot pay for supplemental HC coverage, you will find that many charitable organizations will help. My brother (a combat vet) has the severest form of cancer there is (agent orange) and he received a large portion of his treatment and surgeries pro-bono. He lives with his family today because of the free market system. Had he counted on the government in Canada, just as in America under the vets administration or ObamaCare (let alone single payer) he would be dead today.

In other countries around the world pro-bono treatment is strictly illegal (not to say impossible) unless you are an elite like a government leader or the like.
Those people invariably come to America to be treated.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 13, 2014 11:48 AM
47. Tensor,

The real question here is since you blindly and unequivocally believe a single payer system is a good idea,
why do you promote the ACA and pretend that it is designed to succeed even despite the overwhelming evidence
that it is both designed to fail and doomed to fail?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 13, 2014 11:59 AM
48. Loud lefty logic. "You're not as brilliant as you think"...

Dear Loud Lefty's, When the LIES of the incompetent in chief implode in a loud lefty's head, do they make a noise?

Politico on Obamacare: Maybe It's Not a Train Wreck, Just a Really, Really Slow Train That Sometimes Stops

= ♥ => When the LIES of the incompetent in chief implode in a loud lefty's head, do they make a noise?

The stench of failure continues to hang over Obama's craptastic health care law.

= ♥ => When the LIES of the incompetent in chief implode in a loud lefty's head, do they make a noise?

ObamaCare enrollment not exactly roaring toward that cutoff date
Even the Administration's phony numbers say they're less than halfway to their goal, and the real total might be half that high.

= ♥ => When the LIES of the incompetent in chief implode in a loud lefty's head, do they make a noise?

Thirty Five times.

= ♥ => When the LIES of the incompetent in chief implode in a loud lefty's head, do they make a noise?

Humana's bailout request and the shape of things to come
Humana has announced that it expects to tap into the three "risk adjustment" mechanisms provided for in Obamacare to protect insurance companies in the event of unexpectedly low enrollment and/or a risk pool skewed towards older and less healthy enrollees. Humana says it will seek between $250 and $450 million in 2014. According to Scott Gottlieb, this amounts to about 25 percent of the insurer's expected exchange revenue.

= ♥ => When the LIES of the incompetent in chief implode in a loud lefty's head, do they make a noise?

CBS: Insurers less optimistic than WH on ObamaCare "enrollment" numbers

= ♥ => When the LIES of the incompetent in chief implode in a loud lefty's head, do they make a noise?

WSJ: Poorer counties facing especially high premiums, few choices, little competition through ObamaCare

= ♥ => When the LIES of the incompetent in chief implode in a loud lefty's head, do they make a noise?

Obamacare Enrollment Rate Slows Markedly In January

= ♥ => When the LIES of the incompetent in chief implode in a loud lefty's head, do they make a noise?

HHS Still Won't Say How Many People Have Paid Their Obamacare Premiums

= ♥ => When the LIES of the incompetent in chief implode in a loud lefty's head, do they make a noise?

How are ObamaCare enrollments coming along? The correct answer is: nobody knows.

By this I mean no one who knows the answer with better than 75 percent accuracy is willing to say so in public. This week the Administration updated its official count to 3.3 million enrollments. This number is absolutely false, and everyone knows it. Industry experts believe more than 20 percent of the enrollments counted by Obama's Department of Health and Human Services are invalid enrollments, because the mandatory first payment was not completed. In some states, the ratio is closer to fifty percent invalid.

Say, wasn't President Obama bragging about 9 million enrollees during his State of the Union address? Why, yes, as a matter of fact he was. He got to that number by lumping in Medicaid enrollments. Medicaid is a welfare program; it has nothing to do with the business of selling health insurance policies. And even then, Obama's number was deliberately inflated by about 80 percent, because he was counting people who were enrolled in Medicaid anyway, whether ObamaCare existed or not.

In other words, he lied. Baldly, brazenly, knowingly, as surely as if you went to the bank and demanded a loan based solely on your income, without mentioning any of your expenses.

= ♥ => When the LIES of the incompetent in chief implode in a loud lefty's head, do they make a noise?

Mass Obamacare Exchange Signups At Only 5% Of Target

= ♥ => When the LIES of the incompetent in chief implode in a loud lefty's head, do they make a noise?

Before Obamacare: what about those pre-existing conditions?

If you look at the chart about two-thirds down this page, you'll see that 35 states ran high-risk pools prior to Obamacare, and most of them had been in operation for many many years (for example, Kansas had started its high-risk pool in 1993).

= ♥ => When the LIES of the incompetent in chief implode in a loud lefty's head, do they make a noise?

