Skip to main content

Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz speaking at the Values Voters Summit
Beating up on the "moochers" is a Republican value.
Attacking the roll-out problems is so last week. The Web site will be fixed, so the next round of attacks from the right is gearing up: A variation on the theme of trying to convince young people that having insurance is bad. This time, they're focusing on the people who will see an increase in insurance costs, and will try to pit them against the people who really need insurance.

There is a chunk of previously insured people in the individual market who are losing their coverage and will potentially have to pay more for insurance. Those are the people who previously had high deductible, low coverage, catastrophic insurance plans. They paid bottom dollar for plans that would help them if they ended up in the hospital after an accident or major illness, but generally wouldn't provide any coverage for routine medical care like check-ups, immunizations, prescriptions, etc. Those kinds of plans are no longer allowed under Obamacare. All plans have to cover a basic core of preventive services, and some people will have to pay more for that better coverage (though many will receive subsidies to bring those costs down). And those people are truly seeing rate shock, even though they're getting much more for their money.

Enter the Republicans and their new strategy.

If a flood of stories about “rate shock” scare people out of browsing for plans themselves, all the better. But the real backup plan, such as it is, is to pit a thin demographic — healthy, young, middle-class, disproportionately male individuals who had cheap but crappy insurance until now and are resentful that they have to pay more — against the newly insured, and older, sicker beneficiaries who will see their costs go down, and hope the latter don’t have enough clout to prevail in a political brawl. [...]

They want to mortally damage the law. And as such they don’t care nearly as much about the dollars people will spend because ACA-compliant insurance benefits are fairly generous as they do about the dollars people will spend because they’re cross-subsidizing the ill and the aged. And those are precisely the grounds to fight on if the goal is to get liberals to circle the wagons around Obamacare.

Republicans are making a bet that there will be enough of these people to make a difference, ignoring the fact that there are millions who will be paying less for their coverage, and there will be millions more able to get insurance for the first time because of their pre-existing health issues. Chances are pretty good though, that when the Web site is running at full steam and people are signing up—the majority of whom will see lower premiums—that will become the story. There's even a chance that those who are forced out of their catastrophic plans and into something that gives them more coverage will come to appreciate the greater benefits.

But none of that is likely to keep Republicans from continuing the fight, a fight that the public has shown pretty conclusively and repeatedly that it's sick of. And once again, Republicans will find themselves on the losing side of the Obamacare battle.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 08:41 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (37+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 08:41:57 AM PDT

  •  Republicans are jumping out of an airplane (8+ / 0-)

    I hope they remember to bring along some sort of parachute .

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

    by indycam on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 08:46:48 AM PDT

    •  They didn't (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pinto Pony, Hohenzollern, JeffW, Matt Z, a2nite

      They are going down and their fall is reaching terminal speed.

      Ted Cruz has become the mind of the Frankenstein monster of racists, totalitarian theocrats and ideological Ayn Randists they created.

      But when they hit ground they may hurt a lot of innocent bystanders.

      Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

      by Shockwave on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:17:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They grabbed a boy scout's knapsack instead. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indycam, Shockwave

      and were surprised when they saw the sleeping bag come out of it.  Typical.

      •  What do you want to bet (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        that they claim loudly and forcefully the sleeping bag is a parachute ?

        "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

        by indycam on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:45:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Reminds me of a Larry Summers joke (4+ / 0-)

        via Digby:

        The president, Larry Summers, a dirty hippie and the pope were all on Air Force One when it started to have engine trouble. The pilot opened the door of the cockpit and said with terror in his voice, “The plane is going down, so put on a parachute and jump! I’ll show you how.” The pilot grabbed a parachute from the pile, strapped it on, opened the plane’s door, and took the leap.

        After his departure, the four people left were startled to notice there were only three parachutes left in the pile. The president humbly suggested that the other three take the parachutes but the others protest saying, "no, Mr President, the world needs you, you must take one of the parachutes." After a few minutes of haggling, the president agrees and straps on his chute and jumped.

        The remaining three look at each other for a moment at which point Larry Summers says,“there are other smart people, but no one in the world is as smart as I am. The world needs me as much as the President, so I must take one of these parachutes and save myself.” So he jumped, too.

        The dirty hippie and the pope sit quietly for a moment and the pope says, "you must take the last parachute, my son, it is God's will."

        The hippie smiles and replies, "oh don't worry Your Eminence, we each have a parachute. The smartest man in the world just strapped on my backpack and jumped out of the airplane."

        We must drive the special interests out of politics.… There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will neither be a short not an easy task, but it can be done. -- Teddy Roosevelt

        by NoMoJoe on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:19:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We pay twice as much as any other country does (11+ / 0-)

      May I repeat that?

