Skip to main content

Man in suit with fingers crossed behind his back.
After the latest debunking of an Obamacare horror story, the LA Times' Michael Hiltzik adds them up, and wonders why the Right insists on manufacturing these extreme stories.
Boonstra's case is just the latest of a very long line of deflatable horror stories. We've debunked a passel of them here, from Florida resident Diane Barrette, who didn't realize she'd been empowered by the ACA to move from a costly junk insurance plan to a cheaper real insurance plan; to Los Angeles real estate agent Deborah Cavallaro, whose "unaffordable" premiums turned out to be eminently affordable; to San Diego business owner Edie Sundby, whose cancer coverage was safeguarded by Obamacare after her insurer bailed out on her for financial reasons; to "Bette," the supposed victim trotted out by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) in her response to the State of the Union message last month, and who turned out to be an ACA "victim" because she couldn't be bothered actually to investigate her options for affordable care on the Washington state enrollment website.

And there are many more, including the extremely dubious personal narratives of House Speaker John Boehner and Sen. Tom Coburn.

The thing is, Hiltzik notes, that there are plenty of people health care reporters have talked to who do have to pay more, possibly for less coverage, who have a valid beef with Obamacare, but aren't making it. That could be because they realize with the added costs (and when haven't insurance premiums increased for people?) come a lot of protections. That includes the certainty that they won't be bankrupted if a medical disaster strikes.

Those are the stories with nuance, that acknowledge there's much good in the law. The right has to keep pushing the far-out, emotion-laden horror stories—true or not—because they've staked out a position on the law that can't allow for any nuance. They have to try to keep up the momentum for full repeal, and the only way they can do that is by keeping people scared to death of the law. If they have to lie to do that, well, that's hardly a problem for the likes of the Koch brothers and Boehner. Because, as Hiltzik says, that "is how an American public gets convinced that a program manifestly in their best interests is something bad."

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:04 AM PST.

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

  •  The real horror stories are the ones (49+ / 0-)

    about people in red states who can't get care no matter how poor they are because the governors won't accept the Medicaid expansion.

    Thanks, John Roberts and US Supreme Court.

    "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain

    by Brooke In Seattle on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:10:05 AM PST

  •  Obvious Answer Man, reporting for duty! (14+ / 0-)


    Obvious Answer Man, going off duty - but remember, just turn on the Louie Gohmert shaped signal and I'll be right back!

    Purity is for primaries; in the general, our worst are better than their best.

    by blue aardvark on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 08:21:07 AM PST

  •  In California there are apparently real horrors (0+ / 0-)

    I've tried several times in healthcare diaries to get anyone to respond to the CBS stories about how the covered California plans all set too low reimbursement rates so most doctors, even those that take Medicare, are refusing to see people from the exchanges

    So all the reporting indicates that covered California plans are like Medicaid...decent hospital insurance but otherwise junk insurance

    Unlike the fake Koch brother stories, I can't find one article pushing back on all the bad news coming out of California

    •  actually, though, that's how it's supposed to work (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      waterstreet2013, thomask

      Doctors, understandably, want to get paid as much as possible.

      The people paying doctors want to pay as little as possible.

      If a particular doctor can snag enough rich patients to fill his practice, sure, he can skip the less lucrative patients.

      If the people paying doctors find doctors willing to charge less, then they're happy too.

      And in between, there's conflict.

      Unless we switch to a national health care system like Britain or the VA, that's the market-based system we've got.

      •  No, not really (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sherri in TX, NWTerriD

        Lots of other states have affordable exchange prices and decent reimbursement states

        Doctors make up a very small part of healthcare spending, and if we're going to spend money in healthcare, I think we would want it to go to doctors and nurses more than the other parts

        If the best defense here is "well California should try to make exchange plans junk insurance" this is going to make the ACA a political failure

        Sure, they won't repeal it, but they'll gut all they can without canceling anyone's insurance

        •  so complain about not having the public option (0+ / 0-)

          The ACA was designed so insurance companies negotiate prices with the providers.

          If you're concerned that the insurance companies are taking a hard-line with health-care providers, well, I'm not actually sure what you're complaining about. In truth, that's a good thing. America's health care expenses are way out of line with other countries.

          If you want the government to negotiate prices directly with health-care providers, then sure, but single-payer was never on the table, and the public option was dropped.

    •  I saw a new doctor this week in California (16+ / 0-)

      and he was perturbed with Covered Ca for not telling him what the reimbursement rates were, so he had his lawyer write them a letter demanding an answer.

      The answer came back that Covered Ca Anthem Blue Cross reimburses 3% more than regular Blue Cross, leaving him to wonder, "Why didn't they just SAY so?"

      MediCal reimbursements are so low, however, that only one medical group in town will accept it.

      We all owe it to the American people to say what we’re for,
      not just what we’re against.
      ---> President Obama, 2014 SOTU speech

      by smileycreek on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:05:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Specialist or pcp? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        smileycreek, NWTerriD

        Also, I have no idea why they didn't announce the rates or why the administration is allowing these reports to go unanswered for weeks

        •  Primary care. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I agree, the publicity on the benefits has been wanting.

          We all owe it to the American people to say what we’re for,
          not just what we’re against.
          ---> President Obama, 2014 SOTU speech

          by smileycreek on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:46:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Because "the Administration" doesn't control state (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alice in Florida

          insurance plans. That's up to the California state regulators. (That's the deal they cut on this, to avoid disrupting decades of state insurance regulation.)

          Repeat: The California regulators are the ones who determine the content of the policies, as long as they meet the ACA requirements, and things like reimbursement rates.

          This is not a flaw in the ACA. It is something going on politically within California.

    •  ...well Drazinum... (15+ / 0-) are completely wrong.

      Doctors get 3% MORE pay via Covered California plans than they did before.

      The policies are NOT junk policies. They are very good policies.

      I'm self-employed and had always had to buy my own health insurance policies. They cost tons. The policy I had with Anthem BlueCross was cancelled specifically because it DID NOT comply by even ObamaCare standards.

