The reason for the increase?  Claims history, apparently.

In addition to higher co-pays and deductibles AND higher premiums, the core plan will only cover in-network care - if you go out of network, you're on your own.  It's the less expensive plan, but using it will limit you to coverage only from those providers in the plan.

My favorite part of the news was this: "We have to be very careful consumers of health care services, while getting the care we need."

The core plan's premiums are going up more than the other plan because it was - apparently - greatly underpriced.  Does that mean, "Waaaah!  We missed out on an opportunity to make more money, but we won't get fooled again!"

Family coverage for the staff is only going up 9%...woo-hoo!

And the kicker...we must do something to stop these constant increases in health care costs.  Hmmm...what could that be?  Well, the firm will be looking at other plans, but we should expect more changes.  Oh - here it is: we also need to work on our claims by getting healthier.  Stay tuned for "wellness initiatives," with incentives for adopting "healthier lifestyles."

Argh.

Last year, the firm offered $100 off the annual cost of the coverage if you submitted to some simple blood tests and "health profiling," and - call me paranoid - but I was suspicious of this kind of benevolent, we-just-want-to-help-you kind of initiative.

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't try to be healthy and do what they can to stay that way - we all should - but this kind of pressure from employers to be "careful" consumers of health care, and the message that it's claims that drive the cost, make people feel that if they can be identified as the reason for the claims, perhaps they will be deemed too expensive to continue to employ - and makes them reluctant to actually use the coverage for actual care.

But, hey - not to worry - with higher premiums, co-pays and deductibles, I'm sure fewer people will be using it, and - voila! - more money for the insurance company.

Besides being one of the most outdated, jingoistic cold war clichés in the history of the world, as well as being insulting to every other country in the world, I think to myself (screaming inside my head), "ARE YOU NUTS?!"

Who in France, where you can visit a doctor of your choice for 22 bucks (partially reimbursed) or get a house call within a few hours notice (50 bucks - also partially reimbursed) would trade for the system we have?

Which Scandinavian country would want to swap with us?

Would Canada?

I'll give him this - maybe the Philippines - or Haiti....

And which country in the world would want to inherit a two billion dollar a week war?

Anyway - I'm so tired of having to be told that we're the greatest.
We are a great country among many great countries. What's wrong with that?

First off I am for a universal health care for all citizens at some reasonable minimum level of coverage essentially provided by or at least controlled by the US Government.  If companies or people wish to add more to this minimum level, that should be their privilege.  This coverage should be paid for by taxes and that subject isn't for this discussion.

Now once this comes into effect, the US annual budget would have a much bigger Medical Section covering everyone including people like me who already have a sliver of that pie because I retired from the Navy.  I would assume that in the long run, most everyone would be in the same program.  

Now what will naturally follow from this new situation is that there would be budget fights and (pay heed especially here folks) limits on the spending for this Medical Budget.

Sure we can expect cost overruns like occur elsewhere in the US budget, but still there will be limits and discussions of limits and many forces and pressures, not to mention watchdogs to keep those limits from getting too far out of hand.

The costs for each  patient under this Medical Budget will be paid for by the US Government.

Probably the above isn't so hard to accept by most people, but from now on it will get harder.

On my TiVo tonight was a news segment on medical care.  There was a child who requires an intravenous treatment each and every day which costs in excess of $1,000 each time.  The simple sum of that one treatment per day is $365,000 per year. Probably other stuff is needed too so that is about $400,000 a year for 1 child.  In 5 years that is 2 Million.

There was a woman who took a pill each day for about $60,000 a year.  She probably had other stuff too.

Every year there are new more expensive treatments, machines, and medicines.  

There are defacto budgets or limits on medical care now, but with the Government in charge there will be more exacting control and scrutiny by lawmakers and the public and decisions will be made that can be seen and discussed by everyone.

The methods by which these decisions are made now, in some states, and in some countries, vary.  But basically a budget of a certain amount is decided on, and then one or more methods are chosen on how to distribute the funds.

One method is to budget for everyone at a relatively low amount of say $2,000 to $10,000 and after that is paid out per individual (i.e. each individual is guaranteed at least that) what is left over goes to the people that need more on some kind of need basis that will be separated into two kinds of need.  One kind is non-recurring, like an accident or food poisoning and the second is recurring, like the lady with the $60,000 per year pill and the child with the $400,000 per year illness.) The $60,000 might  be ok, but the child needing $400,000 each and every year could run short.

I have seen some people say that there will never be limits or shutoffs on medical care in the US, but as these costs grow along with other budget costs I believe there will be limits to health care as well.

We have them now but they are all defacto because of the way the health system operates and are usually hidden from view.

Anyway, as Jeralyn has shown above the Insurance Companies don't want to be obligated to pay for care that they haven't collected the money for.  It is that simple.  You can carry on all you want about CEO pay, but that is a pittance compared to the cost of care.

allows consumers who join a new plan to keep their own doctors

You could do this already prior to today in many cases.  Simply use your out of network benefits.

Here's what whitehouse.gov says on it:

Guarantee enrollees their choice of primary care provider: Consumers will have their choice of provider within the plan's network of doctors, including OB-GYNs and pediatricians, without a referral, as well as out-of-network emergency care

Finally, here's the language I found skimming the bill:

``SEC. 2706. NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
``(a) PROVIDERS.--A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall not discriminate with respect to participation under the plan or coverage against any health care provider who is acting within the scope of that provider's license or certification under applicable State law. This section shall not require that a group health plan or health insurance issuer contract with any health care provider willing to abide by the terms and conditions for participation established by the plan or issuer. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a group health plan, a health insurance issuer, or the Secretary from establishing varying reimbursement rates based on quality or performance measures.

And if the parents don't have it, why don't they?  Presumably, because they can't afford it.  But then where does the CHIPS program fit into this?  If the parents' income is too low to afford insurance for themselves, shouldn't they be eligible for that for their kids?

I don't have kids myself, so I don't understand how all of this works out.

They are throwing tantrums hoping people are so stupid they won't realize that their are plenty of fish in the sea.

So what happens then.  Will the insurance companies then decide not to write insurance to anyone who is sick and calls an insurance company that  they need insurance today. They either have to write it or not. If not then how will they stay in business?

I feel this is what will happen down the road:

1. Company will say ok you need insurance right now here is the price.  It will be an exuberant price in order for the customer to say I can't afford that.  The insurance company will then say we complied with the law, the customer refused to buy it.

2. Company will have two prices those with no pre existing conditions and those with pre existing conditions as explained above.

3.  The laws of each state would have to pass laws like the one being contemplated in CA, which would penalize an insurance company to write any health insurance in that state if you try to circumvent the Obama health care rules.

4.  The Republicans get control of congress in Nov and will try to modify (if not eliminate Obamacare) the new law and will offer bills to amend Obama's health care law.  Unless the republicans get a veto proof majority in Nov, Obama will have to entertain the