      17.8% of the United States GDP is generated by the cost of our "healthcare system".  That is more than twice what any other nation on earth pays.

      And no, we are not judged to have the best medical care in the world.  I might nominate Belgium, but others might disagree.  Various measures rank us anywhere from 8th best to 38th best (depends on the criteria the study uses)

      But NONE rank us as best, and very definitely NONE ranks us as twice as good as all others.

      We're getting fleeced.  Okay?  The Medical/Industrial Complex has tens of Millions (hundreds maybe?) to invest in lobbying our deeply corrupt Congress.  Like the honorable whores that they are, they provide services in return for those payments.

      Most members of Congress need to be retired.  With prejudice.  It's time for someone to do a careful analysis of who is getting paid off by who, and what they are supporting in return for those payments.  See, the salary we pay them?  that's just the start of their efforts to turn their jobs into Gold Mines.  I mean, honor?  concern for the people?  concern for our economy and the future of our country?  Oh puhleeze, don't kid me!  Do you think they care about all that.

      Calgary Cruz wants to be our first Canadian-Cuban-American President.  It's a bit pesky that Canada is taking its own sweet time about letting him resign from his dual citizenship in Canada.  You know, the country he was born in?  

      We sure have heard a lot about that detail from Donald Trump-the-trumpet, haven't we?

      Republicans = Hypocritical Weasels

      •  YOU WIN (3+ / 0-)

        today's award for being SPOT ON.

        We're getting fleeced.  Okay?  The Medical/Industrial Complex has tens of Millions (hundreds maybe?) to invest in lobbying our deeply corrupt Congress.  Like the honorable whores that they are, they provide services in return for those payments.

        Most members of Congress need to be retired.  With prejudice.  It's time for someone to do a careful analysis of who is getting paid off by who, and what they are supporting in return for those payments.  See, the salary we pay them?  that's just the start of their efforts to turn their jobs into Gold Mines.  I mean, honor?  concern for the people?  concern for our economy and the future of our country?  Oh puhleeze, don't kid me!  Do you think they care about all that.

        THANK YOU

        Why do Republicans Hate Americans?

        by Caniac41 on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 11:00:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hope they grab an anvil on the way out the door. (0+ / 0-)

      "I'm totally pro-choice in the matter of abortion. But of course I'm also so radically pro-life that I think every person from birth onward must have full and affordable access to healthcare." - Gail Collins

      by gritsngumbo on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 12:00:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dominionists and domination (7+ / 0-)
    Dominionism: The theocratic idea that regardless of theological view or eschatological timetable, heterosexual Christian men are called by God to exercise dominion over secular society by taking control of political and cultural institutions. Competes in Christianity with the idea of Stewardship, which suggests custodial care rather than absolute power. Used here in the broader sense, some analysts use the word only to refer to forms and offshoots of Reconstructionism.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 08:47:49 AM PDT

  •  the upshot of making a big claim (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, Heavy Mettle, Inland
    “If You Like Your Insurance You Can Keep It. Period!” President Barack Obama
    is that the other side will point out when it turns out not to be true. Did they not understand the legislation?
    •  You mean he should have said "if you like your... (4+ / 0-)

      crappy, covers nothing but still costs you a lot, sorry, to benefit the many, weirdos like yourself will have to suck it up and buy a better plan, that covers more, and provides wider protection, but, regretfully, costs a little more."

      Yeah, perhaps.  But the original statement was closer to the general truth and doesn't break media brains trying to report it.

      Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

      by LiberalCanuck on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:07:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i dunno, this sounds a bit more palatable (6+ / 0-)

        “If You Like Your Insurance, and it meets the minimum standards we will demand the insurance companies provide, You Can Keep It. Period!”

        and would have the added advantage of actually being true. True is Good. Much better than close to general true.

        •  Or how about "If you like your insurance, you (4+ / 0-)

          can keep it. Period.  Unless you lose your job, or your employer chooses not to offer it, or your insurance company decides not to keep YOU. Um. Period."

          I always thought he made a mistake with that line because it gave people the false assumption that they actually had a choice in the matter.

          If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

          by livjack on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:36:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  as he was talking about (0+ / 0-)

            the effects of the new law, they would not be germane.

            •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

              If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

              by livjack on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:02:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  his statement was that (0+ / 0-)

                the effect of the law would be that it (the law) would not cause people to have to change insurance/doctors.

                There are of course other reasons people might have to change insurance/doctors. Those other reasons were off topic.

                •  So you're missing the same thing he did. Have (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JerryNA, La Gitane

                  you been hearing how the GOPers are throwing that statement back now? That people "aren't able to keep their insurance" like Obama "promised"?

