Althouse: "ObamaCare Backers in Wisconsin Produce Report Showing That the Health Care Overhaul Will Make Health Insurance More Expensive."

September 7, 2011

"ObamaCare Backers in Wisconsin Produce Report Showing That the Health Care Overhaul Will Make Health Insurance More Expensive."

Oops!

79 comments:

ndspinelli said...: As Roseanne Roseannadanna would say, "Never mind."; 9/7/11, 9:47 AM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

NO, unpossible…ObamaCare bends the cost curve downward…..For those who are about to see a 31% increase can’t they just ask for a waiver, like the 3,000 or so corporations have?; 9/7/11, 9:50 AM
Anonymous said...: You mean the sales department isn't qualified to run the company?; 9/7/11, 9:50 AM
iftheshoefits said...: That's not a bug, it's a feature!; 9/7/11, 9:51 AM
Fred4Pres said...: What a surprise. As PJ O'Rourke said: "If you think health care is expensive now, wait till it is free..."; 9/7/11, 9:52 AM
MadisonMan said...: Are people who are not insured now not insured because they have conditions that make them too expensive and therefore uninsurable? If they are added to the ranks, well, then yes I'd expect costs to go up. Isn't that how insurance works?

I want to join an insured group that is always really healthy. That oughta be dirt cheap!; 9/7/11, 9:53 AM
Mark O said...: Herewith I quote, more or less, what I consider to be the most inane, but honest, statement ever given by a Speaker of the House:

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Surprise, you SOB's.; 9/7/11, 9:57 AM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Are people who are not insured now not insured because they have conditions that make them too expensive and therefore uninsurable? If they are added to the ranks, well, then yes I'd expect costs to go up. Isn't that how insurance works

Not entirely….
1) It’s not just they have a “condition” it’s that they lacked previous coverage (pre-existing condition). To grant coverage for pre-existing conditions is akin to allowing the uninsured to call up the auto insurance company and get coverage, AFTER the accident. One must contribute to some plan, for a period of time, before you can get coverage, and to fail to do so, simply passes those costs onto the plan’s other participants.
2) Costs increase because the “minimum coverage rules” or “qualifying insurance rules.” Congress, basically, mandated that everyone buys a Dodge Neon, even though they may only be able to afford or need a Geo Metro. This increases cost. It’s why McDonald’s got their waiver…qualifying insurance destroyed their Mini-Med Plan, that they had for the employees, minimal coverage, but minimal cost….Pelosi, Reid, Obama et al. did not deem McDonalds’ coverage “good enough” and wanted “better” for the employees. INSTEAD, the employees were about to lose their coverage, so there was a waiver.
Bottom-Line: ObamaCare drives up costs via a variety of ways, and not just because “sick” people get coverage, MadMan.; 9/7/11, 10:01 AM
Robert Cook said...: This is why Obamneycare is a gift to the Insurance companies (and was designed to be such) and not a solution to the problem.

(Hint: the better solution rhymes with: "Shingle Player," or "Pet Care for Fall."); 9/7/11, 10:01 AM
garage mahal said...: Economist Jonathan Gruber says state officials spun the results of his health care reform study

Shocka!; 9/7/11, 10:03 AM
Chuck66 said...: Even if you support the concept of government run health care and if initial reports show it working, in the long run it will fail hugely:

A) The government can't do anything right (see post office and that solar company in California).

B) We saw what the 9 months have been like in Wisconsin. Imagine the entire nation being like the indefinitly once the goverment takes control of another 20% of our economy. Then, whoever is in office controls almost every aspect of health care. The elections and their aftermath will be brutal.; 9/7/11, 10:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Who on earth is surprised...?

More expensive for substandard care.FIFY; 9/7/11, 10:07 AM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
This is why Obamneycare is a gift to the Insurance companies (and was designed to be such) and not a solution to the problem

Proving you’re a goof-ball Cooke. In the end, ObamneyCare will KILL insurance companies. You’re just not bright enough to see it, or are too impatient to wait for their demise under ObamneyCare. I can hardly wait for an NHS, it’s working so well in Britain and Canada….France’s “better” system is also under financial distress too, as is Germany’s, IIRC.

