When a company offers to match an employee's 401k contributions, should we apologize to the employee for losing the wages they contributed?
I am squarely in the camp that feels Obama should never have apologized for the people losing their crappy insurance plans. He had nothing to apologize for. The blame belongs with the insurance companies themselves, because whatever convoluted justifications they publicize, it has nothing to do with Obamacare. Those policies were being grandfathered in. Are grandfather clauses really that hard to understand? No, absolutely not, they are used all the time.
So whatever Obama was apologizing for, ultimately all it really does is apologize for something that was already in there from the beginning, so isn't going to redeem him in the eyes of anyone demanding such an apology,
But we can't get mired in the endless debate of it. What we need to figure out is how to move forward with the situation as it is, to mitigate the political damage, possibly even turn it into a political strength. Obama apologized for the people losing their insurance, he can't go back on that without looking bad.
Right now there are politicians on both sides of the aisle trying to score political points by fixing this issue.
Right now, Obama is making a statement on administration changes to fix this issue.
i don't think this is the approach the Democratic Party should be taking. No matter what form this bill eventually takes, it is likely to set back Obamacare in some way.
The administration should not be acting to fix this issue. Rather, it should not be regarded as an issue at all.
We all know that the majority of people affected by these cancellation notices are getting them because their plans do not meet the (eventual) requirements of Obamacare.
If they want to keep their plans over something they can find on the exchanges, the only reason (in general) is that they are cheaper.
So that means, there are four types of people.
There are people who will be getting better health plans, need those better plans, and can afford those plans.
There are people who will be getting better health plans, need those better plans, and will qualify for subsidies that offset the additional costs.
There are people who will be getting better health plans, don't need those better plans, and will qualify for subsidies that offset the additional costs.
So none of these groups can honestly say they are losing out because of Obamacare, can they?
So, what about the last group? The people who will be getting better plans, but don't need them, and won't qualify for subsidies?
Are these people helpless victims of the system? Are they being given the short end of the stick? Does Obamacare leave them behind?
These people are not victims. They benefit just as much from Obamacare as the rest of us.
In fact, aren't these the very people Obamacare depends on to work?
Ultimately, Obamacare needs the very people that everyone is now scrambling to exempt from it. People who are otherwise healthy, and can lessen the risk pool for the insurers, so they (and us, the taxpayers) can afford to provide health care to the ones who need it more.
So yes, these people are paying more, but that hardly means they are not getting anything for those higher premiums. They are getting access to better health care, which they might possibly need (Or has a healthy individual in the prime of their lives never been struck by a car). And at worst, they are getting a return in the form of better health care for their fellow Americans. Something they would not be getting before Obamacare.
Apologizing for something that is meant to provide an overall benefit to everyone involved calls into question all the mechanisms we as a society use to cooperate and coexist. Benefits always come with tradeoffs. And when you're contributing something to the government, chances are that it leads to a benefit to yourself in some other manner.
No matter who is affected by these cancelled policies, they only stand to gain from the successful implementation of Obamacare. Let's not treat them like some trampled-upon victims. They benefit just as much as everybody else. Is it fair to call paying a higher premium a civic duty? I would say so; after all, they are the ones that we rely on to make this system work.
This is not a single-payer system, but it is a more socialized health care system. Rather than apologizing for it, we should be explaining at every chance why it's better than what we used to have; all the better to strengthen the arguments for Medicare-for-all.,
As this drama plays out, one thing is certain. If the issue of "people losing the insurance plans they like" is not being used to attack Obamacare, some other thing will. While we should take these criticisms head on-and where there are valid questions raised we should certainly look into them-we can't forget to keep hammering the main message.
Obamacare is better than what we had, in overall health care, in who is covered, and in controlling the skyrocketing medical costs. And if there are any changes that should be made, it should always be toward making Obamacare even better at accomplishing these.