                  The statement on it's face implies that people have the choice as to whether to keep their insurance or not.  It isn't the consumer's "choice," it's the insurer's choice.

                  That is not "off topic," when you're trying to convince people that they will finally have MORE control over their own fate against an insurance company's or employer's whims.  Yeesh, what is so HARD to understand about that?

                  If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

                  by livjack on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:16:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  They are saying it (0+ / 0-)

                    because for many people, it is the ACA Law that is taking away the option to keep the insurance that they currently have.

                    The Law takes away from the insurance company the option to keep offering the insurance these people were buying.

                    In any purchasing situation, either side can opt out. The insurance company can choose to stop selling the product. The person can choose to stop buying it.

                    Now, in addition to that, the government (a third party) can tell both of them that they cannot continue, even if they both wish to.

                    •  What do you mean "in addition"?? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      just out of curiosity, Cantabria...
                      Are you a Libertarian?

                      Please point out when the government has not regulated insurance companies?  All 50 states as well as the federal government regulate insurance companies, often with input from said companies.  This is not new.

                      At the most basic, without contract law, for example, there would be no such thing as a company, never mind an insurance company.  

                      •  in addition (0+ / 0-)

                        means that th law adds new constaints. Now any of three parties can prevent a person from keeping his care.

                        1. the person
                        2. the insurance company
                        3. the governmemt, if the plan does not meet the ACA standards. That is the new standard that the president ignored when he claimed people could keep their coverage after the law is implemented.

                        nope, not libertarian, though i agree with them on some things.

                        This is not new.
                        correct. What is new is that the ACA put extra conditions on insurance. The result of which some people would not be able to keep their current insurance.

                        and yet he said they would.

                        •  It is an inherent part of government function to (0+ / 0-)

                          regulate businesses, so the businesses do not sell substandard or worthless products to customers.  This is a change to existing law, not an entirely new "addition" or unwarranted and unjust intrusion, as you strongly implied.

                          I repeat my question, Cantabria, are you a Libertarian?  Do you oppose government regulation of corporations as a premise?

                          •  of course it is a function of government. (0+ / 0-)

                            And this new law added extra regulations. That is the addition. The effect of which is that the healh plans being bought by many people are now unavailable.

                            i answered that question. nope, not libertarian, though i agree with them on some things. Regulations are necessary.

                            OK, imagine you have a health plan that you love which is not ACA compliant. The ACA law says that plan goes away and you need to buy some other healthcare plan.

                            Yet the president claimed the “If You Like Your Insurance You Can Keep It. Period!”

                            In that circumstance, is what the President said true for your situation?

                          •  The ACA does not say "that plan goes away". (0+ / 0-)

                            The ACA makes new minimum standards.  The insurance company can raise the standards of the plan, or choose to cancel it.  

                            The President was not lying, but he was also not 100% correct in that soundbite, because the insurance company can choose to cancel plans rather than comply with the law.

                          •  Yes it does. that plan as it exists (0+ / 0-)

                            cannot continue to be sold. It must change or cease to be entirely, as you said. But i cannot continue as it is.

                            You can have different coverage, but you cannot 'keep it' as it was. And the new coverage could be quite a bit more expensive than the prior coverage. Even if they bother to call it by the same name.

                            And didn't the president realize that the company had the option to cancel the plan?

                          •  By that standard, no plan is ever the same (0+ / 0-)

                            from one week to the next, if anything changes.  That's so far-reaching as to be unworthy of discussion.  You're acting like absolutely everyone in the country had to lose coverage.  Instead, you're admitting the President was 99% correct, using your own numbers.  Most plans accommodated the ACA changes, with minimal cost and rules changes.  Most people got better coverage out of it, and less than 1% had to change plans.  For any insurance rules change, wouldn't you say that's pretty good?

                          •  of that he was (0+ / 0-)

                            wrong 4 million times.

                            That's like saying the Cubs have never won the World Seriers and claiming to by 99% right.

        •  how about... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ellamenta, Celestia89

          "if you're an anal retentive person obsessed with absolute accuracy in every statement that anyone makes, you should complain about something else"

          oh, and maybe there's treatment for OCD in one of the new plans.  

    •  he did say that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, socialistfolkstick, tb mare

      he makes very few mistakes and each one gets exploited.  He'd say that it isn't health insurance, it's only saving your assets insurance.  He maybe should have said, if you have asset insurance you'll be required to get health insurance that also  protects assets?  

      But, this won't work, because there is widely spread diversity in   illnesses, if everyone lived alone and knew of no one else, okay, but the guy who has asset insurance and doesn't want health insurance has parents, or kids, or friends, or co-workers, and some of them are sick and some have pre-existing conditions and haven't been able to get even asset insurance.

      but, yep, he ought to have differentiated asset insurance from health coverage.