      Yup, I was one of the 4.7 million Americans who lost their health insurance policy because it was a CRAP policy.

      My deductible was $7,500 per year on that old policy for which I was paying $1000 per month. They jacked up my rates by leaps and bounds over the years. Once they jacked it up 25% in one year alone. PLUS they kept taking away more and more what it covered.

      I could no longer afford it. It cost more than my house payment. I got a new cheaper policy with Anthem BlueCross. It had an $11,000 deductible per year and cost me $500 per month. I never used it from age 26 until age 54...100% profit for them.

      Then I got sick and needed it. I paid for the $11,000 deductible then had to take money out of my retirement account (which I've paid for 100% myself). I had to spend $20,000 out of that. BUT I had to pay the hefty penalty for early I had to take out $28,000 to be able to have $20,000 to use for my medical costs.

      THIS was a CRAP policy.

      NOW I have a Silver70 policy that I got via Covered California. It costs me $91 less per month AND IS a real policy. I covers way more than the CRAP policies I could buy on my own.

      You are either very easily duped and believe a CBS story as your only source (that story is false, BTW bud)...or you are a shill for the GOP talking points

      The ONLY people affected by ObamaCare are those LIKE ME who are self-employed AND people that could NOT get policies before...and therefore had NO health care coverage.

      MediCal has always had a very low reimbursement rate. Most doctors in private practice don't take it. The reimbursement rate is $12. It's ALWAYS been very low. ObamaCare has nothing to do with that. It's always been low.

      Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences. -7.38; -3.44

      by paradise50 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:30:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nothing about seeing doctors in your comment (0+ / 0-)

        There are else real cbs stories, and no proof that any of them are false

        This isn't like insurance stories involving finance, because people can get confused by the numbers, as we have seen

        But not being able to find a doctor is a real problem, not a perceived one

        There are people on blue cross blue shield saying they can't see doctors unless they visit an urgent care clinic, pretty much nothing for specialists

        I'm glad you have coverage that is a lot cheaper, but have you actually used it? Especially for seeing a new specialist

        I'm only asking question because there have been no pushback on these stories...don't blame me, blame the party or Obama

        The only thing that is sad is your knee jerk reaction that anything critical of covered California must be some GOP plot

        •  B.S. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KenBee, paradise50, followyourbliss

          Note that absence of specifics.

          "Teachers: the Architects of American Democracy"

          by waterstreet2013 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:34:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  ...I lost my doctor... (5+ / 0-)

          ...he decided to go to work for the US Embassy in Kazakhstan. The women who replaced him refused to take me due to my having an Anthem BlueCross policy that I got on the exchange (Covered California)...even though I my old policy was also with Anthem BlueCross. That was a policy Anthem BlueCross ended since it was a CRAP policy and they couldn't offer it any more.

          I got a new doctor. He is happy to take my Covered California Anthem BlueCross policy. He gets 3% better pay from them now than he would have with my old policy.

          Some doctors won't take policies that folks have gotten on the exchange purely for political reasons.

          All doctors have contracts with insurance companies...all of them. They can choose to or not. They decide what insurance companies they contract with or not. The same is true of all hospitals. Basically hospitals have contracts with all the insurance companies that offer policies in their area.

          Doctors are individuals and decide to do what they want.

          Where I live there are only two companies that offer health insurance policies to individuals like me who have to buy their own because they own their own businesses and are self-employed. Those two companies are Anthem BlueCross and Blue Shield.

          Individual doctors who decide not have a contract with one of the two players are truly hurting themselves in the long run. But doctors often have very strong political OR religious reasons they chose not to be in contract with for-profit health insurance companies...

          Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences. -7.38; -3.44

          by paradise50 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:30:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  ...what you call a "knee jerk" response... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...on my part is anything but that.

          You want me to blame Obama or the Democratic party for enacting the EXACT health plan the Heritage Foundation came up with, which was the darling plan of the GOP when Hillary tried to do something about it?

          The GOP and Heritage Foundation had nothing but applause about their plan when Romney, a Republican made it the law in Mass. But when their darling plan was adopted by Obama, a Democrat, they've done everything they can think of to destroy it and gum up the works.

          Where do you live? What insurance companies offer plans there? What hospitals are you talking about?

          OH AND yes, I have seen specialists. They are very happy to take it. The only doctors here locally that have chosen not to take it are General Practitioners. Specialists use hospitals where General Practitioners do not. Hospitals here all take any Covered California plans.

          Doctors, whether General Practitioners or Specialists make contracts with health insurance providers as do hospitals. It doesn't matter one damned bit to them who pays for the policies...whether it be companies that folks work for or individuals like me. It is of no concern to them at all.

          Considering Doctors make 3% more money via policies insurance companies sell via the exchanges ONLY pads their bottom lines.

          If they have a problem with that then they are fucking stupid. And that's their problem...

          Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences. -7.38; -3.44

          by paradise50 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:39:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            There was no reason for that tone in your comment

            And yes, I blame Obama for letting the LA Times and CBS stories about California exchange custiomers having a nightmare finding doctors go unanswered, I also blame liberal wonks for ignoring the stories, especially when they've done so much work on the fake "more expensive premiums/deductible" stories

            The people setting up California Covered should have seen this problem in advance, as well

            I can only hope that all covered california plans are reimbursing specialists and pcp at the rates you say they are, in which case we need stories highlighting this rather than being silent when these stories run on the CBS evening news to millions of swing voters

        •  ...oh and one more thing here locally... (4+ / 0-)

 radiology oncologist is so thrilled with Covered California policies she decided one of her staff should become an expert in understanding it and is now one of the go to people in our area regarding it.

          My radiology oncologist had me go to the largest imaging center here (X-ray, CT's, MRI's and PET's) for an X-ray. When I went there they refused to take any Covered California policy purely for political reasons. They told me I'd have to pay for my X-Ray entirely out of pocket, which was about $100.

          I had the X-ray then let my radiology oncologist know about it. Well guess what happened? The radiologist put her expert on it. They told the imaging company they would NO LONGER send any patients to them AND the hospital would also no longer send any patients to them.

