Part of the Bay Area News Group

Obama to speak in San Jose on ‘Obamacare’

By Josh Richman
Tuesday, June 4th, 2013 at 11:16 am in Uncategorized.

President Obama’s visit to Silicon Valley this week will include some policy as well as some politics.

Though the visit initially was known to include only two fundraisers Thursday in Palo Alto and Portola Valley to benefit the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, it turns out that President Obama will deliver a statement in San Jose on Friday morning about the benefits of the Affordable Care Act for working Californians and all Americans, a White House official said today.

He’s expected to highlight the news that, despite dire predictions, early data on insurance competition and premiums in the Golden State shows “Obamacare” will produce affordable choices for Californians who plan to buy insurance this fall.

California has the nation’s biggest insurance market, and nearly 6 million uninsured, and so is a critical part of the effort to sign up Americans for insurance.

Details of when and where Obama will deliver this address have not been released yet.

UPDATE @ 3:02 P.M.: Read my more detailed story here.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Elwood

    “He’s expected to highlight the news that, despite dire predictions, early data on insurance competition and premiums in the Golden State shows “Obamacare” will produce affordable choices for Californians who plan to buy insurance this fall.”

    And pigs will fly about the teleprompters.

  • GV Haste

    I will do better on Obamacare.

    Most importantly, I could, if I wanted, actually move outside a area that Kaiser covers and still get insurance.
    Before this, I couldn’t even move to where some family live in Hawaii, because even Kaiser in Hawaii required “medical review” to transfer to a different region. God help anyone past age 50 who doesn’t have something they’d call a prexisting condition.

    Many Americans have been like prisoners of one region, or one insurance, or stuck in a job, just to keep medical coverage from being denied if they moved anywhere.

    Reminded me of the old Soviet Union where you had to get permission to move, or change jobs.

    I will indeed save money and have more options.
    BTW, of all the states, California seems to have its act together more than most others in implementing the system.

  • JohnW

    GV’s situation is just one example of how the individual insurance market is totally messed up and needed reform.

    People who haven’t had to get their insurance through the individual health insurance market just don’t understand the problem. They just mutter about “free markets” and “consumer-driven health care.” What a laugh that is when it comes to the non-group or small employer insurance markets.

    ObamaCare is nothing like what I would have proposed, but it beats the GOP’s false claims that nobody goes without health care or their snake oil that all you have to do to cure the health care system is take some tort reform, sell insurance across state lines and call the doctor in the morning. 60 million people do not have access to insurance coverage through an employer or program such as Medicare and depend on the individual health insurance market; and only about 15 million of those actually have the coverage because they can’t get it at any price, because the cost is too high, or because the coverage provided for the price is worthless.

    Kaiser is great, but not if you have to move out of their footprint.

  • JAFO

    @3 Your third paragraph may be the two longest, back-to-back, run-on sentences I’ve read in quite awhile. I twice tried reading them aloud, taking only two breaths, and nearly fainted both times. Your single semi-colon in the second sentence helped, but not nearly enough. Had you run either sentence though a grammar checker, I suspect the feedback would have been, “Long sentence. No recommendation.” I can safely make that claim since I’ve often been the recipient of such unsolicited advice. As I recall, you’re also not supposed to begin a sentence with a numeral; e.g., “60 million people…” Don’t you just hate nitpickers?

  • JohnW

    Well-meaning advice on punctuation, sentence structure and run-a-thon text always appreciated; but I take great umbrage at the suggestion that the aforementioned sentences were too long and, because of that, difficult to comprehend, or that I should consult a grammar checker or that my lone semicolon (which, by the way is a non-hyphenated word) was insufficient; but I am, in any event, hopeful that you were able to harvest the substance of my remarks through the complexity of my verbiage, and I do hope that you have a nice day.

    Your point is well-taken.

  • JAFO

    @5 Touché!

  • MichaelB

    @3

    Do you understand the “problem” of businesses being given incentives not to hire or reduce the hours of their workers (when millions are out of work) because of Obamacare penalties/coverage mandates?

    How do you like the idea of the IRS enforcing this after we’re hearing how they went after organizations that politically disagreed with the current administration?

    Anyone who thinks “costs will be reduced” and “choices expanded” because of the government running the health care system isn’t thinking. Obamacare was so “good” that thousands of “waivers” were granted to supporters of Obama and the Democratic party. Democrats in the Senate (who voted for the measure) now want to roll back the tax on medical device providers. Premiums are increasing, not going down. Some physicians won’t see Medicare patients because the government short pays them on the cost of providing care.