      •  ANY previous plan could be cancelled by (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kareylou, JerryNA, anna shane

        an insurance company on the pretense of its not being compatible with the ACA, simply because it allowed the exclusion of any claim that could be the result of what the insurance company deemed to be a pre-existing condition.  The most likely reasons these plans are now being cancelled, however, is because they are so egregiously, offensively inadequate that they were far overpriced in the first place, and because of the ACA minimum requirements, the policies insurance companies are now forced to provide will be much more profitable.

        People are crying big crocodile tears as they are precluded from paying good money for nothing just so they can feel secure that they have health insurance.  These people couldn't have ever become sick or injured and actually tried to use that "insurance" for much of anything.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:18:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  could be (0+ / 0-)

          but most insurance companies just complied, because their business would get more customers -  it's mainly the asset protection insurance plans that didn't work like health insurance at all that aren't being upgraded.  

    •  The operative word here is insurance (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, shigeru

      The idea that the healthy and fortunate (no accidents) subsidize those who do end up needing care is the core principle of insurance.  Obama promised everyone insurance, instead of single payer, where taxpayers pay and everyone is covered, although the basic idea there is the same.

      So people can keep having insurance, but it isn't exactly the same.  Nothing is permanent, and to think it would be is an illusion.

      The GOP has demanded that the corporations be intimately involved here and that means insurance.  They are deeply incoherent about Obamacare.

      Don't bet your future on 97% of climate scientists being wrong. Take action on climate now!

      by Mimikatz on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:49:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no he promised them (0+ / 0-)

        'your insurance'. They one they already had. Not some other insurance that they do not have. His claim was that they would not be affected by the law.

        For millions of people, that was not true.

        •  Care to back up your claim of "millions"? (0+ / 0-)


          •  sure (0+ / 0-)


            According to this link  as of December 2012, there were 491,977 covered lives in individual health care plans regulated by the state Department Insurance that are not grandfathered under the Affordable Care Act.
            That's half a million in California alone.
            Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state.
            •  Insurance companies have been doing this for years (0+ / 0-)

              Changing policy terms and dropping subscribers.  It happened to me a few years before the ACA was passed into law.  So, how different are these numbers from pre-ACA?  from the year ACA was passed, 2010?  from the past few years?  Without that comparison as a baseline, your claim that these are attributable solely to the ACA is still questionable.  (Not prima facie without merit, but requiring facts in context.)

              •  according to the article (0+ / 0-)
                According to this link as of December 2012, there were 491,977 covered lives in individual health care plans regulated by the state Department Insurance that are not grandfathered under the Affordable Care Act.
                not grandfathered, means non ACA compliant. So those
                people are losing their plans because of the ACA.

                This is very simple.

                The ACA has coverage standards that plans must meet. If the plan does not meet them, then that plan goes away. People on those plans lose that healthcare coverage and must go buy other coverage. Even if the person likes the plan.

                In spite of that the president claimed

                “If You Like Your Insurance You Can Keep It. Period!” President Barack Obama
                That was false for anyone with Insurance that did not meet the ACA standard.
  •  Parents like insurance for grown children (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    red rabbit, ahumbleopinion

    How many GOPers are telling their own kids, go get some piece of crap that won't really cover you, or just don't get insurance at all.  

    Probably damn few.

  •  There is something wrong with Ted Cruz eyes. (6+ / 0-)

    Look at them. There's something really creepy going on there.

  •  Obama camp must respond to the endless GOP attacks (6+ / 0-)

    by putting out ads, that counter, tell of people who find/found success on the website, and genuinely were helped. Remind people the same thing happened when Medicare and Medicare part D were announced, and tell the people the website WILL be fixed, and then see to it, that gets done!!!

  •  This is a GOP loser! The young and healthy (5+ / 0-)

    that already have a cheap crappy policy will, most likely, bitch and moan and sign up for Obamacare. They have demonstrated a proclivity to buy Insurance and they are unlikely to bail out now.

    •  I was young, an uninsured waitress, one (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      swampyankee, JerryNA, kareylou

      bladder infection in the ER and I had a $1500 bill I could not pay....and the hospital wrote it off so others paid, not how I wanted it but no insurance in the restaurant busienss then

      "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

      by merrywidow on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:22:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good point. They might break in favor of an (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, Matt Z

      Upgrade as they already show themselves open to insurance.

      "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

      by Inland on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:23:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Moreover... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, Matt Z

      the young, healthy people with crappy insurance are generally going to be grad students, single parents, low-income/marginally-attached workers, probably disproportionately minorities...i.e., not exactly the GOP's demographic.

