<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Will Obama’s Health Insurance Exchange Crowd Out Employer Coverage? Lessons from Massachusetts.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/will-obamas-health-insurance-exchange-crowd-out-employer-coverage-lessons-from-massachusetts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/will-obamas-health-insurance-exchange-crowd-out-employer-coverage-lessons-from-massachusetts/</link>
	<description>Insights on Health Care Reform &#124; NCPA</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:11:34 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/will-obamas-health-insurance-exchange-crowd-out-employer-coverage-lessons-from-massachusetts/comment-page-1/#comment-45173</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:43:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=4751#comment-45173</guid>
		<description>It seems like employer are dropping coverage of those with incomes below a certain level and opting to pay the tax instead.  But if that leaves small businesses more flexible and more profitable, is that a bad thing?  Just because there was a seven point decline over a few years, does not mean it will continue to slide to zero.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems like employer are dropping coverage of those with incomes below a certain level and opting to pay the tax instead.  But if that leaves small businesses more flexible and more profitable, is that a bad thing?  Just because there was a seven point decline over a few years, does not mean it will continue to slide to zero.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John R. Graham</title>
		<link>http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/will-obamas-health-insurance-exchange-crowd-out-employer-coverage-lessons-from-massachusetts/comment-page-1/#comment-45075</link>
		<dc:creator>John R. Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:02:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=4751#comment-45075</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s an informative paper published by the Commonwealth Fund (!) written in English by Swiss and Dutch health economists (R.E. Leu et al., &quot;The Swiss and Dutch Health Insurance Systems: Universal Coverage and Regulated Competitive Insurance Markets&quot;, Commonwealth Fund Publication No. 1220, January 2009).  The authors conclude that the Swiss reforms of 1996 cut competition amongst health insurers in half or more (which is hard to measure because the 1996 reforms artificially demanded that the basic, mandatory insurance be offered by non-profit carriers, while additional, underwritten insurance could be offered by for-profits, so holding companies have non-profit and for-profit operating companies.)  The authors also suggest that the insurers are able to game the risk-adjustment payments that are supposed to attract them to subscribe sicker patients.

This indicates that president Obama&#039;s promise that his take-over will result in more competition and better care for sick patients is not credible.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s an informative paper published by the Commonwealth Fund (!) written in English by Swiss and Dutch health economists (R.E. Leu et al., &#8220;The Swiss and Dutch Health Insurance Systems: Universal Coverage and Regulated Competitive Insurance Markets&#8221;, Commonwealth Fund Publication No. 1220, January 2009).  The authors conclude that the Swiss reforms of 1996 cut competition amongst health insurers in half or more (which is hard to measure because the 1996 reforms artificially demanded that the basic, mandatory insurance be offered by non-profit carriers, while additional, underwritten insurance could be offered by for-profits, so holding companies have non-profit and for-profit operating companies.)  The authors also suggest that the insurers are able to game the risk-adjustment payments that are supposed to attract them to subscribe sicker patients.</p>
<p>This indicates that president Obama&#8217;s promise that his take-over will result in more competition and better care for sick patients is not credible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/will-obamas-health-insurance-exchange-crowd-out-employer-coverage-lessons-from-massachusetts/comment-page-1/#comment-45061</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:47:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=4751#comment-45061</guid>
		<description>Agree with Neil. Private insurance is going to get crowded out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agree with Neil. Private insurance is going to get crowded out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil H.</title>
		<link>http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/will-obamas-health-insurance-exchange-crowd-out-employer-coverage-lessons-from-massachusetts/comment-page-1/#comment-45058</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil H.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:02:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=4751#comment-45058</guid>
		<description>Prepare to lose you employer plan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Prepare to lose you employer plan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