    Health care needs to be reformed but Democrats (muttering about “free” health care being a “right” and wanting the so called “rich” to pay for it) rammed it through without bipartisan discussion/support with Pelosi saying “we need to pass the bill to see what’s in it”.

  • JohnW

    @7

    Yes, I do understand the perverse incentive problem you mentioned. Every major new law in history has had kinks and needed tweaking almost as soon as it was enacted. This is one part of the law that needs tweaking. But I think most businesses want to offer coverage to their employees and are not looking for ways to avoid doing so.

    IRS enforcing the law with respect to the individual mandate and means-testing is appropriate. They already do this for means-testing Medicare Part B premiums and for determining what portion of an individual’s Social Security is taxable. We don’t shut down the IRS or any other government agency just because they screw up on something.

    Your skepticism about cost reduction and expanded choices is pure speculation. Let’s see how it works out and go on facts. There are many claims being made about premiums. Many of those claims are based on apples and oranges comparisons, but I won’t bug you with specifics here. Let’s just see how it works out here in CA with the exchanges.

    Those who obtain coverage through the exchanges are not affected by the issue of low reimbursement rates for Medicare. These are private insurers who will negotiate with providers just as they do now. However, I concede it could be an issue for low income people who will get ObamaCare coverage through expanded Medicaid.

    The proposed roll-back of the tax on medical device providers is the result of pressure by powerful lobbyists. For those who know something about the medical device industry, the tax has merit.

    Democrats didn’t cram down anything. It was passed by majority vote. It wasn’t bipartisan only because the Republicans decided that they would stonewall any legislation dealing with health care reform. I watched dozens of hours of open committee hearings on CSPAN, during which both Democrats and Republicans actively debated both the big picture and the details of the legislation as it was being developed. Republicans never put a concrete proposal on the table. Some individual Republicans did, but they got smacked down by their fellow Republicans.

    Back to the IRS, it should be noted that not one conservative organization was denied 501c4 status. The only denied status involved a liberal organization that had its status revoked after it was determined that its service of training people to run for political office was serving only prospective Democratic candidates. The truth is that none of these political activist groups, liberal or conservative, should be getting tax-exempt status. I don’t see anything wrong with using a name like “Tea Party” as a flag that an organization might just possibly be involved in political activity. But I agree that much of the questioning was too invasive and irrelevant.

  • Elwood

    “I watched dozens of hours of open committee hearings on CSPAN”

    Good God, what a masochist!

    And you must have guzzled a lot of that special Obama dimmiecrat KoolAid while you watched.

    You sound like the home team baseball announcer I just listened to on the radio. An error was “almost a great catch”.

    Reading your apologia for all things Obama and dimmiecrat is mind numbing, John.

  • Elwood

    If you like the DMV, you’ll love government health care.

  • Elwood
  • http://bit.ly/Swalwell2014 DanvilleDemocrat

    Elwood, if you make an online appointment for your local DMV, you typically spend less than 15 minutes there (assuming a run-of-the-mill license renewal, vehicle registration, etc. Tests may take longer.).

    So, yeah, betting most Californians — and Americans — will LOVE Covered California aka Obamacare’s insurance exchange.

  • Publius

    #7

    “Democrats didn’t cram down anything”

    You are wrong. Here is the way it was supposed to work.

    House passes bill, Senate passes bill. They are not the same bill. They get merged into one bill by a committee and then go back to each house for a vote. Once both houses pass the bill then it goes to the president.

    The Obamacare Cram down method goes like this. Senate passes bill and the house passes a bill. They are two different bills. Mean while the ultra liberal residents of Mass. elect a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy, the Dems lose the super majority, essentially losing the ability to pass the bill with a 60 vote majority. The house is now forced to pass the Senate bill as it is written, but cannot muster the votes to do so. The bill should be dead. Not so fast says Nancy. She uses a budgetary trick known as the “Slaughter rule” or reconciliation to add a bunch of amendments to avoid a house vote on the bill, and the house then “deems” the original Senate bill passed. This nifty parliamentary trick also negated the bill having to go back to the Senate for a 60 vote approval, a simple majority would suffice to pass the amendments. In the end you have a House bill that the Senate didn’t vote on and a Senate bill that the House didn’t vote on. Hence is the reason while many of us feel that this thing was crammed down our throat.