      The white B-school grads, serial entrepreneurs and strict religious types that represent the bulk of the GOP's younger support either already have insurance through their cushy jobs, are exempt or have a really, really crappy and expensive policy to cover not only themselves but their young family (strict religious types tend to marry and have kids early).  

  •  A lot of these guys consider Karl Rove on the outs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    with them, but boy, have they learned from him: accuse your enemy of things you're doing yourself.

    Cruz is really the shitass, but that's the name for Obama.

    "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

    by Wildthumb on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:15:22 AM PDT

  •  Some irony here (8+ / 0-)

    The GOP strategy to convince young voters that buying health insurance is bad is nearly identical to the Dem neolib strategy of trying to convince young voters to support SS and Medicare cuts because the system will be out of money by the time they're old enough to collect.

    Same BS demagoguery used by both parties to further an agenda that's harmful to everyone.

    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 Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:16:29 AM PDT

  •  Since there are senior citizens and sickly in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heavy Mettle

    every family just as there are unemployed how is this tactic supposed to work have more screaming matches at thanksgiving........

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:18:11 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for using the adjective (3+ / 0-)

    preventive instead of that abomination preventative! As we all should know, you can prevent something, but you cannot preventate anything!

  •  No young woman of childbearing age should (5+ / 0-)

    go without insurance...too many things can go wrong, I understand why men are boneheaded and dont' get care but young women need this

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:21:06 AM PDT

  •  Um (4+ / 0-)

    You can't "browse for plans" if you can't get the system to work.  It's really as simple as that.  When I called the toll-free number I got "All agents are currently busy.  Your estimated wait time is 45 minutes."  My Romneycare plan, which I just went through applying for a few months ago is being totally wiped out, and apparently the federal program can't import the data I just spent hours entering into the (working and workable) Massachusetts system.  So I have to do this all ove again, in a system where pages disappear or duplicate unpredictably, where commands or other entries  don't register, with almost endless undefined terms and no glossary or FAQ.  Only after this could be done (which seems to be I can't, the fact that I'm massively visually impaired no doubt doesn't help) will I be able to determine whether I will be able to under Obamacare reconstruct anything resembling the team of physicians and specialists familiar with my very unique case, and how much it would cost (it's been free to me on SSDI under Romneycare, but Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes has officially launched the witch-hunt on SSDI leeches and moochers like me.  I'd gladly let Mr. Kroft have my SSDI if he'd trade optic nerves with me.)  I'm at the point of despair because I have no idea when my current Commonwealth Care turns into a pumpkin, and all I see from liberal, Democratic techies here is tgat itg's my problem to deal with a completely buggy system, and if I end up with no coverage at all as a result, too frickin bad it's a rollout and moioching leeches like me don't deserve any better, and ought to pay the fine as well as have no coverage.  Got it.  Message received loud and clear.

    “Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. ” ― Paulo Freire

    by ActivistGuy on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:24:29 AM PDT

  •  Republicans are too dumb to figure it out. (4+ / 0-)

    Young people may not be as sick, but they're the ones having babies.

    And even more babies if Republicans succeed in restricting birth control and abortion.

    So their target audience is young men who don't give a crap if their baby mama needs medical care, and maybe some old people who are already on Medicare and don't realize Medicaid usually pays for nursing homes.

    •  Medicaid does not "usually" pay for nursing homes. (0+ / 0-)

      Nursing home costs are usually borne by private policies or family contributions or a combination of the two.  There is a thing called long-term care insurance that everyone should own.  It's not expensive (unless a person waits until he's on the verge of needing it before buying it), but it can save a family hundreds of thousands of dollars and an enormous amount of stress and grief if all members of a family have it.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:36:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Many of the people carrying the cat insurance (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, TheDuckManCometh

    are the same people who need and want "regular" insurance but either didn't think that they would be covered (possible prior situation that they didn't want to disclose) or were priced out of the "regular" market.

    Fox "News" may find some jumping at the chance for their 15 minutes, but most Americans have been waiting years for ObamaCare.

    Notice: This Comment © 2013 ROGNM UID 2547

    by ROGNM on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:26:03 AM PDT

  •  sounds like classic Republican thinking (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeverThere, tardis10, red rabbit

    "I've got mine:   so screw you"

    I wonder if they have done a survey to find out how well this plays.

  •  As a huge supporter of the law (3+ / 0-)

    I have suspected that the next wave of attacks, come January, is that people will not be able to access medical providers in a timely manner. Shortage of providers is already a problem in many communities and there needs to be a comprehensive plan to address on a national level. Of course, the silver lining is that the career opportunities in the health care field should be huge in the long run. And, shortage of healthcare providers merely underscores that the ACA is sorely needed in this Country. Previously these same folks went c/o care. But I'm already bracing for this. The coded argument will be "us who had insurance before ACA were able to get our healthcare just fine until all these 'undeserving' types were able to be seen."

