Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: Fear and loathing about Obamacare (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This.... (25+ / 0-)
    What does this mean for you? Well, for about 95% of Americans, it doesn’t mean anything.
    all the screaming, wailing and gnashing of teeth over 5% of the population?  

    Naturally, the 1% of the population is paying big $$bucks$$ to ensure this president's - and all dems by default - popularity is tarnished.

    I'm not a prognosticator, but I'm willing to bet that practically none of those 5% will have the policy they wanted to keep come 2015.

    As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. John F. Kennedy

    by JaxDem on Sat Nov 16, 2013 at 04:41:12 AM PST

    •  My health insurance changes (27+ / 0-)

      every year when we have open enrollment (employer provides, we pay 25% of the premium). Last year we changed insurance companies in an effort to control costs, and was the second year in row we did not have an increase in our premiums.
      I don't think this is about "being able to keep your crappy policy", it's more about the media covering this as some sort of tragedy, when most people who can even afford individual health insurance are more wealthy and middle aged.
      No one is talking about the 400,000 people who are now covered by the expansion of Medicaid.

      Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

      by skohayes on Sat Nov 16, 2013 at 04:54:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your statement cuts to the heart of the matter... (9+ / 0-)
        No one is talking about the 400,000 people who are now covered by the expansion of Medicaid.
        and the proof is from ban nock's comment below: http://www.dailykos.com/...

        I'm glad to hear yours is not one of those "crappy" policies, but I'm afraid that the majority of the 5% are of the "crappy" kind.

        As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. John F. Kennedy

        by JaxDem on Sat Nov 16, 2013 at 05:04:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not all of them are, from this article I found (12+ / 0-)
          *Some people do have high quality coverage that is getting cancelled and replaced with an ACA-compliant plan (we consider our family’s coverage to be in this category).  It may be that the policy has out-of-pocket limits that are above the limits set by the ACA, or it could be that some relatively minor component of the policy doesn’t meet the standards of the law.  If you have a policy like this and you’d prefer to keep it, you can check with your carrier to see if you can retain your current coverage until your renewal date in 2014.  And some carriers are offering early renewal at the end of this year that will allow policy-holders to keep their plans until the end of next year.  I know that this is frustrating.  Our family is in this situation.  I would have preferred that the ACA allowed higher out-of-pocket limits as an option for insureds who prefer to take on more risk in exchange for lower premiums.  But no law will ever fulfill every wish on everyone’s list.
          *If your policy is truly a high-quality plan (which means that it covers all or nearly all of the essential health benefits, has an out-of-pocket limit that you could actually afford to pay if necessary, includes a decent network of providers, etc.) and you have to switch to better coverage at a higher price next year, I understand your frustration.  And in that case, the red Solo cup might be an accurate analogy.  But if we’re talking about people like Diane Barrette and her $50/month policy that covered almost nothing, she’s switching from a sieve to something that will at least hold water (and  her subsidized premiums are around two hundred dollars a month.  She wouldn’t be paying the “retail” rate of five hundred plus that was widely reported across the internet).
          http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/...

          The solo cup reference was from the speech by Marsh Blackburn a couple of weeks ago:

          "It’s what they wanted,” she said. “I will remind you: some people like to drive a Ford and not a Ferrari, and some people like to drink out of a red solo cup and not a crystal stem. You’re taking away their choice."
          http://www.mediaite.com/...

          Isn't it funny seeing anti-choice Republicans screaming about choice?

          Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

          by skohayes on Sat Nov 16, 2013 at 05:29:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  here is what happened (18+ / 0-)

            the high quality cheap plans for healthy people (which really did exist) were affordable because insurance companies didn't have to cover everyone, including the sick, so could offer you a cheap price. As soon as you needed it, you got your plan cancelled or changed.

            This only happened on the individual market because, say, at your job, the job has to cover everyone. Pregnancy, hospitalization, glasses, the whole works. So as an individual you could buy as good a plan but cheaper on the individual market than you'd buy at work IF you were younger and healthy.

            The cheaper discount you got was at the expense of people who could not buy insurance because of preexisting conditions, etc. When the rules changed, and everyone was in, your discount disappeared.