    “Democrats didn’t cram down anything. It was passed by majority vote.”

    Our system of government was not set up to be a majority rule pure democracy. Historically bills of this magnitude require a 2/3rds majority vote in the Senate. The way it was passed will be it’s downfall. Over 50% of Americans still oppose the law.

  • JohnW

    #13

    Publius, your summary of what transpired is completely accurate. My point was that Republicans were fully involved in the committee markup process over a period of months. So, which was the cram down — Dems using reconciliation and passing the bill with 59 votes or the GOP trying to use a non-filibuster filibuster to kill anything dealing with heath care? In my opinion, if the GOP had actually engaged and negotiated, we could have had a better and more popular bill.

    You may recall the 3 a.m. GOP House passage of the Prescription Drug bill by holding the roll call vote open for hours, while GOP leaders and White House representatives roamed the House floor twisting arms, making political threats and bribes etc. Standard operating procedure? And why was this so important? So that Bush could nail down the Florida vote for his 2004 re-election. Mission accomplished!

  • JohnW

    #9

    Elwood, I confess to being a CSPAN junkie for years. A bit less these days. I’ve been an amateur health care policy nerd for decades, so I followed this stuff pretty closely. But I watch all kinds of CSPAN programs, and not just liberal propaganda. That’s what MSNBC is for. My first assignment when I joined the cable industry in 1978 was to organize the CSPAN launch plan for our company’s cable systems. I knew both the founder, Brian Lamb and one of the current co-CEO’s, Rob Kennedy, very well. I only WISH I knew the other co-CEO, the blue-eyed Susan Swain.

    As for being an Obama apologist, that’s only when I’m among so many online Obama bashers. When I’m among open-minded moderates, I can dish up plenty of criticisms of Obama and the administration. If all you want is stuff that agrees with you, I hate to disappoint.

  • JohnW

    #4 Ditto what DanvilleDemocrat said. As a new resident, I spent about 15 minutes at DMV to register my vehicle. Since then, I’ve spent about 5 minutes online each time I renewed my registration or drivers license.

    I always laugh when people rhetorically ask, “Do you want the same people who run the DMV or post office running your health care, or whatever?”

    Know anybody else who can deliver the mail across country in two days for 46 cents? Of course, Congress keeps screwing things up by making them keep unprofitable post offices open or not letting them discontinue Saturday delivery.

  • MichaelB

    @8

    Just needs “tweaking”? By whom? This legislation was written by people ignorant of how businesses operate who think they can “afford” or “should” give “free” coverage to employees because they make a profit on something. And should therefore be forced to “share” it by the government for the so called “collective good”.

    It fits in perfectly with complaints from the left wing about an “unfair distribution of income” in this nation and their silly attempts to “fix” it by “spreading the wealth around”. That’s the “kink” and it’s not going to be addressed by Democrats because they believe in it. It sounds like you do too.

    The IRS did not “screw up”. They engaged in politically motivated behavior to intimidate opponents of the administration. How many progressive organizations were targeted for increased scrutiny? The tax code should be reduced/reformed – taxpayers spend hours and millions of dollars a year for compliance activities.

    It’s not “speculation” that the supporters of this bill cooked the books (benefits/revenues up front, costs later on in “out years”) to make the false claim it would “reduce” the deficit. It’s been covered extensively in the news. Why were “waivers” issued at all? Since when has a federal entitlement program come in on or under budgeted costs? Or should we just spend whatever it takes because it’s “fair”? We have already seen how it “works” – Medicare projections made for future years when the program was organized vs. what they really are now.

    People working in the medical devices industry have lost their jobs because of the increased taxes. Sounds like a good idea with millions already out of a job/have given up looking? No, it isn’t.

  • Publius

    #14

    Your go to argument is to say that because Bush did it, it is OK. Digging up someone’s bad actions to justify yours didn’t work with my parents, it doesn’t work with kids and shouldn’t work for our politicians.

    “if the GOP had actually engaged and negotiated, we could have had a better and more popular bill.”

    Remember the quote “elections have consequences”? What about the scene in that little bi-partisan sit down when Barrak squashed Paul Ryan. How about the stimulus package? You are buying into the argument that the Republicans are the only ones unwilling to work together, and you are wrong. I am surprised Barrak didn’t drop the old “to the victor belongs the spoils” quote. The point is that the Dems had a super majority and they controlled it all. There was no need for Republican support, but now the reason for the crappy bills is because of Republican obstructionism. I don’t get it. Unlike most of you out there I personally think compromise is not the solution.