A hard look at Obamacare's January enrollment numbers
The Department of Health and Human Services has released Obamacare's January enrollment numbers and, on the surface, they look to be barely adequate.

= ♥ => When the LIES of the incompetent in chief implode in a loud lefty's head, do they make a noise?

Despite Claiming He Was Left In The Dark, Documents Show Obama Met With Sebelius 18 Times Before Disastrous Obamacare Rollout

= ♥ => When the LIES of the incompetent in chief implode in a loud lefty's head, do they make a noise?

Too Funny: Obamacare Website Will Be Down On National Youth Enrollment Day

FLASHBACK: Obama Says "He Intends To Reverse" George W. Bush's Use of Executive Orders To "Bring More And More Power Into The Executive Branch"

Again, what future Democrat is going to propose a huge government solution to any of our problems? That is the legacy of Obama Care.

Libs couldn't be any more miserable if they tried.

"Living" liberalsm


Attenzione piccole pecore! Credere, Obbedire, Combattere!


1071 days* enjoy the SCHADENFREUDE and laughing every day at Incompetent (be glad I have the discretion to not say DumbAss) in Chief and his rapidly sinking ship of fools.

*I'd use hours, minutes and seconds, but then, of course, I'd be accused of lying as soon as the clocked ticked away.

PSST! KISSES to the RagnarDanneskold fan club!

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on February 13, 2014 12:44 PM
49. Scottd @ 3 - Ocare kicks off 7 million from insurance....only 3 mill sign up. Bad. Medicaid signs up millions every month anyways. WA has had tremendous enrollment in Medicaid, but did they have insurance already? Did they not and they could have already? How many "previous conditions" folks are we helping? 26 on parents insurance....please. Losers!!!! get them off. 23 is still in college. After that...live your own life.

Please ask questions on these items. Ocare was never needed and isn't helping America. Only making it worse. King O or Dictator O....not sure which it is today depending on how he acts, is as good as Louis XVI

Posted by: Dengle on February 13, 2014 12:47 PM
50. At # 3,

Scottd claims the ACA has "helped . . . families keep their children insured up through age 26" and actually appears to believe it even though our government refuses to provide any information about how many people are receiving treatment under the ACA. Then he claims that it only costs parents increased premiums - as if that premise was even economically/actuarially possible.

Then this idiot claims that "all of us benefit from not having to worry about being locked out of the health insurance system by pre-existing conditions, including some fairly minor and easily treatable ones," when the exact opposite is demonstrably undeniably and inevitably true unless the ACA and the left are defeated and shoved aside.

When the ACA has thoroughly collapsed and people are screaming bloody murder because they cannot get treatment (unless they are very rich), the call from the left will be for single payer - a plan where pre-existing conditions will be ignored on favor of cost savings and executive fiat. This is true in Canada, and Europe but liberals are too dim-witted to actually do any research to find it out.

Many of those who recognize how completely clueless people like scottd and his leaders bongo and pelosi) will re-instate a market based system with incentives to make people pay for their own health care as they should. Let public nose pickin's eaters like rootie gazootie go to work and pay for his own health care (or not get any) and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 13, 2014 02:02 PM
51. A funny thing I saw today was someone talking about how we need to get government to break the bond between health insurance and employment. What makes that funny is that it was the government that brought that to us in the first place with their post WWII regulations. Wahhahahaha!

Posted by: dengle on February 13, 2014 02:49 PM
52. "Per capita, Canadians pay considerably more for HC than Americans do."

Sources. Data. Math. It's all just too hard for you, isn't it? Poor dear!

(Big mean liberals, always wanting facts. Why can't Rags' 72 links per comment be enough for us, already?)

"... overwhelming evidence..."

Those words do not mean what you think they mean.

Posted by: tensor on February 13, 2014 02:53 PM
53. Dengle@51, good point. But are you surprised that what was sensible policy 60 years ago might not be the optimal policy in 2014?

Posted by: Bruce on February 13, 2014 02:56 PM
54. At # 52,

So predictably tedious inane and pathetic.

You have no arguments; only demands that I prove everything to you. Why would anyone ever bother?

Rags' 72 links per comment proves the point.
It doesn't matter what proof anyone provides; you are locked into an emotional position of religious faith and simply cannot see it or beyond it.
Watching people like you deliberately soil yourselves and then act proud of it is amusing.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 13, 2014 03:21 PM
55. When the ACA has thoroughly collapsed and people are screaming bloody murder because they cannot get treatment...

When's that going to happen?

I don't need a precise date, but a man of your obvious intellect who's clearly given this a great deal of thought should be able to give an approximate timeframe.

Is it going to happen some time in the next year? Five years? When the a Republican finally gets elected to governor in Washington?