You want better and cheaper care, get the gub’mint out….People get boob jobs and LASIK, and that’s all elective and yet the costs are competitive, the care good, and the doctor’s profitable and insurance, liability, affordable. Why is that? I’d posit it’s because “boob jobs” aren’t a “right” and ergo a large and distorting bureaucracy has not emerged to distort the market via subsidy and regulation.; 9/7/11, 10:07 AM
Simon said...: But at least he's normal.; 9/7/11, 10:08 AM
Original Mike said...: "ObamaCare Backers in Wisconsin Produce Report Showing That Health Care Overhaul Will Make Health Insurance More Expensive"

They didn't have a choice. At some point a lie gets so big that nobody believes it. However, you can be sure that whatever increase they came up with, they low-balled the hell out of it.; 9/7/11, 10:08 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: NO, unpossible…ObamaCare bends the cost curve downward…..For those who are about to see a 31% increase can’t they just ask for a waiver, like the 3,000 or so corporations have?

They can ask, but if they really want one, they need to be paid up on their dues to the Obama reelection campaign.; 9/7/11, 10:11 AM
bagoh20 said...: Will? It already has. This year our negotiations with our insurer included about 10% increases due solely to the threat of costs from Obamacare. They took the time to show us exactly where it came from: mostly from forced coverage that was of no value to us, but for which we will pay anyway.

True or not, it gave them a great excuse for an increase, and I expect it will return over and over in coming years. Since Obamacare is national in scope, all companies will do the same, removing the power of competition. Small is beautiful, and competition is the great protector being killed. Repeal this atrocity.; 9/7/11, 10:12 AM
pauldar said...: Wonder if other companies are not hiring like us, worried about added burdens of regulations such as Obamacare - We need at least 4 more Customer Service reps and will not even come close to considering growing our company any larger until we see where everything settles in at. I do/did like the hiring $1000 credits passed last year, as we ended up adding some pretty decent employees and still have them. Just refuse to add anymore for now; 9/7/11, 10:15 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I'm shocked.; 9/7/11, 10:15 AM
Chuck66 said...: "They can ask, but if they really want one, they need to be paid up on their dues to the Obama reelection campaign."

I posted this on the crony capitalism thread recently.......I worked for Big Corporations. They know the gov't can and does screw them over. So they make sizable contributions to the politicians (left and right) to purchase access and favors from them.

That's what happens when the gov't gets so large and so all controlling.; 9/7/11, 10:15 AM
Lincolntf said...: This was never about saving money or treating patients. It was about accruing power to the Government and removing health care choices from the individual. It will ultimately fail, as all such efforts do, the only questions being how much will it cost and how many lives will it destroy before it is repealed.; 9/7/11, 10:15 AM
Chuck66 said...: "...mostly from forced coverage that was of no value to us, but for which we will pay anyway."

Yup. Now you have the gov't forcing more rules on you.

Or like Obama's rule (not congress') that makes it illegal to purchase health insurance that doesn't give you free (sic) birth control.; 9/7/11, 10:17 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I expect the NY Times will also report this very troubling news [snark].; 9/7/11, 10:18 AM
MadisonMan said...: Thanks, Joe.; 9/7/11, 10:20 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Are people who are not insured now not insured because they have conditions that make them too expensive and therefore uninsurable? If they are added to the ranks, well, then yes I'd expect costs to go up. Isn't that how insurance works?..."

Yes but what we have are pre paid health plans, not actual insurance.

Being rated (more expensive) is not the same as being uninsurable. If the uninsurable where the true issue, that could have been fixed with a much smaller bill and pricetag.; 9/7/11, 10:20 AM
Michael said...: Comrade garage. Just a head's up before the Commisar contacts you directly. Do not crow about a headline of an article if you do not read the article itself. As it happens the article makes clear that the cost will go up dramatically for all. So thank you for pointing out, once again comrade, that you will not be in a leadership position in the gulag. All the best.; 9/7/11, 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: ObamaCare was always nothing more than a naked power grab by liberal Dems. They were always willing to suffer the slings and arrows of it's passage, knowing that if it managed to survive, down the long road, voters would crawl and vote for them in greater numbers for more coverage.