          Well, later that afternoon the imaging company told me they would definitely accept my Covered California policy and apologized.

          Though they had no contract with any Covered California policies they did all of a sudden in a heart beat AND they did it three days retroactively MEANING anyone they'd made pay in full due to having a Covered California policy got reimbursed three days before they had any contracts with Anthem BlueCross and BlueShield Covered California policies.

          Nice...very, very nice...

          Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences. -7.38; -3.44

          by paradise50 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:57:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  You shouldn't have had to pay (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        a penalty on your early withdrawal from your retirement account if it was for medical expenses greater than of 10% of your gross income, which I'm guessing that $20K was...also, the penalty is 10%, so all that extra for taxes must have been because it was included in income---but most of it, along with your premiums, would have been deductible, so it's hard to see how you could have ended up owing an additional $8,000 in taxes. If it wasn't too long ago, it might be worth investigating whether you can file an amended return for that year, because that's f---ked up.

        Point taken that your insurance was a heck of a lot worse than the Obamacare policy, but it doesn't make sense that you should have paid a penalty on a withdrawal for medical expenses.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 05:44:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This has been happening across the country (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, Ahianne

      well before the ACA came into effect.

      I can name a dozen doctors in my and extended family's circle who have stopped taking most or all insurance (especially Medicaid) patients due to their desire for higher incomes per visit/code, for example.  Everyone from Internists to relatively rare specialists.

      The majority of doctors I know take Insurance from what their staff feels are reliable from a processing standpoint.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:13:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I need to look into that (7+ / 0-)

      but have to take issue with "junk insurance," because junk insurance isn't allowed any more. Every plan has to meet a minimum level of coverage of services  and have a limit to out of pocket charges.

      Junk insurance isn't the same as scarcity of providers--totally different issue.

      "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 Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:19:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe call it hospital insurance (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Like Medicaid, which is only decent when you are in a hospital

        If the three or four dozen closest specialists are mostly taking Medicare, but not covered California plans, they are doing something wrong

        And it's awful that you have these series of cbs stories about all the people in California that can't find any specialists and some can't even get primary care doctors in their area

        Now if it's greedy assholes that won't take Medicare that's one thing, but when it's doctors that dont don't want to lose money in programs like Medicaid or plans with Medicaid like reimbursement, then it's poor planning by california

        •  From the comments here, it's clear (0+ / 0-)

          that other people in California have experience that does not match the "cbs stories" you keep citing (but not linking to). I have to wonder if "cbs" is putting out a bunch of scare stories that are as faux as the ones this diary highlights.

          In other words, instead of just repeating what you heard on the teevee, consider the possibility that they're simply wrong.

  •  The real Horror Story is the GOP clinging to this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NedSparks, waterstreet2013, rapala

    as an issue......They give hints that they want to let go but the Knuckleheads won't let them.

  •  "they won't be bankrupted if a medical disaster (7+ / 0-)

    strikes." Among other things, I have heard the ACA referred to as a patient's bill of rights on steroids. This is a huge won't become bankrupt neither will your plan be canceled if health cost become too exorbitant.

    Good luck to those who are pledging to repeal it. It will never happen.

  •  Reality has a liberal bias. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State, NWTerriD, Cedwyn
  •  My insurance rate went up 25%! (18+ / 0-)

    I just got notice the other day that my worthless piece of crap insurance policy with $3000 deductible that wouldn't cover anything but one "wellness" visit to my doctor, just went from $280/month to $360/month!

    I guess I'm glad I dropped that policy in Dec. and went to our state exchange and got a policy with 0 deductible, and with my credits it's costing me $45/month.

  •  The problem is the bottomless pit of money (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sharman, Sherri in TX, myboo, wasatch

    to keep churning these lies out on television, and the endless stream of suckers in the media to parrot them for a week before they finally get debunked with barely a whisper, leaving the only memory the story, not the correction.

    "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 Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:08:53 AM PST

  •  A few local pain-in-the-ass stories (3+ / 0-)

    --Aetna/BC, the only exchange company in my area of NorCal, won't as of yet (according to several providers), tell providers what the reimbursement rates are. This makes providers less than happy to partner with Aetna/BC. Many outright refuse.

    I am paying $115 more a month for less generous coverage, and again, lots of local outfits won't truck with Aetna/BC for the above-mentioned reasons. Of course I wanted Single Payer. 4 turncoat Dems killed it in CA.

    Whatever. I know I won't go bankrupt for getting hit by a bus or getting alien cancer. (Or, I seem to be much less likely to go bankrupt.) And my roommate pays $500 less for insurance, she has epilepsy. It's worth it.

    If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

    by rhetoricus on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:12:53 AM PST

    •  The question is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Why would an Ins Co refuse to tell doctors what the reimbursement rates are?

      Well, it's money. With Ins Cos, the answer is always money. So what's the money angle?

      The obvious answer: its a tactic to prevent people from seeing doctors. That keeps care costs down. (Dead kids? Who cares! Money money money money money!!!!)

      Lower reimbursement rates -> Ins cos don't need to do this often
      Higher reimbursement rates -> Ins cos more motivated to pull this shit.

      The fact that they're doing it a lot indicates that reimbursement rates are by and large ok.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:07:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Julia Grey

    The ACA provides better care at a lower price to the public  at the time, but this is only because we are comparing it to the previous insurance system. This is like comparing West Virginia water to Fukoshima water.
    That $45 premium sounds good , and it is compared to $360, but in ten years it will prevent you or your children from buying a home. In 5 years it will make you wait a year or two from buying an electric car. (which will cost you more in the long run) In addition, thanks to the costs of the subsidies the government is paying to keep your premium at $45 next year it will not have the money to pay for fixing that sewer leak under your house. I know that claim will be essentially bullshit, but it will happen, especially since the money spent on those unnecessary  subsidies will be used to bribe politicians to say it.
    That is the "horror story" of the ACA - replacing a present disaster with a slower manifesting disaster only makes it harder for us things in the end.

    •  A general lament that things cost money. (4+ / 0-)

      That's what your comments looks like to me.

