<p>I just want the truth. That is why I try to get information from primary sources. That is why I listen to a Wellpoint conference call for over 4 hours. I heard the whole call now. Not that the conference call was the whole truth. There were one or two things missing. The analysts did not pick up a couple of things either. Analysts usually do disappoint me. :)</p>
<p>I still prefer primary sources over reading some derivative written by an unpaid author from a “reputable source” trying to make a name for himself.</p>
<p>dstark, in case you missed my edit from my previous post.</p>
<p>It’s hard for you to distinguish reality from fantasy because you’re so committed to the myth of Obamacare - that govt can replace consumer choices and preferences with some one-size-fits-all bureaucratically-designed scheme for everyone.</p>
<p>GP, you dont know me well enough to make that fantasy statement. You need to take a step back before you read my posts. </p>
<p>Dont put words in my mouth. What you wrote is silly. This thread isnt about me. I dont want to discuss this anymore. You can think what you want. </p>
<p>*It’s hard for you to distinguish reality from fantasy because you’re so committed to the myth of Obamacare *</p>
<p>And GP has some special inside track to reality? C’mon. The biggest fallacy running on this thread is that someone’s opinion can stand for fact. Same for anecdotes. </p>
<p>GP, we’re talking about Medicare. As you know, Medicare Advantage enrollees do not pay higher premiums than other Medicare recipients. As you also know, Medicare premiums do not pay anything near the total cost of Medicare, either for those with Medicare Advantage or for those with traditional Medicare: Medicare is paid for from tax revenues. (And I agree with you that politicians of both sides are reluctant to mention this fact to seniors.)</p>
<p>Given that taxpayers are paying for people on Medicare, do you think we taxpayers ought to pay more per person for people with Medicare Advantage so that people with Medicare Advantage can get gym memberships at our expense, or do you think we should pay the same for people on Medicare Advantage and on regular Medicare?</p>
<p>This not a fact…this is an opinion…based on flimsy numbers.
I think signups This week were up 20% from the week before. I think the week before was about 450,000 to 500,000…so… 550,000 600,000 sign ups this week and my numbers are higher than Charles Gaba’s. I think we will be around 5,60 -5.65 million sign ups late tomorrow. If I am wrong, I will admit I am wrong.I will throw this tracking system away. Charles Gaba is the man so I could be wrong. My tracking system is very unscientific. :)</p>
<p>I am not a fan of the insurance companies. The conference call did not change my mind. </p>
<p>Look what Wellpoint did. They moved 500 million of expenses so they would count as medical expenses. The company raised their customers costs. A little. Not that material. Interesting though.</p>
<p>“The health care law will also effectively begin to cap insurance company profits in 2011. Insurers will be required to spend 85% of large-group and 80% of small-group plan premiums on medical costs, or else improve health-care quality or return the difference to customers in the form of a rebate. However, Wellpoint reportedly reclassified certain administrative expenses–$500 million dollars worth–in a way that increased its medical loss ratio. In January, Wellpoint began costs such as as nurse hotlines, “medical management,” and “clinical health policy,” under medical benefits. Thus, the impact remains to be seen.”</p>
<p>"Kaiser opened retail storefronts at 6035 Florin Road in south Sacramento and 3661 N. Freeway Blvd. in Natomas in November. The idea is to offer a convenient way of consumers to learn more about Kaiser as thousands of Californians without insurance have new options under the Affordable Care Act.
ShopKP stores offer information about other plans available through Covered California, so consumers can compare options. But the goal is to sell them on Kaiser.
Already the dominant health plan in the Sacramento area, Kaiser tops local enrollment in Covered California, with 17,303 new members at the end of February. Anthem is second, with 15,760 new members, and Blue Shield is third, with 11,842. Enrollment started Oct. 1.
Kaiser signed up a total of 158,386 new members statewide during the first four months of open enrollment. That puts Kaiser third in the state, behind Anthem Blue Cross at 268,204 and Blue Shield of California at 256,625.
“There’s been a fairly sizable serge of younger people who have waited until now to get coverage,” Groepper said. “We expect a big push at the end.”</p>
<p>Just in case you missed the memo, GP, this is not a fantasy. This is the law :)</p>
<p>Nor it it “fantasy” in the vast majority of countries on the planet. Many of which, I might add, have better health outcomes and mortality rates than the US.</p>
<p>So the only real myth to speak of is the notion that a privatized healthcare system delivers “superior” healthcare with any real efficacy, particularly economically.</p>
<p>The fantasy part comes in where people assume improvements to outcomes and efficacy from a health standpoint at a national level can come without pain, without realigning ones notion of a social compact, and without perversion by parties with a fiscally vested interest in the status quo that extends well beyond the insurers themselves.</p>
<p>That said, I would love to live in a world where it could :)</p>
<p>Most of the improvements in health for the country as a whole would come if people took care of themselves. No smoking. No drug use. No gluttony. No drinking to excess. Exercise. Get vaccinated. </p>
<p>"Communications experts suggest that the proper marketing approach for ACA supporters would be to pick a few representative cases and promote them constantly to the public. Four or six individuals or families representing the full range of Obamacare’s target market — a twentysomething without job-based insurance, a middle-aged couple and an older applicant with preexisting conditions.</p>
<p>“They need some ‘poster child’ cases with people who suffered major obstacles getting coverage and now are signed up,” Goodman says. “So people say, ‘There but for the grace of coverage, go I.’”</p>
<p>The current pro-ACA pitch from Washington, which involves playing up the surge in enrollment as the March 31 deadline approaches, won’t take. Goodman notes: “Saying that millions have signed up here or there — those are big numbers, but people are never moved by big numbers.”</p>
<p>Certainly, the negative random examples do catch the attention of some.</p>
<p>This thread got in trouble before for naming other countries or better options within the US. So don’t innocently drop in a reference to others to make a point we are not supposed to respond to.</p>
<p>Tatin G-- re your “most of the improvement” post. I am already doing, or not doing, everything you suggest … but I can’t seem to figure out one thing: how do I stop getting older? I think my health care needs would be reduced significantly if I could go back to being, say, 35 or so. </p>
<p>Ha! Yes, getting older is better than the alternative. But in all the railing and ranting about the high cost of healthcare variously blaming big pharma, insurance companies, hospital groups, doctors, no one ever seems to blame those who don’t give a damn about keeping themselves healthy and then come down with preventable conditions. ERs are full of drug addicts and alcoholics. Dialysis units are full of those with Type II diabetes brought on by obesity. Kids get measles or mumps because their parents believed wrongheaded celebrities and thought vaccines were dangerous. I recognize it’s more politically correct to blame corporations for healthcare costs, but everyone’s costs would be less if more people were responsible when it came to their own health.</p>
<p>The Rasmussen study we discussed included questions to see how folks felt about various bullets. At the time, I was sure it was testing the waters. But aren’t we supposed to avoid talk about what could be?? </p>
<p>GP: I wouldn’t worry too much. I saw an article a few days ago saying that Vermont has no idea how it is going to pay for its system. A doubling of taxes would be required and that is political suicide.</p>
</p>