A scheme for more votes in perpetuity.

Better health care? Cheaper? More people covered? Only an imbecile could believe that. Yet look at how many do believe.; 9/7/11, 10:20 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Libruls are so smart. When 5% of people can't afford shoes, the librul solution is to mandate new shoe designs & distribution for everyone.; 9/7/11, 10:21 AM
Tim said...: Duh.

Health care coverage is expensive because health care services are expensive.

And, if something is expensive, a simple understanding of basic economics informs one that the way to lower cost is to either reduce demand or increase supply.

ObamaCare, of course, doesn't do either. It actually increases demand while reducing supply.

So, outside of the idiots who support ObamaCare and/or voted for the Idiot-in-Chief, normal people of normal intelligence understand that their health care costs are going to increase while the quality of care decreases.

It cannot happen any other way.; 9/7/11, 10:22 AM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Oh Michael that made me laugh…it was the “all the best” that was the piece de resistance; 9/7/11, 10:23 AM
bagoh20 said...: "Wonder if other companies are not hiring like us"

We have hired quite a few, but only because we had already maxed out on the overtime. We were avoiding hiring people mostly because of the government enforced cost of having an employee compared to paying a current one time and a half. That's great for the people who already have the jobs, but not much help to those looking. You multiply that across the country and you have 9% unemployment that won't budge.; 9/7/11, 10:23 AM
Known Unknown said...: Ma'am, you are seriously in need of a "no shit" tag.; 9/7/11, 10:25 AM
Chip S. said...: As of February 1 of this year, a whopping 307 people in Wisconsin had enrolled in the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan set up under Obamacare. Nationally, that figure is about 12,500 people.

What do we learn from this?

1. People who were uninsurable b/c of pre-existing conditions are not being herded into the same pool as everyone else. So this can't be the reason for higher premiums.

2. The "crisis" of the 30 or 40 or 50 million uninsured was a fiction. Most of the uninsured were uninsured by choice. Which means that they were probably healthier on average than the insured. So this can't be the cause of higher premiums.

3. What, then, is driving insurance costs up? The required "upgrades" in coverage that are in large measure prepaid-care mandates. Anybody who was paying attention knew this would happen.

Robert Cook's comment illustrates why, for Democrats, that's a feature and not a bug. Obamacare has always been about fucking things up so badly that "single payer" insurance would look good in comparison.

Exactly as the critics of this gigantic clusterfuck have been saying all along.; 9/7/11, 10:25 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... In the end, ObamneyCare will KILL insurance companies...."

That's the plan. The only type of plan acceptable to Cook is the kind practiced by Britain or Cuba.

Countries such as France, Germany, Switzerland or Denmark all have a system of state universal coverage with private insurers picking up the rest. Essentially they have Medicare writ large.

It can be done here if you don't mind adding another 17% to your payroll deduction to pay for the state portion.; 9/7/11, 10:26 AM
bagoh20 said...: At our company, many choose not to have the very inexpensive company-subsidized insurance. They can definitely afford it, since many in the lowest wage groups still choose it. Those who don't, simply use the money for something else and take their chances, using the emergency room when needed. I know this because I ask them.; 9/7/11, 10:29 AM
Original Mike said...: "I’d posit it’s because “boob jobs” aren’t a “right” and ergo a large and distorting bureaucracy has not emerged to distort the market via subsidy and regulation."

That's right.; 9/7/11, 10:29 AM
Original Mike said...: "what we have are pre paid health plans, not actual insurance."

This.; 9/7/11, 10:33 AM
bagoh20 said...: What we have been seeing for the last few years, and often pointed out here on Althouse is case after case of liberal philosophy enacted only to prove the critics of that philosophy to have been right all along. This seems to be accelerating like a train... a high-speed train no less. It must be very demoralizing for you liberals.; 9/7/11, 10:36 AM
Chip S. said...: It must be very demoralizing for you liberals.

Nah. To them it just demonstrates the need for even bigger policy mistakes.; 9/7/11, 10:39 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... What, then, is driving insurance costs up? The required "upgrades" in coverage that are in large measure prepaid-care mandates..."