    Ever since our Republics inception the grand sum of any compromise has resulted in more government. Whether the compromise favored liberals, progressives, conservatives, abolitionist, Whigs….whatever. We have reached an impasse in political debate and a precipice in the size and scope of government. I applaud the actions of the obstructionist in the House and Senate and pray that Americans will replace their faith in government with faith in personal liberty.

  • GV Haste

    Elwood says: “If you like the DMV, you’ll love government health care.”

    Uh, I’ve been on Kaiser for over 40 years and like most members I love it. Most popular medical care program in California.

    After Obamacare comes in, through Covered California (the exchange) I will simply choose the Kaiser option and my excellent medical care will continue.

    NO CHANGE at all except my new coverage will be cheaper between now and Medicare coverage.
    Other folks, who couldn’t get any coverage will now be able to purchase reasonably priced insurance and thus not be financially destroyed if they have a accident.
    A auto accident, with say, a broken hip, costing $100,000 between emergency room and surgery and hospitalization.

    BTW, my last visit to the DMV with appointment, in and out, in less than 25 minutes.

  • GV Haste

    I just saw something very interesting regarding Obamacare and the inclusion or exclusion of it regarding immigration reform.

    If current undocumented immigrants are denied access to Obamacare, then employers with 50 or more employees will not be required and fined for not giving it to these workers who are provisional immigrants.

    Thus saving the employer perhaps $2,000 or $3,000 per year for hiring one of these workers instead of a low skilled citizen applicants.

    More incentive to not hire unemployed citizens and legal greencard holders.

    I had not thought about this strange twist.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/100793338

    Looks like long time suffering unemployed citizens could yet again get screwed by a immigration bill that doesn’t keep their interests in mind.
    I don’t hear any Democrats talking about this point.
    Nor Republicans.

    Huge numbers of unemployed low-skilled workers in the East Bay. Seems that no local politicians make any connection between that fact and the immigration reform issues regarding bringing in hundreds of thousands of new future low-skilled workers to compete.
    (I’m not talking about those already here, but future proposed allowances)
    The poor workers in our Bay Area are getting no representation from our local legislators.
    If they were members of public employee unions, the local pols would be crawling over each other to those how much they cared.
    Poor, lower income, lower skilled, citizens are part of NO group that politicians care about.
    They even fall down the ladder of power and representation, well down from undocumented immigrant who at least have organized pressure groups.

    Go ask Barbara Lee how much she cares about how the suggested “reforms” will impact low skilled workers in Alameda County? The sound of silence….

  • JohnW

    #17

    “Tweaking by whom?” By Congress, of course. But House “Republicans” aren’t interested in any tweaks, even some requested by their business constituents. All they want to do is repeal it 37 times, knowing full well that won’t happen in the Senate and would be vetoed if it did.

    As for your question about how many liberal groups were “targeted” by the IRS, I don’t have facts on that specific question. I do know that no conservative groups were denied, and that the only group denied or revoked was a liberal group. Also, an analysis by Martin Sullivan of Tax Analysis (don’t know who they are) came out today showing that during the time period in question, when all this stuff happened, 122 conservative advocacy groups were approved, 48 liberal or “non-conservative” groups were approved, and 6 groups of unidentified ideology were approved. That hardly sounds like a conspiracy.

  • JohnW

    #18

    My “go to argument” is that exceptions to standard operating procedure for bill passage happen all the time. Health care reform was a signature issue for all the leading candidates for the 2008 Dem nomination. They all ran on it. Dems had been trying to get it done since Truman, not to mention Theodore Roosevelt long before that and Richard Nixon. Nixon got blocked by Ted Kennedy of all people. So, in the face of Republican opposition to doing anything, they took advantage of their window of opportunity and didn’t let it get blocked by demagoguery about “death panels” and such.

    Both Bush budget-busting tax cuts got passed by reconciliation and had nothing to do with the budget reconciliation process for which reconciliation is theoretically designed. I’m sure you didn’t scream about that.

    I do remember the “elections have consequences” encounter with Paul Ryan. Honestly, that made me cringe. Not the way to get things done. But do I think it would have made a damn bit of difference if Obama had not initially taken that approach before passing it off the Congress to write the law? Hell no!

  • GV Haste

    Following on my above theme in #20, here is a good site showing the current unemployment numbers and more importantly the UNDER-employment number.