      It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

      by Rich in PA on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:52:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The ACA costs twice as much as single payer (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Julia Grey

        I'm not complaining about cost, I'm complaining about waste.

        •  cite to a real source for this? (0+ / 0-)

          I don't doubt that the ACA scheme is more expensive overall (but not necessarily for any given individual) than single payer would be. But double? Do you have a source for that?

          I am paying a lot less for my ACA policy this year than I will be paying for Medicare + Medicare drug next year, and the coverage won't be as good (higher copays and no cap on out-of-pocket).

          •  "Not necessarily for any given individual" (0+ / 0-)

            Certainly the ACA is designed to provide subsidies for most people who can't get health insurance through their jobs, assuming that anyone whose family income is 4xFPV must have insurance through their job (not necessarily so)...but while it provides subsidies to most, it does not help all. And a great many people in our age group (55 to 65) will pay a LOT more than the Medicare premium, even with a subsidy (and not everyone qualifies for the subsidy, by the way). One of the ugly features of the ACA if you're on the borderline is that there's a big jump from subsidized to not subsidized, with the kicker that the ACA also makes it harder for taxpayers who itemize to deduct medical expenses. Medicare premiums would be only a quarter of what I'll have to pay for a high-deductible plan.  

            "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

            by Alice in Florida on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 06:46:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  sorry I took so long to reply (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Team Leftie

            But my methodology is pretty opaque. America spent (before the ACA) $2.8 trillion a year on health insurance and care. Got that from google. Single payer systems cost approximately half as much, usually less, but no always. (I believe the French, for example, pay more like 55 or 60%). That means we were wasting 2.4 trillion, roughly. The CBO's ACA estimate says that it will "save" $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years. That comes out to $180 billion a year. $2.4 trillion - $180 billion = $2.22 trillion. I suppose that I was a little hyperbolic when I said the ACA still costs twice as much as single payer, but "at least one and a fifth times as much" just doesn't trip off the tongue.
            You may be paying "a lot less", but not everyone is, and there are the tax subsidies which someone must pay, and there is a (potential) subsidy that this site just revealed a couple of days ago. ( the dreaded "sticker shock" that some people were afraid of, where the insurance companies claim that they "underestimated" their premiums so they can jack them up later cannot occur until 2016 - right in time for the elections - because the government has agreed to reimburse 50 - 80% of any shortfalls if that happens. The insurance companies agreed to reimburse if they overestimate also, but since there is an incentive to underestimate , and insurance companies are evil, that scenario is vastly less likely)

    •  Rubbish (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nosleep4u, annan, Julia Grey, myboo, Ahianne

      ACA 'taxes' people with double-Platinum policies.

      These taxes will pay for the subsidies for people who earn less than 4X poverty rate.

      The Affordable Care Act does not add top the deficit.

      Since passage of ACA, annual rate of healthcare premiums has fallen to historic lows.  There is every reason to believe that there will be additional savings from people receiving wellness visits, instead of waiting to visit the emergency room, and/or just being able to see a doctor more regularly.

      Naysayers just need to complain about something.  So if you want to complain, send a message to 'red state' governors who are denying coverage to millions of people who would otherwise receive Medicaid coverage were it not for the need for cruel and unusual punishment being thrust upon the poor in these 'red states'.

      •  So? (0+ / 0-)

        We - even after the ACA - waste about 1/2 of the money we spend on health.  I don't care where the money comes from at this point, it is money we should collect and use, instead we don't collect enough and throw away half of what we do.
        Yes, fascist governors are making people suffer. Yes, that is worse. But I once had an argument where someone refused to admit that the banksters stole billions from the Greek people, because, "OMG! three people died in the protests!!!!!" The two points are not contradictory, in fact, you are reinforcing my point, since one is the true cause of the other.
        An interesting argument - is it possible that the real reason we don't have single payer is because in the end the fascists knew that they could force us to accept the ACA? After all we get the health care, they the the money and the power.

        •  Single-Payer? (3+ / 0-)

          There seems to be missing a few ideas in your tirade.

          So let me see if I can untangle the web.

          People in the U.S. spend more for healthcare, yet receive lesser outcomes.  Is this your 'beef' with waste?

          Part of the reason is because we are not socialists.  Doctors are given greater value and greater rewards in our society.  This drives up costs.  Also, doctors are encouraged to perform 'tests' that may or may not increase the value of healthcare received, because more tests does not mean more healthy.  The ACA has attempted to align outcomes with reimbursement.

          More importantly, much is spent in the final days of the human experience on healthcare.  On average, this is the single most cost in a lifetime.  It costs a great deal of money to die in America.  We need only look at the case of Marlise Munoz to get an idea of the problem.

          As to single-payer, we still live a country that has some notional form of democracy and there are not enough votes in Congress for single-payer.

          There are plenty of changes I'd like to see from Congress.  While cathartic to express some of these views on DailyKos, it is far more important that we get out the vote.

          •  Doctors are given greater rewards (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Team Leftie

            In our system, those doctors are given higher pay and sometimes $300,000 in medical school debt.

            In those socialist countries, the doctors' educations are subsidized and while they make less money, they don't have to start their professional life with crippling debt, either.

            Thank what gods may be that we are not socialists.

            La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues, et de voler du pain.

            by dconrad on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 01:46:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  The website didn't work...until it did. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, jdsnebraska, Ahianne

    Okay, not so scary.


    The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

    by Inland on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:29:56 AM PST

    •  CoveredCA's been out of commission... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      …since the early part of the week.

      As one of those who's been caught within the website/insurance co. myriad clusterfucks, and who's appealed to every Dem pol's office to assist me to no avail, I don't appreciate your handwaving.

      Socialism? No, it's Capitalism, and regulatory capture, and hundreds of millions of dollars going to outside contractors who don't seem to be able to actually fix things, and a lack of accountability between the private insurers we're subsidizing for hundreds of billions of dollars and the state/federal authorities in charge of regulation.

      I know… how delirious of me to expect actual reform coming from insurance-reform legislation.

  •  Change is never completely painless (3+ / 0-)

    It's impossible to make a major change in the way this country does business without causing any inconvenience to anyone.  