    •  The ACA addresses the need for more (3+ / 0-)

      physicians and other health care providers by requiring medical schools receiving federal funds (almost all of them) to open up additional residency slots and provides increased funding for doctor training.  This will not fill all the need for more doctors, which was estimated to be 44,000 before the ACA, particularly in rural areas.

      What legislation are the Republicans willing to support to do something about this?  Anything?

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:49:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for that info. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Like so many angles of attack from the RW on the law, rebuttal requires thoughtful consideration that requires more than can fit on a bumper sticker.

        •  One of the best things about the DKos community (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          is that Kossacks have a plethora of information on widely divergent subjects and are willing to share it.  It can be invaluable when faced with statements of "fact" coming from the right-wing need to be addressed.

          Some of the best information comes from climate change and energy diaries here, and can be extremely helpful when faced with lunatic climate change deniers and rabid supporters of the fossil fuel industries - particularly the Keystone XL pipeline.

          "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

          by SueDe on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 11:21:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  "It's not fair to make the middle class pay (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T Maysle

    more to give insurance to everybody else". Middle class always gets overlooked. The woman in the article makes to0 much for subsidies, not enough to afford the doubled cost. This should have been foreseen and prevented.

    •  Yes it should (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Heavy Mettle

      Some middle class people are going to be paying 8 or 10% of their income for coverage with higher deductibles and higher out of pocket caps. That's too much and it's going to make thousands of people resent the ACA. How can it be fixed I wonder.

      •  Middle class people will not be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        paying 8-10% of their income for health insurance after cost assistance (subsidies).  Anything costing more than 8% for an individual policy or 9.5% for job-based coverage after cost assistance is considered unaffordable under the ACA, and if that's all there is available to a consumer, he is not required to buy it and will not be subject to the mandate tax.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 11:07:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That depends on how hard it is to get a waiver (0+ / 0-)

          because you can't find affordable insurance.  If for example you have to submit recordings of phone calls or a signed statement by an insurance broker (not all policies are on the exchange, after all) then it is possible they will end up paying the fine because of all the hoops required to document the lack of affordable insurance.

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 11:22:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Middle class people WILL be paying that much (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          unless they go without insurance. It appears that if you pay more than 8 or 9.5% (I can't figure out the language for sure) you can get the penalty waived. You can't buy insurance for less, you can do without.

          •  Income levels & costs depend heavily on the state. (0+ / 0-)

            GOP-led states that declined the exchanges screwed over their own people.  Vermont, OTOH, is setting up a single-payer system where everyone gets medical coverage. (They're already over 90%.)

          •  I believe that if the rate is more (0+ / 0-)

            than 8 or 9 percent then folks get the Catastrophic plan like the under 30'ies.

            There is much to fix and this is just another reason to get a Public Option but we only do that if we elect Progressive Dems in both Congress and the State Houses who control the Exchanges.

            Congressional elections have consequences!

            by Cordyc on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 04:12:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Do you suggest they do without insurance? That (0+ / 0-)

          would be paying the ultimate price.

  •  They've already lost the battle. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    socialistfolkstick, merrywidow

    In Ted Cruz's own state of Texas, a person living in one of the larger counties can have a choice of well of 30 health plans that provide better coverage with lower deductibles at a lower cost.  Communists always dreamed of the collapse of the free market economy but were ultimately disappointed.  Same thing will happen to these teabaggers.  

    Global Shakedown - Alternative rock with something to say. Check out their latest release, "A Time to Recognize": Available on iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Spotify and other major online music sites. Visit

    by khyber900 on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:35:07 AM PDT

  •  My husband has a Repub friend (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA, TheDuckManCometh

    whose employer- provided insurance premium is going up because (long story short) the employer's basically being a dick about the ACA standards.

    But this friend, because he hates everything about that Nazi, America-hating Obama, refuses to have anything to do w/ ACA. Shooting self in foot.

    As stupid as this is, I can't help but feel sorry for people like this guy.

  •  What's the bet? (0+ / 0-)
    Republicans are making a bet that there will be enough of these people to make a difference, ignoring the fact that there are millions who will be paying less for their coverage, and there will be millions more able to get insurance for the first time because of their pre-existing health issues.
    Enough of 'these people' to make a difference - in what? What is this 'strategy'?
    •  The individual mandate means everyone signs up. (0+ / 0-)

      Blocking lots of younger, presumably healthier people from signing up means the insurance companies lose money and premiums go up, or policies get shut down.  The GOP strategy is to (lie then) win by threatening the insurance companies with losses.

  •  compiling stories (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Of an evening, I will sometimes listen to Glenn Beck.  I also implant plaque-infected spider eggs in my sinuses, but that's a separate foible.