Correct. Cat care is significantly cheaper than a full coverage Cadillac plan which if you're young and relatively healthy, you go with the former.

Problem is, everyone wants to see a doc, specialist, get labs and only pay $20. Yeah me too but the difference us made up somewhere and that's the insurance company.

Last month I had to replace the ignition coils and plugs in my truck, with parts and labor it was $800. My car insurance doesn't cover that. If it did, the insurance would be a lot more expensive. I need my truck or I can't get to work.; 9/7/11, 10:40 AM
Shanna said...: Duh. Cover more people, pay for more stuff, cheaper policy? That was totally going to work.; 9/7/11, 10:42 AM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/7/11, 10:44 AM
Chuck66 said...: Hoosier, that's a big part of the problem. People want prepaid expenses, not just insurance. My sister gets new glasses each year, not because she needs them, but because her insurance pays for them. I know someone in the dental business and he explains how they bill insurance companies for routine stuff, in a way to maximize payments to his wife's dental office.; 9/7/11, 10:45 AM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/7/11, 10:46 AM
Scott M said...: Chris Matthews recently asked a couple of guests (left-leaning, if the article was accurate) what the biggest mistake of the administrations first term so far was. Two of them answered Obamacare and Matthews' surprised response to that is very telling.; 9/7/11, 10:47 AM
Chip S. said...: @sorepaw--Seems to me that the big news here is that one of the principal designers of Obamacare can only say, based on the data, that it's a great idea "overall."

There were no data that would ever have led Gruber to say that it was a bad idea at this stage, 'cuz it was his idea.; 9/7/11, 10:49 AM
Original Mike said...: "My sister gets new glasses each year, not because she needs them, but because her insurance pays for them."

Just consider it "stimulus". Take perfectly good glasses and throw them away. It worked really well with Cash for Clunkers.; 9/7/11, 10:49 AM
Known Unknown said...: Duh. Cover more people, pay for more stuff, cheaper policy? That was totally going to work.

Indeed. But I do agree with the notion that a healthier populace probably costs less, but that's more about prevention.

But the healthier people live longer, so there's a trade off.; 9/7/11, 10:50 AM
edutcher said...: This was written by a bunch of spendthrift Democrats behind closed doors with no incentive to compromise and this news surprises us, how?

And the best part is the number of uninsured has actually gone up since this monstrosity was passed, so people would rather take their chances than be "provided for" under this.

WV "trupoo" (no kidding) The real stuff, like ZeroCare.; 9/7/11, 10:52 AM
Curious George said...: Teacher health insurance has gone down in WI. Too bad for Obama the whole country wasn't being ass raped by WEA Trust.; 9/7/11, 10:53 AM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Indeed. But I do agree with the notion that a healthier populace probably costs less, but that's more about prevention

Not always…there is more and more evidence, that “wellness” does NOT reduce costs….finding you have breast/prostate cancer or high blood pressure, early does not, in and of itself, reduce your healthcare costs. There was a Danish Study, did you know they have a World Class Environmental Engineering Program in Denmark, that suggests smoking cessation INCREASES costs. Smokers die younger and hence use less healthcare…a “healthier” Denmark, i.e. one with less smoking, is NOT a cheaper Denmark.; 9/7/11, 10:55 AM
Wince said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/7/11, 10:58 AM
Wince said...: Obviously, these well intentioned ObamaCare backers didn't know that Obama absolutely loathes reports showing ObamaCare will make health insurance more expensive.; 9/7/11, 11:00 AM
Kirk Parker said...: "I’d posit it’s because “boob jobs” aren’t a “right” "

Well, in some circles they're more like an obligation...; 9/7/11, 11:02 AM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Well, in some circles they're more like an obligation

SOME professions require an MBA or JD, some require “Other” enhancements…..; 9/7/11, 11:06 AM
Defenseman Emeritus said...: Tim said:

Health care coverage is expensive because health care services are expensive.

Definitely true that many health care services are expensive regardless due to technology & complexity.

However, many health care services are expensive only because a third party is paying for them. The patient doesn't know or care what the true cost of services is, resulting in an inflated / distorted price.