    If your criterion for change is that no one can be inconvenienced in the slightest, you never do anything.  You never build a road or a school or a hospital or a military base.  Anytime you build something, some people are inconvenienced and maybe negatively impacted in an economic way.  I guess that's part of the price of living in a modern society.  

    That said, the opposition has been carrying out a major search for horror stories and exaggerating and inflating them through the best PR money can buy.  And what they've come up with so far is very thin gruel.  

  •  I know a real Obamacare horror story (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    myboo, KenBee, jdsnebraska, Cedwyn, Ahianne

    The real Obamacare horror story is how the MSM believes anything that Turtle Man, Fox, the teabaggers, or the rest of the Republican Party makes up, and how the latter lie without being called out.

  •  Bankruptcy rates over th next year or two (6+ / 0-)

    will be veeeery interesting to watch, since the ACA has now made medical bankruptcy mostly a thing of the past.

    "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

    by nosleep4u on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 09:51:19 AM PST

    •  great point. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Until now, most personal bankruptcies were due to medical bills.

    •  It will take longer than that (0+ / 0-)

      By the time people are so desperate to get rid of medical bills that they declare bankruptcy, it's probably four or five years past the treatment.

      So the bankruptcies for the next 4-5 years will reflect bills incurred before people had insurance, or when they had junk coverage.

    •  no it hasn't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Willa Rogers

      Are you volunteering to pay the $5000 a year deductible for the plan i was offered?  Because i do not have $5000 laying around every year.  So i will not receive any care even if i sign up for a plan, and when i end up in the hospital for lack of care, bankruptcy will be the only option for paying the deductible - that and ruined credit.  What makes you think those of us who do not qualify for medicaid are going to get any healthcare or avoid bankruptcy?

      "Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead." -Thomas Paine. "It's a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent." - Miss Gayle

      by MissGayle on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 02:09:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The compulsory purchase of private insurance... (0+ / 0-)

      …hasn't "eradicated" medical BK in Mass.; it's lowered it a few points, from 58 percent to 51 percent of all bankruptcies, I believe.

  •  "Michael Hiltzik adds them up, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, nosleep4u, milkbone

    and wonders why the Right insists on manufacturing these extreme stories."

    Maybe Michael hasn't been paying attention, but the RW manufactures and makes up extreme stories for just about everything.

    Them doing this over the ACA isn't surprising. What IS surprising, though, is the fact that anyone in the media is questioning their narrative at all, as opposed to the usual of granting it equal footing with "this side says, but this OTHER side says..." bs.

  •  Health Care Horror Stories Here (5+ / 0-)

    Because of the abomination that is the ACA:
    1. A relative of mine was able to stay on her parents' insurance when she was between school and grad school. She had a serious accident and insurance paid her $50k hospital bill.

    2. A friend finally was able to sign up for an HMO at a very low cost. She loves her new doctor, and has taken care of several medical issues that she couldn't before.

    3. My health insurance costs remain the same as they were last year, but now cover more preventive care without co-pays.

    these are horror stories for Republicans.

  •  the right lies to their followers... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...because their followers love to be lied to.  They aren't even interested in the truth -- they already know what they want to believe, so they just want that belief maintained.  Doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's what they like thinking.   So, Obamacare is "a huge disaster," whether it actually is or isn't.  No amount of success will stop it from being a "huge disaster," because that's the story they've decided is most comforting to them.

    Ever since the Republican party became completely enmeshed with the religious right, everything is just a matter of "faith," not facts.

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 10:27:52 AM PST

  •  If it had not been for bloggers here and elsewhere (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    pointing up the errors and holes in many of those stories, I have no doubt that the LA Times and other trad organs would have kept on happily parroting these horror stories.

    Really, this site and their kin did a great service to the public teasing the threads - and teaching the reporters that they should first question the evidence presented.

  •  Not a horror story but very frustrating (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, rsmpdx

    Here in Oregon our application has been stuck since we applied in October. Lots of lies and BS from Cover Oregon. Since the start I believe we were eligible for subsidies for the plan of our choice. Cover Oregon basically did not read their own application questions and our answers. They apparently think we make zero income and put us on Medicare or medicaid? We bought a silver plan outside the exchange and may be loosing a few hundred dollars a month in subsidy.

    At least our rates did not go up again this year. They went down a bit and the coverage is better. We call Cover Oregon all though this process and just get one story after another. They say we are being redeterimined. It has been about 2 months. We turned the whole mess over to a broker who can't get answered. The broker has tried to resubmit an application.

    The state governor has asked the president for retroactive subsidies for others like us.

    Not a horror story but not working good either. It's like lost in space.

    •  We're having trouble getting enrolled (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      under Cover Oregon, as well, for different reasons. (Coverage for my wife and son.)

      We are not eligible for a subsidy, but the plan we want is available only through CO, not direct from the insurer. We made our application December 4. Knowing that they wouldn't be able to process it in time for January 1 coverage, we enrolled in a stopgap plan direct with the insurer.

      We are still flailing with CO, trying to get my wife and son both covered independently on the correct plan, so we can start the new coverage and cancel the stopgap coverage for both of them, effective the same date.

      Will that date be March 1? Stay tuned, my guess is we still have some more Keystone Cops routines to go through before it all settles.

      So that's two-plus months since we sent in our application, and no resolution yet. Still trying.

      I can't help it. I love the state of Texas. It's a harmless perversion. - Molly Ivins

      by rsmpdx on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 04:54:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It depends on one's perspective. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Are there any real Obamacare horror stories?
    Ask the GOP, and they have millions of 'em: one for each successfully-enrolled ACA-insured American.

    As has become typical for the GOP, the better something is for Americans, the worse the GOP want to believe it is.

  •  There are real "horror" stories (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans are trying to find someone who is both poor and has a major medical condition to show that Obamacare is a big disaster.  The problem is that these people are the ones who benefit the most from Obamacare.

    The people who are worse off are those who are healthy, make over 400% the FPL and don't receive insurance through their employer.

    Republicans can put these people in ads but having a successful healthy man complain about his insurance premiums rising 20% does not have the same effect.