    Anyhoo, old GB was ranting and raving as usual one evening last week, exhorting his marks faithful followers to send him all their stories of how OCare had caused them such pain - physical and otherwise.

    I'll give it a few days to brew and maybe report back on the ensuing hijinks... of the stories that is, not the spider eggs.

    •  Hannity couldn't find anyone being actually hurt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mmacdDE, TheDuckManCometh

      THAT is the story, not that he lies but that he couldnt find any real people hurt

      remember when they tried to find a real famikly that lost a family farm to the estate tax and couldn't....similar

      "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

      by merrywidow on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:49:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Young people don't vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Young people whose insurance is now more expensive don't vote.

    And many of these young men who don't vote anyway will just spend money on beer, video games and porn and not insurance.

    Old people who now have cheaper insurance vote more reliably and will now vote for Democrats.

    "states like VT and ID are not 'real america'" -icemilkcoffee

    by Utahrd on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:45:40 AM PDT

    •  That's exactly what I was thinking (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That young guy who doesn't want to sign up or doesn't want to pay much of anything for a crappy crappy plan isn't voting much, if at all.

      That 40 something with the small business who's been paying a small fortune every year to insure himself and his family, with a high deductible and lots of restrictions, is likely to find he can get a much better policy, with much better coverage and lower out of pocket costs, for the same or LESS as before.

      HE votes. And he's going to realize who lied to him.

    •  that's what hillary thought in iowa. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I remember caucus night when Clinton's side of the room was full of grey hairs. The young people caucused mostly for Obama and some for Edwards. Clinton finished third as I recall.

  •  I don't think they're so much counting on the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ahumbleopinion, JerryNA

    relative sliver of "rate-shocked" people outnumbering our out-political-clouting the much larger slice of the population that is being and will benefit handsomely from the ACA's improvements to the insurance system. What they're counting on is getting people to believe that the whole "rate-shock" narrative -- viz., the person who had cheap-but-crappy insurance they were nonetheless "happy" with and now have to pay a little more money to get a lot more coverage -- are the norm, i.e., the rule rather than the exception.

    When I first heard these "rate-shocked" stories my first thought was: If this is true, and to the extent this is true, it's probably because (1) the policies they had were pure horsesh*t; they were "insured" in name only, paying for nothing, and insurers can't do that anymore; and (2) it's in the realm of the individual insurance market, not the ACA exchanges. What I've been hearing and reading since then pretty much bears this out.

    Nevertheless, the GOP is counting on making this the core and crux of what the ACA is doing, viz., kicking people en masse off of cheap policies and forcing them to buy more expensive ones, thus putting the lie to every promise the POTUS made. Like most of what they say, it's a mischaracterization of the truth. But it may be enough for them to hold the House and take the Senate next year.

  •  The new rules for mental health (4+ / 0-)

    coverage is a big big deal. Every plan has to cover mental health, that's huge. How many people in the US are going without mental health care they need badly? How many are on the streets, or are suffering from trauma, or addicted to something, or primed to get violent?

    We could see some really big benefits as a society if the people who need it are getting mental health care. People who won't be hurting others, people who can join society and contribute to it again. That's worth paying for.

  •  NJ, smart woman, freaked out about her rates (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ahumbleopinion, JerryNA

    going up for the employees she covers, only about 6 pp, and she does not understand the law AT ALL. With one minute on google I found her 50% deduction off her taxes to cover under 10 people and she has not checked exchanges because she resents giving any time....the old plan was not very good obviously and she will offer better care at lower prices but now, she is stubborn (Sicilian racist) and just bitches....there will be lots of this

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:48:26 AM PDT

  •  This Is How INSURANCE Works (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, JerryNA, Inland, a2nite

    I am getting a bit teed-off about cross-subsidy as an issue.  That is the mechanism that makes insurance work for all the insured.  

    I haven't ever used my home insurance for any claim, but MY insurance went up after Sandy.  Am I angry? Of course not.  This is how the system works.  If we control for excess profit taking, spreading costs works better for society as a whole and most individuals.

    Cross subsidy is why auto insurance rates go up every year.  More accidents in general raise rates for everyone.

    So, lets apply routine insurance principles to health insurance.  Even when I don't get sick (Thank you, Lord), someone else will.  We will go to the same well for reimbursement.

    If the Rethugs keep this up, eventually they will be against markets.

    •  Health insurance in and of itself is profit taking (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, Brooke In Seattle

      Instead of the government through single-payer directly paying for medical care, like the rest of the world, we have a multi-hundred billion dollar industry whose sole purpose is to extract profit from society's health care spending. Great for insurance CEOs and stockholders, for the rest of us not so much.