Let us know...

Posted by: scottd on February 13, 2014 03:35 PM
56. At # 55,

Better yet, why not let us all why you blindly and unequivocally believe a single payer system is a good idea,
yet you promote the ACA and its supposed features and pretend that it is designed to succeed even despite the overwhelming evidence
that it is at once designed to fail, doomed to fail and utterly failing every day?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 13, 2014 03:48 PM
57. "You have no arguments; only demands that I prove everything to you."

You make the claim, you support it with hard data. Otherwise, you can keep on puffing and pontificating, and we'll continue laughing at your failed claims. Your choice.

"Rags' 72 links per comment proves the point."

Yes, it does. None of those links have in any way stopped her from becoming an ObamaCare beneficiary. (See how that works?)

"Watching people like you deliberately soil yourselves and then act proud of it is amusing."

Does it look anything like this?

"Eventually when enough people get tired of the disruption and stupidity this form of creative destruction will lead to a political sea change."

"Liberal people are going down hard and soon."

"The ACA has failed and will continue to fail ..."

"When the ACA has thoroughly collapsed..."

Posted by: tensor on February 13, 2014 03:52 PM
58. Better yet, why not let us all why you blindly and unequivocally believe a single payer system is a good idea,

Did I say that? Where?

Posted by: scottd on February 13, 2014 03:58 PM
59. @57 tensor on February 13, 2014 03:52 PM,

Asking Amused for hard data is unfair. He's not a "STALKER" of hard data.

For example, @45 Amused by Liberals on February 13, 2014 11:41 AM says:

"Per capita, Canadians pay considerably more for HC than Americans do."

Being a "STALKER" I found that both the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)and the World Health Organization (WHO) find that the USofA is #1!

#1 in Health Care Expenditure per capita
and #1 or #2 in Health Expenditure as a percent of GDP.

Canada? Not in the top 5.

But, hey, crazy pontificating know-nothings don't need your stinking hard data. They can just make shit up.


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 13, 2014 04:56 PM
60. At # 59,

"Did I say that? Where?"

Fine, scottd truly believes the ACA will succeed and it wasn't designed to facilitate a single payer system.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but . . . how cleverly daft and amusing of you.

I forgot that in "liberal imaginary land" you can have your cake and eat it too.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 13, 2014 04:59 PM
61. @60 Amused by Liberals on February 13, 2014 04:59 PM,

pssst.

If you can't show evidence that the ACA was "designed to facilitate a single payer system" it is you who is truly believing, not scottd.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 13, 2014 05:10 PM
62. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt

No, you were just making stuff up. Seems to be a habit for you...

Posted by: scottd on February 13, 2014 05:10 PM
63.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 13, 2014 06:41 PM
64. At # 59,


"STALKER" of hard data . . .what a joke.
You mean sleazy-lazy slinker.
Wiki . . . where is the hard data?

Wiki is NOT hard data.
The amusing part of this is that you believe this partisan crap.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 13, 2014 06:43 PM
65. @64 Amused by Liberals because the stoopid are amused by so much the rest of us can easily understand on February 13, 2014 06:43 PM,

Scrolling is hard, no?
Notes and references
OECD Health Division (November 21, 2013). "OECD Health Data 2013 - Frequently Requested Data". Paris: OECD.
WHO Department of Health Statistics and Informatics (May 15, 2013). "World Health Statistics 2013". Geneva: WHO.


What a maroon!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 13, 2014 07:04 PM
66. "Amused by Liberals because the stoopid are amused by so much the rest of us can easily understand"
Amazing and idiotic as usual.

It is convenient for you to accept so easily the crappola produced by your own sources.
This is a large part of the reason why so many of you are easily convinced of idiotic ideas and plans like the ACA and why you never question any part of it.

Still, if you believe that the ACA is a good thing, why would you ever believe "single payer" might be a good idea?
Are you truly so "stoopid" that you fail to see the inherent conflict?
NO need for an answer (ITS OBVIOUS).

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 13, 2014 07:43 PM
67. @66 Amused by Liberals because the stoopid are amused by so much the rest of us can easily understand on February 13, 2014 07:43 PM

"It is convenient for you to accept so easily the crappola produced by your own sources."

Yes, you're right.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are MINE all MINE!

Where as your bald-ass claim @45 of ""Per capita, Canadians pay considerably more for HC than Americans do."" is the non partisan sort of statement we all can trust.

got it. you keep f*king that chicken.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 13, 2014 07:53 PM
68. "If you had any decency or class you would require that your child obtain his or her own coverage. Instead like the dumb ass you are you penalize others to shift responsibility for the rearing of your children to others."