    Underemployment currently 18%..

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/162923/payroll-population-unemployment-worsen-may.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

    Now imagine, as as group, the low-skilled workers in the East Bay. Way over that 18% figure.
    Meanwhile their representatives all seem to support a bill that will bring in hundreds of thousands of specifically mentioned “low-skilled” workers to compete for the few jobs available.

    Is that “progressive” ?

    How can they go to East Oakland, where I live, and tell local citizens they are looking out for their best interests.
    How can local political types keep promoting the myth that certain provisions of the current Gang of Eight bill won’t hurt their economic future prospects.

    This is like a Alice in Wonderland realm.

    Opposing certain elements of the bill is not anti-progressive, unless being progressive means overlooking the future prosperity of our low-skilled underclass. Something no local leader would do if it involved politically connected groups.
    Again, the long time poor unskilled workers are being totaly ignored in Washington DC.
    Everyone is screaming about HB1 visas while failing to mention the plight of lower skilled Americans.

  • JAFO

    @19 Glad to hear you like Kaiser. You have a lot of company. Interestingly though, during my many years of involvement with the selection of healthcare options for my company’s employees, I often heard the phrase, “Kaiser, you either swear by them or you swear at them.” One other thing. Years ago, Kaiser was an attractive option for companies because their programs were invariably cheaper than fee-for-service programs available from carriers like Blue Cross and Blue Shield. That eventually changed. The cost of Kaiser programs offered to employer groups long ago started to exceed those for equivalent programs offered by “The Blues.” I believe the pattern continues.

  • JohnW

    #24

    When I moved to California in 2004, I was 58 and on my own to get health insurance coverage. Fortunately, since I had prior creditable group coverage, the insurers had to take me. But they could charge whatever they liked. The two Blues gave me risk-adjusted monthly rates in the $700-800 range. Kaiser gave me their standard rate of about $275.

    No complaints with Kaiser, and I loved their electronic records system. When I became eligible for Medicare, I switched to traditional Medicare and took the high-end supplemental insurance from Blue Shield. I wanted the freedom to go anywhere to see a doc and to see a specialist without a referral. Also, I didn’t want to deal with the hassle if I required medical treatment while outside the Kaiser footprint. But I know many retirees who are completely happy with Kaiser and would’t dream of going elsewhere for coverage.

  • http://none tom truth

    Thanks to the koch brothers and their tea party, there has been more misinformation from the radical right wing about Obamacare, than there has been correct information posted by everyone else. Obamacare has already started to reduce the cost of healthcare. If we changed the system so that we could go directly to the clinics and hospitals, without passing thru a health insurance company middleman, our costs would drop by half!

  • GV Haste

    With the exception of about 5 years traveling the world, I’ve been with Kaiser since 1964.
    #1. It is nothing like what it was back then, meaning bare bones and plastic chairs.
    #2. They have doctors begging to join up. They get to pick among the very best. This was not the case 30 to 40 years ago.
    #3. All my records are on computer no matter where I go to Kaiser.
    #4. You really learn how to use Kaiser over time, like getting early and quick appointments.
    #5. You have your choice of thousands of doctors and can even choose facilities that totally specialize in one procedure. For example, they send nearly all their prostate cancer patients who want Brachytherapy (seeds) to one center in Roseville where the docs who do that do it every single day over and over.
    The entire team there does almost nothing else.
    #6. Docs don’t get upset if you choose something like that vs what they specialize in, like surgery, because they don’t get paid by the number of surgeries they do.
    No incentive to do unneeded operations to make more money.

    For example, in America fully half of all heart stents are done in patients where there is no benefit to the patient compared to non invasive care. Fully proven, yet billions upon billions is spent on unneeded stents.

    #7. You hear lot of complaints about Kaiser vs other organizations… Duh, Sure…because about half the people in Northern California are in Kaiser, and or because they have a family member in Kaiser.
    Try to find someone who doesn’t have a family member, relative, or close friend in Kaiser.
    Thus you hear about EVERY problem possible associated with the name Kaiser.

    The other providers are doctor X, or doctor Y, or vague Blue..something.

    Easily, 75% of all people I know are in Kaiser. I don’t really know of anyone who wants to shift their coverage.

    OK.