      I won't even go into debating whether the insurance model is the best way to provide for health care expenses; suffice it to say, trying to squeeze every extra dollar of profit along each and every step of the health care system is a major reason why per capita America's health care expenses are much greater than other countries.

  •  Ms. McCarter, you left out annual & lifetime caps! (0+ / 0-)

    Those are big deals, and likely a driver in insurance costs.  Policies with low annual and lifetime caps are worthless for protecting people from major diseases or injuries.  They were also major drivers of personal bankruptcy from uncovered medical bills.  The caps just protected the insurance companies from cost.  Now that the caps have gone away, those cheap policies could either cover people for real or get shut down.  The insurance companies, of course, chose to close those policies to protect their profits.  Real policies without caps are more expensive.  The vast majority of policies already had decent coverage and just complied with the law.  I suggest that you update your diary to add this point.

  •  Kristol tried this yesterday. Too bad for him that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA, a2nite, Brooke In Seattle

    he was opposite Dr. Howard Dean who shot down every single argument he was trying to make.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 10:25:15 AM PDT

  •  Saw on a national nightly news.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    a report over the weekend about a 30 something individual (I believe she was single...did not specifically say)...real estate agent with a policy which I suspect was one wherein if she fell out of an airplane at 35000 ft and had subsequent injuries she was covered. Now her garbage policy is being revoked by her supplier and she's bemoaning the fact that a decent policy will cost her 65% more in premium costs. The reporter was breathless in his veiled outrage that such an injustice could occur with the ACA. The conclusion of the piece was...see how much more Obamacare is going to cost BEWARE. There was so much detail left out of the report that it would vie with a "fair and balanced" type of quality news piece found at FAUX News. AH! that damn liberal press singing the praises of Obamacare!

  •  The BEST new thing today (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T Maysle

      Is the website:

        It list all the LIST PRICE for all the FED generated exchanges and a link to the State Exchanges.  
         For those who have read all the whines - it is a pretty easy way to tell the whiners to STFU and have facts to prove them wrong.  

          Most of the whiner stories are weak on the face of them, especially when they provide "income" levels that would allow them a subsidy.    

          My other whiner favorite  is the complaint: "I really liked my crappy insurance that I didn't know was crappy".  

         Between these cost lists and the FL CEO taking MTP whiner Gregory to the woodshed over the bogus:  300,000 will have no insurance come Jan whine....all in all , it was a good morning!

  •  Will someone PLEASE tell (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA, RoadScholar

    the republicans that this:

    ...about the dollars people will spend because they’re cross-subsidizing the ill and the aged.
    Is how insurance works??  That this is always how insurance has worked??

    If the healthy people don't pay for the sick people, then the sick people have to pay for themselves and there's no need for insurance at all.

    What these idiots fail to understand is that insurance is nothing more than privatized socialism that generates a profit.  That's it.

    "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

    by La Gitane on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 12:08:26 PM PDT

  •  What is next? Launching a campaign against (0+ / 0-)

    young families with multiple children because they use proportionately more medical care than those without?

    “Never argue with someone whose livelihood depends on not being convinced.” ~ H.L. MENCKEN

    by shigeru on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 01:14:50 PM PDT

  •  sick people (0+ / 0-)

    Tea Party syllogism:

    1) If God loved them, they wouldn't be sick.

    2) God doesn't love evil people.

    3) So who cares if evil people get sick?  They should die quickly, and leave America to the healthy people God loves.

    You say good people get sick?

    See 1).

    Easy peasy!

  •  Ms McCarter you need a correction! (0+ / 0-)

    If anyone has had an Individual Policy since March 2010 then they get to keep the policy in 2014.  I am one of those people who have been notified by Blue Shield that I can keep my plan and I have not received any notice of across the board rate increases.  Blue Shield CA has had several refunds over the last 2 years thanks to the ACA.

    The letter also informs me that what will change my rate is my health status.  Get sick, rates will go up.  I also don't get the 3 checkups included in Exchange plans and drugs aren't included until I have spent $5,200.

    Now here is another interesting factoid.  Blue Shield CA has a rate filling for the Grandfathered plans.  In that package they predict that during 2014 78% of members will flee the Grandfathered plans.  In 2013 member months = 2,376,924 and 2014 member months = 649,214.

    In looking at moving to an Exchange plan there is a Bronze plan that is $52 more  than what I pay now but it gives me 3 doctor or emergency visits at a low price and I have the piece of mind of knowing should I get sick my rates can't be raised or worse the policy canceled.

    If I qualify for a subsidy then the saving are much greater and I can get a good Silver policy or even the Platinum and pay less than what I pay now.  

    Congressional elections have consequences!

    by Cordyc on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 02:50:45 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site