Oh, snap! Rags, that had to hurt! I almost feel sorry for Amused, knowing how you respond to far lesser criticisms. I have little doubt your response to him will make your other comments here look short and pleasant by comparison.

Posted by: tensor on February 14, 2014 07:58 AM
69. MikeBS @ 65:

Check the worldbank, after it adjusts for exchange rates. There are three other nations with total health care expenses higher than the US.

And when you look at direct out-of-pocket expenses, the US comes in a lot lower than just about every other country.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 14, 2014 08:04 AM
70. Dan:

I knew I could count on you if there was data to be unskewed!

So, three databases: OECD, WHO, and World Bank...

All three show pretty much the same per capita healthcare expenditures for the US. They also show more or less the same for Canada, Germany, and France. However, WorldBank has a big discrepancy for Norway, Switzerland, and Luxemborg -- which you have cleverly cherry-picked.

2010,2011 Data: OECD[2011], WHO[2010], World Bank

US 8598, 8233, 8608
Canada 4522, 4443, 5630
Germany 4495, 4342, 4875
France 4118, 3997, 4952
Australia 3800, 3685, 5939
Norway 5609, 5391, 8987
Switzerland 5643, 5297, 9121
Luxemborg 4246, 6712, 8798

It's obvious that the definition of "healthcare expenditure" varies between the databases. What do you think those differences are?

Posted by: scottd on February 14, 2014 09:31 AM
71. Scottd,

The ACA has very few similarities to the Canadian, British, or other European systems.

Since you are convinced that health care systems around the world are better than ours and that the ACA will succeed,
why would you opt for the ACA and not a single payer system more like the European systems?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 14, 2014 11:27 AM
72. Since you are convinced that health care systems around the world are better than ours

Did I say that? Where?

This making stuff up is getting to be a habit with you...

Posted by: scottd on February 14, 2014 11:30 AM
73. Yes moron, you said that.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on February 14, 2014 12:05 PM
74. And when you look at direct out-of-pocket expenses, the US comes in a lot lower than just about every other country.

No, that link is to a table of the percentage of health-care expenses that are out of pocket for a household. Raising the price of insurance whilst keeping benefits the same would drive this percentage down -- not exactly a big source of bragging rights.

For a household of N members, the total expenditure on healthcare is the per-capita figure times N. the out-of-pocket expense, divided by this total, gives the percentages in the table. The enormous cost of health insurance in the US is one driver of this lower percentage. Again, nothing really to brag about here.

But hey, at least that is some data...

Yes moron, you said that.[citation needed]

Posted by: tensor on February 14, 2014 12:21 PM
75. This is priceless liberal reason on parade.

Tensor, "reasons" that RAISING the price of insurance will drive out of pocket health-care expenses DOWN.

And . . . what . . . let the tooth fairy make up the difference?

So, if you want to pay nothing for health care, you just continue to raise the price of health care?

Sounds about right for a liberal.
Maybe you can publish that Keynesian pearl at wiki so your buddies can opine brainlessly and cite your bullshit to prove it.
How amusing indeed.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on February 14, 2014 12:56 PM
76. "citation needed"

Zero chance of that as Scott wrote no such thing. Amused was just making shit up again.

I see Jim Miller is trying to kill this blog again. As always, I wish him luck. I did find it interesting to see him try to identify himself and the GOP with a big, bad-ass black man with an arrest record and who in all probability has a bag of Skittles or two in his hoody pouch.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on February 14, 2014 12:57 PM
77. Yes moron, you said that.

Really, genius? Where?

Posted by: scottd on February 14, 2014 01:04 PM
78. tensor: You're talking waaaaay over his head.

Posted by: scottd on February 14, 2014 01:09 PM
79. Tensor, "reasons" that RAISING the price of insurance will drive out of pocket health-care expenses DOWN.

Math remains hard, I see.

You've let Dan bamboozle you with his inaccurate claim, "...when you look at direct out-of-pocket expenses...". The data he cited doesn't refer to the actual, per-household cost in dollars or euros or whatever, but to that cost as a percentage of all healthcare expenses. Therefore, paying more for insurance whilst paying the same out-of-pocket costs would indeed drive that percentage down.

Given that Dan also (correctly) destroyed your claim about Canadian health-care costs, you might want to direct your ire at him.

Posted by: tensor on February 14, 2014 02:24 PM
80. Amused@71 wonders, "why would you opt for the ACA and not a single payer system more like the European systems?"

Because a single-payer system is not a viable option given current American politics, and ACA is. Why would you opt for a cut in government programs when you would like to see huge cuts?

Posted by: Bruce on February 14, 2014 03:43 PM