Pogo, can you give any examples of this kind of price distortion? I'm thinking of something along the lines of a strep test...what doctors charge insurance companies for them vs. what doctors would charge patients for them if insurance companies were uninvolved. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be willing to bet that if the insurance companies weren't paying for strep tests, the actual cost to the patient would be pretty close to a typical office visit insurance co-payment.; 9/7/11, 11:16 AM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

1) Well Defenseman, Medicare drives up costs, because its reimbursement rate is LOWER than a “market” rate, any doctor taking Medicare is making up the difference on the backs of the Non-Medicare patients.
2) The premise is flawed…computing was expensive, it isn’t any more. Again that’s because computing isn’t a “right” and so there isn’t anyone managing computing and distorting the market.; 9/7/11, 11:22 AM
hawkeyedjb said...: Those who long for single-payer usually don't have much experience with it. Canada, of course, is single-payer but there is a safety-valve called the USA right next door. People who are seriously ill and can't live through the wait list have an option (for now). Britain's NHS runs what is close to a single-payer system, but Americans would not be happy with the level of care (a doctor friend who spent a couple of years there called it 70's-style health care). But it's cheap. France has an excellent system that is far from single-payer; it should have been the model for our reforms but sadly was not. The big advantage in all the above systems is that health insurance is decoupled from employment; that we didn't do the same in our 'reforms' is the Big Fail of Obamacare.

Congress set out to design a new system that would be more expensive, with less choice, and punishing to employers. They succeeded beyond imagining.; 9/7/11, 11:25 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Mr. Defenseman Emeritus-
Recently I had to get a blood test that showed that I had immunity to measles & some other childhood disease. Insurance wouldn't pay for it.
The blood lab reduced the cost from about $120 (insured price) to about $60 (cash payment).
Same service, same report, 50% discount.; 9/7/11, 11:34 AM
Scott M said...: The blood lab reduced the cost from about $120 (insured price) to about $60 (cash payment).
Same service, same report, 50% discount.

THIS, and other things very similar, is why HSA's work extremely well if you simply stay on top of them.; 9/7/11, 11:39 AM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
THIS, and other things very similar, is why HSA's work extremely well if you simply stay on top of them

Racist, Zombie-phobe, corporate shill, nerd…. Probablby read graphic novels.; 9/7/11, 11:43 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... France has an excellent system that is far from single-payer; it should have been the model for our reforms but sadly was not..."

We already use the French model. It's called Medicare.; 9/7/11, 11:43 AM
roesch-voltaire said...: A quote that was over-looked:"Overall I think health care reform is a great thing for Wisconsin.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/city-hall/article_c929f5a6-d054-11e0-ba1d-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1XHr1DtFo; 9/7/11, 12:02 PM
Scott M said...: Probablby read graphic novels.

Only the Watchmen. And one I cannot for the life of me remember the title, but Satan gets sick of loosing and goes off to create his own Adam, Eve, and Eden...except there's no rules, at all. God shows up as a snake, of course.; 9/7/11, 12:05 PM
cubanbob said...: Terry said...
Mr. Defenseman Emeritus-
Recently I had to get a blood test that showed that I had immunity to measles & some other childhood disease. Insurance wouldn't pay for it.
The blood lab reduced the cost from about $120 (insured price) to about $60 (cash payment).
Same service, same report, 50% discount.

9/7/11 11:34 AM

I had a similar situation with getting an MRI. I could have waited for the insurance company approval, ten days of back and forth or same day for cash. Went to the MRI place they began the insurance nonsense I said what's the cash price, then I said wrong answer, sharpen pencil. Half off and done within one hour.
What this country needs is a national health insurance market where one can buy a true medical catastrophe policy without it being being larded with all manner of stuff from such as chiropractors, acupuncture, viagra and birth control pills which is what most states do. Everyone has a right to health care. No one has a right to other people paying for their care.; 9/7/11, 12:09 PM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
God shows up as a snake, of course

Well yeah! It completes the symmetry….; 9/7/11, 12:14 PM
hawkeyedjb said...: "We already use the French model. It's called Medicare."