    MY only gripe with Kaiser is that with all those computurized medical records, and massive buying power, and efficiencies, I don’t understand why there isn’t a bigger difference in price between them and the other groups.
    Seems if our nation is gonna face up to cost cutting, the Kaiser model is the main one for the nation and yet I don’t see it being as cheap as we find in other nations like Germany or Switzerland.

    I don’t fully understand why we are so expensive and other quality nations seem to do it for 40% to 50% less.
    Why isn’t Kaiser at least 25% less expensive than the others?

    Read this LONG NY Times article about costs, focusing on colonoscopies and the amazing price differential across the nation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-explain-why-us-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html?_r=1&

    I’d love to know what it costs Kaiser to do such.
    I do know in their across the board screening they tend to do sigmoidoscopies in place of colonoscopies because major studies have shown no benefit from doing colonoscopies on every single patient.
    They also send out regular stool kits to check for blood.

    OK.. a bit long here but America has YET to face up to our medical cost problem.
    Whenever we do, some jerks start talking about death panels.
    One nice thing about Kaiser is they do not hesitate to talk or introduce you to hospice before draining you of money for your final few months.
    Dealing with family members I never got the sense they were just trying to save money.

  • JohnW

    #27

    About your question as to why Kaiser isn’t less expensive, my guess is that they have made lots of investments in new facilities and have gone on a hiring binge. They also have been more liberal about accepting and retaining people with pre-existing conditions. The medical records system wasn’t cheap.

    As you noted, docs line up to get in with Kaiser. They get to work normal hours and don’t have to deal with all the paperwork and arguing with insurers. They actually get to practice medicine. What a concept!

    I previously read the NYT article you linked and was somewhat disappointed. Steven Brill’s 30+ page article in the March 4th Time magazine “Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us” was much better. You can probably get it online.

    Kaiser doesn’t automatically sign 50+ people up for colonoscopies unless they have a family history or a previous exam where polyps showed up. They tend to go with lower cost exams of the nether region, such as the sigmoidoscopy.

  • MichaelB

    @26

    No “misinformation” required after so many “waivers” were issued for its provisions to supporters of Obama and the Democratic Party.

    And how about those companies reducing hours of workers to “part time”/not increasing their staff because of the Obamacare penalties and unknown compliance/coverage costs?

    Health insurance premiums are going up, not down. That’s what happens when you have to pay for all of those “free” services mandated by the plan/government. Oops, they were not “free” after all!

  • JohnW

    #26

    You’re right about that, Tom Truth. GOP and their friends are spending tons to misinform about the ACA. They aren’t just hoping ObamaCare fails. They are doing everything they can to make sure it fails. They are hoping the least healthy people will rush to sign up and that the “young and healthy” will stay out, which hurts the viability of the risk pool. It’s disgusting when you consider that lives are at stake.

    The GOP-controlled House has refused to provide funding for outreach, even though the Bush administration appropriately spent tons of money for outreach when the prescription drug program was launched. To counter this, HHS has gone to nonprofits and health care companies for outreach funding. This is something that has been authorized by law since 1976 and that every administration, including Bush, has done. But the House GOP thinks it’s a scandal and have been raking HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius over the coals on this during hearings. From what I watched on CSPAN, she did a pretty good job of stuffing the facts down their throats and making them look like total idiots.

  • RR senile columnist

    Kathleen Sibelius should swap jobs with her cousin, Christine Lagarde.

  • JohnW

    #31

    Ha! They look more like identical twins than cousins. Could it be that he twice elected former governor of Kansas is really French?

  • JAFO

    @26 One of the many pipe dreams sold by BO and his supporters was that Obamacare would bend the cost curve down. Good luck with that. You claim that healthcare costs are already dropping and that the absence of healthcare insurers would automatically drop costs by half. Please provide just a little evidence to support either claim. As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

  • JohnW

    #33

    Everybody agrees that the ACA places far more emphasis on expanding coverage than cost containment. But let’s remember that there were efforts to put more cost containment into the legislation. These were dropped because of demagoguery about death panels and “bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor.” But there are still some things in there, such as not rewarding hospitals for readmissions due to hospital errors, electronic medical records, ACO’s etc. We’ll see.

    The rate of growth in health care costs is already dropping. Look it up. Not saying it’s due to ObamaCare, but it is happening. It’s one of the reasons the projected date for depletion of the Medicare Part A trust fund was just extended by another two years. There have been changes in health care practices, such as coordinated care through Accountable Care Organizations (ACO’s). This something the ACA promotes. Whether or not the slowing rate of growth continues remains to be seen.