  •  $660 junk BS policy gone: Now have (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    viral, Ahianne, rsmpdx, myboo, pollwatcher

    $82 subsidized premium payment and a way better policy, I can now actually afford to pay the co-pays to go to the doctor and have.

    Now if I am lucky, I won the 'can't afford to go to the doctor cause I spend over half my income on  health insurance but now thank you Mr Obama I may live' lottery.

    Thank you President Obama and all the people who worked so hard to get (at least this) passed and implemented.

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 11:50:30 AM PST

  •  oh and the difference between the junk insurance (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, myboo

    and the subsidized premium with better coverage: will be able to buy a modest car with AIR BAGS and better mileage that won't strand me somewhere the cannibals live. I can retire, with honors, my 32 year old tin can...the one without air bags...well, at least it had seat belts.

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:00:18 PM PST

  •  Define 'horror story' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hmi, Willa Rogers

    Are there people who had their policies cancelled last year - who were 'self insured'. Policies they were happy with? (Yes) Aetna cancelled thousands of policies in CA.

    Are there people for whom those 'crap' policies - paid off? (Yes) I'm one of them.

    Are there people now buying insurance that is TWICE as expensive as their old insurance? (Yes)

    Are there people who THOUGHT they were buying insurance coverage that included their doctors - only to find that AFTER they bought it - Their Doctors DON'T Accept it - led to this mistake by the CalCare website? (Yes)

    KPIX CalCare Doctor's List Pulled

    Are there people paying MORE THAN TEN PERCENT  of their adjusted gross income - what the ACA defines as 'unaffordable' - even though they are buying the cheapest plan available to them on Cal Care ? (Yes)

    (Go to CalCare - Pick two adults aged 58 and 55 - AGI of 92k, Zipcode 94019 and look at the bronze plans available)

    Are there people who spent DAYS on hold. Literally a cumulative number of hours, exceeding forty eight - trying to get information that is correct - and still falling short? (Yes)

    Are there people who were made to jump through hoops - to prove their citizenship - because they have hispanic last names - only to be told 'oh - sorry - that was a mistake' ? (Yes)

    If all of this happened to YOU - would you consider it a horror story?

    The GOP Prime Directive: Be Silent - Consume - DIE!

    by Lance Bearer on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:23:20 PM PST

  •  Also in Colorado (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe Jackson

    Friday's Denver Post had a front page article written by Mr. Arthur Kane, "Special to the Denver Post" with no other attribution as to who Mr. Kane is.  He starts his article claiming a 29 year old Littleton, CO man's best coverage he could find had a $175 monthly premium coupled with a $10,000 deductible.  But, later in the article a 27 year old Denver man had a policy with a $200 monthly premium but only a $2,200 deductible.  Very curious.

    Yet, the Denver Post did not explain this obvious discrepancy.  The Denver Post has been purging its staff of seasoned journalists and replacing them with rookies.  And now, they don't even use their own journalists. In their stead are unattributed authors under the heading "Special to the Denver Post".   I'm used to that for Travel articles, not front page news.

    Pathetic and manipulative by the right-wing owner of the Denver Post.

    ITLDUSO Honk "Hello" when I drive by!

    by caroman on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:42:55 PM PST

  •  My dentist's family policy from Oxford jumped (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hmi, Alice in Florida

    by $4000 annual, copays increased substantially ($25 to $40). Health care costs may be leveling nationally, many who desperately need to get insurance now have access, but insurance rates in our region appear to continue their climb unabated while deductibles and copays are increasing quite substantially in that dreaded non-employer sponsored market.

    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

    by the fan man on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 12:58:24 PM PST

    •  Need more details to evaluate this (0+ / 0-)

      Was it true individual market, through the exchange? Or a small business policy? Did he really shop around, or did his broker or the insurance company just send him one of those letters announcing "your new premium is X"?

      You're not him, so you probably don't know -- which is the point. These second, third, and fourth-hand stories, without any further investigation, aren't very useful.

      •  I am sure this was not through exchange, his (0+ / 0-)

        existing policy.  We don't know what it would have been w/o the ACA, could have been higher, right? All changes during this time will be attributed to ACA.

        Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

        by the fan man on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:24:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Facts, Facts, they don't need any stinking facts (0+ / 0-)

    Anything that appeals to their base well be set to sail.

    Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. John Leland

    by J Edward on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 01:27:43 PM PST

  •  Have you heard about the neighbor of my cousin's (5+ / 0-)

    …friend's mom who was told by someone while waiting in line at the grocery store that her brother got a raw deal with the ACA?

  •  you are also spreading misinformation. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CarolinW, Willa Rogers

    "That includes the certainty that they won't be bankrupted if a medical disaster strikes."

    That is an absolutely false statement.  Do you think people of limited means have $5000 a year lying around for deductibles? Every single year?  Is there a provision in the law making it illegal for hospitals and doctors to sue me for unpaid bills?  No?  Then your assertion is crap.  I will never be able to get any actual healthcare with a deductible like that.  And when i finally end up in the hospital for lack of care, that deductible will absolutely put me in bankruptcy.  I don't have money to pay cash out of pocket and even if i could afford to pay any premium, which i cannot, i am not going to put money in some ceo's pocket when i will not get even one minute of treatment.

    "Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead." -Thomas Paine. "It's a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent." - Miss Gayle

    by MissGayle on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 01:58:36 PM PST

    •  Are you sure you understand deductibles? (0+ / 0-)

      I had medium deductible policies through my company (and rarely hit the deductible limit) until last year when I went with a high deductible ($6K).  

      First off, the rates the insurer negotiated with the local hospitals meant that last year, even though my wife was hospitalized twice (diverticulitus, internal bleeding after a colonoscopy), we didn't go out of pocket more than about $1500.

      A person would have to have medical disasters EVERY year to hit their deductible limit EVERY year.  And prior to ACA they'd have a high likelihood of getting their policy cancelled (if it was a private or small company paid policy) as the insurance company looked for some bullshit prior condition to justify rescission

  •  Problem With The Media Covering ACA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Janet 707

    They are not comfortable doing the debunking because they need to balance out the good that the ACA is doing. Just have to appear balanced. Relaying the truth is secondary to that.