            This was known and expected (and announced with little fanfare back in 2010) since ACA was debated and passed. it affects about 3% of the population.

            "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

            by Greg Dworkin on Sat Nov 16, 2013 at 05:39:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  1 million recs to you, Greg! We are (6+ / 0-)

              NOT even close to comfortable, but knew we had to have some kind of insurance. After being turned down by one or two companies, which were insurers like what you mention in the first paragraph, we finally found one that was sort of affordable, but had a $2,500 deductible per person per incident. I'm betting it's the insurance company's definition of incident. So we knew it would be a crapshoot as far as what would be covered. Since we're pretty healthy for our age, we usually never meet a deductible but good insurance is, for us, a safety net in an emergency. We go to the doctor twice a year to re-fill necessary minor medications, but otherwise, unless one of us gets in an accident or contracts a terrible disease, we'll pay premiums and never collect.

              When it came time to start applying for ACA, I worked on my application over a period of weeks, going back and putting in info as I had time, or as I gathered documents. I had to apply for Medicaid first, but it was no big deal and we were denied instantly (as we knew we would be), and then I could set up our exchange and shop.  Good news, I found a decent plan, very affordable, and through the company that had offered quality insurance to perfect people (with minor middle-aged person problems, we weren't considered perfect before, they had turned us down pre-ACA).
              I think all this hoopla proves two things -
              1) people are desperate for insurance, and
              2) the Republicans are still terrified because they know people are desperate for good insurance and can finally get it.

              Here's another thought - people who want to "keep their old plan" are going to be told in black and white by their insurance companies that their old plans are inadequate and they've been screwed by the insurance companies all along! Some will still blame Obama, but reasonable people will finally get it - that the insurance companies are the bad guys here!

              “You can say any fool thing to a dog and the dog will just give you this look that says, 'My GOSH, you're RIGHT! I NEVER would've thought of that!” ― Dave Barry

              by Merry Light on Sat Nov 16, 2013 at 06:56:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  The media is increasingly a collection of fools (31+ / 0-)

        that really do not know how or, perhaps worse, have no interest in really examining a problem. This is probably a direct result on the publish or perish full bore commercial aspect of today's media. They are obsessed with "gotchas" while ignoring a real story. It is also probably very reflective of an audience that increasingly cannot take the time to understand much beyond immediate gratification of needs and wants.

        There is a long history of old codgers like me "viewing younger generations with alarm"—but here I'm viewing an entire society with alarm and some of the worst in that society are people older than I. I would guess, with a bit of actual observation and data, that the change has been in leadership of media and other public figures including political. That change has been pushed by politics, commercialism gone wild and lack of attention in the population. People like the Limpbough have always been with us. People like Moyers seem to be disappearing. It does not take much change in a recipe's spices to change the dish and we are seeing the result.

        The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

        by pelagicray on Sat Nov 16, 2013 at 05:31:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The tendency to accentuate the negative (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes

        It seems it is the media's job to accentuate the negative instead of the positive.  How in the world the GOP and some Dems are taking kudos for watering down and weakening the core of the ACA is beyond understanding.

        Anyone who has traveled to countries where health care is a given, and sees it is a part of their social consciousness, is hard pressed to understand why after 100 years, we are finally on track, but it is being sabotaged.  Our citizens will have peace of mind throughout their lives when it comes to being covered by their insurance companies, where is the reasoning behind stopping this momentum from happening?

        If the GOP gets their way, will the majority of Americans really jump up for joy because now millions of their countrymen will get crappy plans?  We will be right back where we were before the ACA, ER treatment with bills not paid, costs thrown back at those who are insured and their insurance companies.  People born with a condition, or have developed one who can't get insured.  Lifetime caps put back on.  Insurance companies going back to taking your prermium dollars but delivering less than the 80% on your medical care, that is now the law.  And, the list goes on...

        This equals higher premiums that will never stop.  Is that what we really want after all this?  Really?  

    •  You can take that to the bank (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder, marykk, thomask
      I'm not a prognosticator, but I'm willing to bet that practically none of those 5% will have the policy they wanted to keep come 2015.
      They may have the same plan in 2015, but it will cost them more than any ACA plan.

      If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

      by Betty Pinson on Sat Nov 16, 2013 at 05:54:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site