I was wondering when the other shoe would drop in terms of the hysteria over "If you like your insurance, you get to keep it." It looks like it has.
"If you're an insurance company, you're trying to hang onto the consumers you have at the highest price you can get them," Laura Etherton, a health policy analyst at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, told TPM. "You can take advantage of the confusion about what people get to have now. It's a new world. It's disappointing that insurance companies are sending confusing letters to consumers to take advantage of that confusion. The reality is that this could do real harm."
It never ceases to amaze me how folks like Mika Brzezenski get sucked in to the faux outrage. Why are they so insecure? Ah well, I used to be like that so maybe she will learn and become like Juan Williams over at Fox someday.
You should be blaming your insurance company because they have not been providing you with coverage that meets the minimum basic standards for health care.
Let me put it more bluntly: your insurance companies have been taking advantage of you and the Affordable Care Act puts in place consumer protection and tells them to stop abusing people.
The government did not “force” insurance companies to cancel their own substandard policies.The insurance companies chose to do that rather than do what is right and bring the policies up to code.
This would be like saying the government “forces” chemical companies to dispose of toxic waste safely rather than dumping it in the river.
People should be angry that their insurance companies were not paying for these humane, common sense benefits all along.
It baffles me that people are directing their anger at the ACA which rights these terrible wrongs.
There's nothing baffling about it. Our country is filled with adolescents who have problem with authority figures and would never think to blame insurance companies because they are filled with wealthy people who, by their very nature, are perfect and should be worshiped. Just blame the government...it's easy!!
So, what does happen to those people whose policies are "cancelled?"
Yeah, you'll have to excuse me if I don't fall for their bullshit again.
2 comments:
The ACA prevents people with preexisting conditions from being denied coverage and prevents companies from canceling your policy when you start costing them money. Which means they HAVE to charge more. You can't get something for nothing.
— Nikto
Remember this graph? You should, you're the one who posted it.
Why does it bend upward so severely in the future? Here's why (again, from your own link to "Talking Points Memo" (which says so much about you)):
People making less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level qualify for either tax credits or expanded Medicaid (which, to be clear, has to cover the same set of 10 benefits that private plans have to cover).
Right now, the Federal Government spends about $1.40 (off the top of my head) for every $1.00 that comes in. And you think these additional subsidies won't push the deficit spending even higher?!? Math really doesn't mean a thing to you, does it?
There are quite a few other whoppers in that "article". For example:
About 80 percent of people, those who receive insurance through their employer or are already enrolled in a government program, won't experience any change at all, Gruber said. (The Kaiser Family Foundation puts the number at 79 percent).
Except that it has already been pointed out that the Obama Administration itself estimated that 93 million people would lose their existing employer provided insurance.
According to the federal rule that birthed this controversy, research suggested that 40 to 67 percent of plans purchased on the individual market were in effect for one year or less. That's a lot of turnover that already existed before the ACA.
Pure lying. The estimate was based on how many plans had any "alterations" made to them (which you already admitted). And that was before HHS defined "alteration" so tightly that a mere $5 change in premium was sufficient.
The administration released a report in December 2011 that explained how well the individual insurance market covered those essential benefits. It found: 62 percent didn't cover maternity care; 34 percent didn't cover substance abuse services, 18 percent didn't cover mental health services; and 9 percent didn't cover prescription drugs.
We're still waiting for you to explain why males and the elderly should buy maternity care. While you're at it, maybe you can explain why someone who doesn't engage in substance abuse needs to be pay for it. Or how limiting competition causes drug prices to go down.
BTW, what's so "faux" about outrage over a bigger lie than the one that forced Nixon out of office?
You should be blaming your insurance company because they have not been providing you with coverage that meets the minimum basic standards for health care.
Minimum basic? According to whom? You don't think a person purchasing their own product know what is best for them? No, of course you don't.
So your solution it to have the government force them to do what you think is best. Because you know better than they do.
You do realize you posted this just days after a post labeled 'corporate force' don't you? Remind us again how Pepsicola forces me to do anything in any manner resembling what you advocate the government do.
Post a Comment