  •  Here's one from me... (0+ / 0-)

    So I sign up for Obamacare on and get approved for Anthem Blue Cross with the subsidized rate of $1 a month. So I don't hear anything for two months and just as I'm about to call Anthem to see about my health care and I get a letter from coveredca saying I have been denied my blue shield coverage because I MAY be eligible for medicare. I've never been eligible for medicare, and if I was why didn't they tell me that when I was signing up?!! This is total bull. Then I try to go to the coveredca website to re-enroll and it's down again for maintenance! Their site is totally impossible to use, it is never working right, there is no one to help, the site is always down, and they deny me coverage after they approved me for the Blue Cross plan. So now, 3 months later and I still don't have health coverage.

    •  CoveredCA is a total clusterfuck. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lance Bearer

      They've been sending me 90-day conditional approvals for subsidies and telling me to call a non-functional phone no. to get permanent approval.

      Every time I get another letter from them I send it back with a request for someone to call me. I've also contact my state assembyman, state senator, and federal senators and rep's office and no one gives a flying fuck.

  •  McMorris Rogers will have TWO (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe Jackson

    opponents on the ballot this fall. One is a Dem. and is a former Chief of the Colville Tribes, and the second opponent will be an Independent. I don't think either will win unfortunately. Spokane County is to Republican.

  •  Exchange Rates Debunked (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I visited a customer this week, a really nice guy who is strongly against Obamacare. He told me about an employee, a single 60-year-old gentleman earning $10 per hour who claimed the exchange rates were too expensive. My customer didn't appear to fully understand the ACA, and I told him I didn't think the gentleman got the correct info. That night in my hotel room, I punched in the particulars for this gentleman and was presented with 18 plans. Several were bronze plans with $0 monthly premium and a $5750 deductible, maybe good as a catastrophic plan. One silver plan had a $57 monthly premium and a $1150 deductible.   To his credit, my customer was interested in looking further into the ACA.

  •  Short answer (0+ / 0-)

    NO way.  How can there be any bad stories when Miilions of people now have insurance.  Let me think, ummm alright no possible way.   More people today have insurance than did before obama care went into place,  the only people that lost insurance are those who have also died, clever way the GOP counts,  

  •  Dumb Americans and Their Enablers (0+ / 0-)

    There are dumb Americans out there; I don't think they really deserve opprobrium, because their education has been so dumbed-down, it's ALMOST not their fault they cop to Republican scare-tactics. Then there are the enablers, the greedy and heartless; true Sociopaths.  THOSE are the people who need forestalling, preventing, and lots and lots of opprobrium.  The consequences of their scaring the less mentally endowed must come home to knock them from their mounts . . . Permanently!  God?  You busy?  Got some inspiration for Activist Mortals? . . . Oh . . . That's right.  Your Son.  Yeah, we kinda blew that one, didn't we.  Like George Harrison sang (jams with you a lot now), "We must surely be learning."

  •  The horror story I have heard is of parents (0+ / 0-)

    who switched to an exchange plan, only to find that their children cannot be covered under it because they qualify for SCHIP, but the state SCHIP plan is underfunded and so the kids can't get covered there, either.

    You can blame that on the state government, perhaps, but that is cold comfort to the parents whose children do not have coverage.

    One of the stories was from a father whose daughter is in gymnastics and now has no coverage. He said he was thinking of simply buying an unsubsidized plan for her on the private market because any injury she suffered in gymnastics could potentially bankrupt him.

    He also said that he had tried to get answers from either national or state officials, to no avail. It sounded like a real catch 22 and I certainly felt sympathy for him.

    La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues, et de voler du pain.

    by dconrad on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 01:25:39 PM PST

    •  I found the story (0+ / 0-)

      One family has a daughter in gymnastics, another is an equestrian jumper. An accident, without insurance, could have serious consequences in either case.

      Many Children Unable To Be Included In Parents’ Obamacare Family Plans

      In some states, parents must have significantly lower incomes to gain Medicaid coverage for themselves than they would to get coverage for just their children, either through Medicaid or [S-CHIP]....

      In North Port, Fla., Russell Clouden was thrilled to find a better, cheaper family plan through the new marketplace, then stunned to realize his 14-year-old daughter, [an accomplished equestrian jumper], wouldn’t be enrolled because she might qualify for Florida Healthy Kids, the state’s version of CHIP. ...

      “I’m kind of in limbo with her because I’m just hoping she doesn’t get injured or sick,” said Clouden, 53.... “Without insurance, you’ve kind of got a knot in your stomach watching her jumping.”

      As I said, it sounds like a case of unintended consequences, a real catch-22, but it's troubling nonetheless. The story says other parents are also in limbo:
      Insurance broker Matthew Dinkel in Fort Myers, Fla., said he has about 15 clients in Clouden’s position.
      In California, Robert Clark said when he applied by phone through the Covered California marketplace, he was assured that his two children would be on the plan he picked. But he later ... was told the person he’d previously talked to there was wrong and that his children had to be enrolled in Medi-Cal, [the state’s Medicaid program]. ...

      “My daughter is in gymnastics,” he said. “If she falls on her head, we need to be covered.”

      I'll be thrilled if I come back to this diary and find a reply stating that these stories are either false or have been resolved. I really want this program to work, but cases like these make me uneasy.

      La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues, et de voler du pain.

      by dconrad on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 01:41:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'll give you a horror story! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Team Leftie

    Thanks to the ACA, our nearly worthless insurance coverage is costing more and covering less. I do indeed have a valid beef and I AM making it, but you won't see any tea baggers using me as an example either.

    I earn just enough money not to qualify for a subsidy, and the insurance company is using the ACA as an excuse to increase our rate from $915 to $1084 per month for my wife and myself, despite being in good health, simply because I am 60 and my wife is 59.

    Right now that buys us a plan with a $6000 deductible and 80 percent coverage on the next $6000 or so.  That means unless we're near death, we really don't even have insurance.  We pay out of pocket for all of our health care, which makes us less likely to seek such care when we need it.