Hoosier, I'd be happy with the French version of Medicare; it's available regardless of age, and it's not intended to be a full-pay system. Most people in France buy supplemental (private) insurance, since the base (public) version isn't intended to pay for everything. Here in the USA, we have demagogic politicians ready to bemoan any failure to cover anything, and if Medicare becomes universal this will only get worse.; 9/7/11, 12:14 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Well, duh. Who didn't know that?; 9/7/11, 12:22 PM
Chip S. said...: R-V said: A quote that was over-looked:"Overall I think health care reform is a great thing for Wisconsin."

Um, sorepaw quoted it in its entirety @10:44.

And I offered an interpretation @ 10:49.

Gruber's quote ain't all that.; 9/7/11, 12:32 PM
n.n said...: This is by design. The so-called "health care reform" consists of increasing taxes, increasing and diversifying distribution of risk, and rewarding bad (and even illegal) behavior. It's not as if they actually addressed the underlying issues, which contribute to increasing costs of medical services.; 9/7/11, 1:17 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: But what do you do, Mr. Hawkeyedjb, when the doctors go out on strike?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC556187/
The French system is as unsustainable as the British System, the Canadian System, and the American System.
Large increases in efficiency can only come with free market reforms. Rationing by price is the only alternative to rationing by decree. Rationing by decree does not allow the market to find its equilibrium, so you always get an over supply or under supply of goods, e.g. inefficiency & less than optimal production for value invested.
The stated goal of the left is to provide universal access to health care, not the best health care for any particular individual.; 9/7/11, 1:17 PM
hawkeyedjb said...: "But what do you do, Mr. Hawkeyedjb, when the doctors go out on strike?"

Self-medicate, like I usually do. When the Scotch distillers go on strike, I'll worry. A lot.

wv: wuppub. A pub where you go to get wupped.; 9/7/11, 1:54 PM
Known Unknown said...: Had a wonderful discussion with a colleague from Cologne, Germany about the feasibility of their current health care system.

He gives it about 2 more years until collapse.; 9/7/11, 2:27 PM
Known Unknown said...: Went to the MRI place they began the insurance nonsense I said what's the cash price, then I said wrong answer, sharpen pencil. Half off and done within one hour.

This is cool. Imagine, bargaining with someone to avoid paperwork and reguations ... the doctors would slash prices to get cash in hand.; 9/7/11, 2:29 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Told you so.

Instead of allowing people to purchase the coverage that they need...like a catastrophic coverage plan...they want to force a once size fits all plan that covers things that people may not need. Their Obamacare also covers MORE things than many people will ever need or use.

When you expand the number of items or events that have to be paid for the insurance company is naturally going to increase its premiums.

DUH. Economics 101; 9/7/11, 2:29 PM
Scott M said...: the doctors would slash prices to get cash in hand

They do. They have. They continue to do so. This is what an HSA is built around. The only real insurance you need is cataclysmic in case something really, really bad happens. Otherwise, cash on the barrel head.; 9/7/11, 2:49 PM
Michael said...: R-V: The comment of the researcher would be akin to a pollster saying he preferred a certain candidate notwithstanding the results of his poll. It is a remark not necessarily connected to results of the study.; 9/7/11, 2:57 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: DBQ:

Obama and his minions:
"We will mandate free women's healthcare paid by the insurance company!"

Obama a year later:

"What do you mean insurance premiums will go up? They did not teach me that stuff at Harvard Law School."

[or Obama missed that class]; 9/7/11, 3:26 PM
Tim said...: Defenseman Emeritus said...

"However, many health care services are expensive only because a third party is paying for them. The patient doesn't know or care what the true cost of services is, resulting in an inflated / distorted price."

Indeed so. But none of the "viable" proposals sought to undo the third-party payer system, (and as noted above, the systemic underpayment by government payers, i.e., Medicare and Medicaid, drive up commercial rates), so, within the current third-party payer system, health care coverage is expensive because health care services are expensive.

Undoing the third-party payer system would help with cost, and so too would a general increase in citizen/patient instigated improvements in personal health (i.e., put down the doughnuts, cigarettes, heroin, etc.) before engaging the health care system.; 9/7/11, 3:57 PM