    I thought we couldn't have a crappier plan, but our insurance company is using the ACA to justify a premium increase of $169 per month.  At the same time our deductible will increase to $6350 (each!), and the "notch coverage" will decrease from 80 to 60 percent.

    I read about a lady in Florida who got her plan for $3.90 per month thanks to the ACA.  Doesn't anyone find it ironic that she probably earns less than my insurance premium and will actually now have much better coverage than me?

    Don't I deserve at least as much for all that I have to pay?  Do you realize that I am essentially paying for that lady to have much better health insurance than I do?  And I can barely afford the catastrophic coverage for which I have to settle.

    Right now we pay nearly 20 percent of our income for this nearly worthless coverage.  We really can't afford to pay any more, and thanks to the ACA, we don't even have a choice of going without insurance.

    There is no other plan available to us, because we live in a state where one carrier (Highmark BCBS) is the only provider.  This is not what I have in mind when I think of "single payer".

    The ACA is a giveaway to the insurance companies - more of our tax dollars flowing into the private sector with far less in value coming back in return.

    If the insurance companies are so powerful that single payer just isn't possible in America, we should at least have a public option.  Let me buy into Medicare now at a fair rate.  I know that the government won't rip me off the way that BCBS is gouging me right now, and then finally, I will actually have real coverage like that poor lady in Florida!

  •  Other Horror Stories.... (0+ / 0-)

    With RomneyCare/Heritage-Foundation-Care, now re-named "ObamaCare", we have some rarely-noted horrors outside of individual stories of details:

    1- Contrary to Constitutional Free Speech Principles, people are compelled, by IRS penalties, to speak (with words and money) to private insurers even though there is no public-interest emergency justification, and even though there is an option...a public-funded, public-administered health system as successfully tested by many other countries.

    2-  For-profit health insurers invest billions in cigarette manufacturing alone, not to mention pesticides, dioxin-producing chlorine, GMOs, nukes, radiation-producing fertilizers, pharmaceuticals that make tobacco pesticides, fracking, big oil, coal, military weaponry, and other health-damaging industries.  Yet no one is told where their insurer may invest.   Any Right To Know is invisible.   And few know to even ask.     People may be "insured" by owners of the very industries that caused their illnesses.   All in favor?

    3- For-profit insurers invest in pharmaceuticals.  This creates a harmful conflict of interest in that such an insurer has incentive and even corporate duty to promote drugs from pharms in which it invests, to fail to scrutinize those drugs for harms, and to make it hard or impossible to get prescriptions approved for drugs that may be cheaper, more effective, and safer.
    And, there is no incentive to prescribe No Medication if none is needed.

    4-  Insurers invested heavily in pharmaceuticals have no incentive to inform or advise about natural remedies, from medical marijuana to herbal supplements, and vitamins and minerals, or anything that isn't patented..and "approved" by corporate-contaminated "regulatory" agencies.    Such insurers have motive to use their power to even outlaw free speech that promotes any natural, medicinal, healthful, product for its health benefits.

    5-  Govt voucher programs for low income people don't provide access to health care providers or medicine   Those programs relay taxpayer money to unnecessary private insurer middle-men that, by taking so much off the top, deny health care funds to millions of people who need the care.

    6-  Insurers, for-profit and "non-profit", waste fortunes of what ought be health care money on advertising, lobbying, campaign gifts, trade conventions, brass polish and big annoying light displays at lush headquarters, corporate jets, CEO bonuses, and so forth, things that have nothing to do with anyone's health care.  

    7-  It is enormously more expensive to the public to allow this Insurance Industry Windfall than to have the public (Single Payer) system.  Millions of citizens will, as a direct consequence, not be able to afford "affordable" care.  

    8-  If one isn't up-front informed about where a for-profit insurer invests, one may be unwittingly providing investment revenue to those insurers to support businesses a customer may oppose for moral, religious, political, environmental, or business reasons.      Some may not care to second-handedly provide investment revenues for, say, military weaponry, private prisons, logging, GMOs, firms that allow or don't allow gay rights, union-busting firms, child-labor-using firms, providers of "adult" entertainments, abortion pills and contraceptives, animal-abusing ag businesses, etc etc etc...OR to businesses that compete with ones own business or personal investment properties.

    9-  This Romney-Heritage Foundation-ObamaCare merger of government and private business (which pushes we the people out of our government) is the kind of arrangement once called "Corporatism" by Mussolini (or someone he plagiarized) because it was a nicer, lest volatile term than "Fascism".

  •  A.H.A (0+ / 0-)

    Well every time one comes up it get's shot down.

  •  Do your homework before you open your mouth (0+ / 0-)

    If people would just take the time to actually DO their own homework rather than relying on the talking heads which infest our TV screens all this nonsense could be avoided.  Precious little we hear from the media is actually unbiased.  That people don't understand this confounds the imagination.

  •  My Horror Story (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I can't sign up until I correct some data conflicts about our SS numbers and my husband's place of birth. After multiple e-mails telling me to log in and finish our enrollment, I finally got a call and a letter telling me to prove my husband is a US Citizen. We had to go to the storage unit twice to look for his birth certificate (we don't have passports because we haven't been to Canada in 5 years), then spend $40 to send away for a copy from the state.

    Now I can't get in to find where to send all the documentation because I had to reset my password again, and I'm still waiting for that e-mail.

    So most of my horror centers around jumping hoops and glitchy websites. Looking forward to the end of sawing through the red tape.

    •  I hope the savings you see will feel worthwhile. (0+ / 0-)

      I felt blessed to get a less expensive, far more comprehensive plan with lower out-of-pocket costs...all would have been unheard-of before the ACA as my husband had cancer two years ago.

      Oddly enough, I had to provide proof of citizenship (copy of passport worked) and he didn't.

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      Rick Perry doesn't think there should be a minimum wage
      and Ted Nugent doesn't think there should be a minimum age. Merica
      ---> @LOLGOP

      by smileycreek on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 04:14:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site