Some Americans are furious over losing their terrible insurance

[BSM1]

... and the media is going to make sure you know about every single one of them. What you may not know, because the media is doing a terrible job of reporting it, is that this group comprising 0.1% - 1.0% of Americans appear to be "losing" junk health insurance and gaining options under Obamacare to get affordable, decent insurance:

Obamacare hysteria: Don't believe the canceled insurance hype - latimes.com


Another Obamacare horror story debunked - latimes.com

I think you may be missing the bigger picture here. The government has deemed these programs 'junk', not the consumer nor the provider. By this reasoning the government could eliminate anything by arbitrarily calling it substandard. If you should lose favor with this or any future administration they could conceivably say your house was 'junk' and you need to move to a government "housing development".
Hyperbole, I know, but too much government is just as dangerous as not enough.

BTW, DHS still has over a billion rounds of ammo.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Looks like the count so far is 2 million people and rising who are losing their insurance.

But it's only some furious Americans. No big deal with the Dems.

Obamacare: More than 2 million people getting booted from existing health insurance plans - CBS News

2 million would bring us up to about 0.7% of the American population. And again, CBS is being a little misleading when it says these policies have been "cancelled" without providing the proper context that in fact it's more like a notice of change of benefits. If these consumers do nothing, they are typically be auto-enrolled in the new policy. The same thing used to happen to many, many Americans each year, long before the ACA.

The Kaiser Family Foundation, which is a widely-respected purveyor of non-partisan health policy information, originally broke this story (as far as I can tell) and provides the appropriate context to the "cancellation" letters [emphasis added]:

By all accounts, the new policies will offer consumers better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost -- especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify. The law requires policies sold in the individual market to cover 10 “essential” benefits, such as prescription drugs, mental health treatment and maternity care. In addition, insurers cannot reject people with medical problems or charge them higher prices. The policies must also cap consumers’ annual expenses at levels lower than many plans sold before the new rules.
...
Like other insurers, the Blue Shield letters let customers know they have to make a decision by Dec. 31 or they will automatically be enrolled in a recommended plan.

Thousands Of Consumers Get Insurance Cancellation Notices Due To Health Law Changes - Kaiser Health News

 

[Reverend Rick]

Health Insurance should not be one size fits all. I don't need a policy to pay for an anual checkup. This is not insurance, this is socialism. Some folks only want or need catostropic health insurance.

If you have 100's of thousands in the bank, you should not have to have a "plan" when all you need is "insurance".

People of means can save alot of money with very high deductables.

 

[tytlyf]

Health Insurance should not be one size fits all. I don't need a policy to pay for an anual checkup. This is not insurance, this is socialism.

Socialism? Last I checked the private insurance companies haven't gone anywhere.

 

[esmith]

Yes...we need to keep addressing ways to make the programs more efficient or even consolidating the programs. If we draw back on military spending, foreign spending, and cut corporate expenditures (tax deductions and other breaks)...we could easily pay for SS Security.....and even provide healthcare for all as well as repair our crumbling infrastructure....

How about seriously looking at the current tax code and do away with it and go to a flat tax for everyone. Of course I would exempt income from SS below a set total income level.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think you may be missing the bigger picture here. The government has deemed these programs 'junk', not the consumer nor the provider. By this reasoning the government could eliminate anything by arbitrarily calling it substandard. If you should lose favor with this or any future administration they could conceivably say your house was 'junk' and you need to move to a government "housing development".
Hyperbole, I know, but too much government is just as dangerous as not enough.

BTW, DHS still has over a billion rounds of ammo.

Yes, I agree with you the government should not arbitrarily decide certain products are "junk".

For example, no one supports regulations that would require a "minimum" purity in the hue of the paint job on a car. That would be arbitrary. And even if someone got a crappy paint job, it's not a matter of life and death.

But we do require a minimum standard for safety in cars. Those standards are not arbitrary and it is a matter of life and death. Sure we can debate and fine-tune what exactly the standards should be, but no one (I presume you included?) objects to having standards, in principle. Now, I could articulate several good reasons why, if you like, but since I'm sure you don't reject the concept of minimum safety standards in cars, suffice it to say that consumers collectively acting through govt. do have the right to deem certain products "junk", when appropriate.

So the question is, what makes the ACA minimum coverage requirements appropriate, like minimum car safety requirements?

Well, let's take an example. Ms. Barrette, whose case is discussed in the OP, for all intents and purposes did not have coverage for hospital and ER services. If she ever got a serious medical illness, according to a health expert cited in the article, "she would have lost the house she's sitting in". And if the house she's sitting in doesn't cover her medical bill, guess who picks up the tab? Society, and at great cost.

So Ms. Barrette is taking a gamble and society is taking on the excess risk.

And that is why conservative/libertarian think-tanks like The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, in the 80s and 90s, also deemed insurance policies like Ms. Barrette's "junk" and advocated that people like her be required to get non-junk insurance. Just as the govt. requires people to drive non-junk cars and construct non-junk buildings.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Health Insurance should not be one size fits all.

It's not. But to the extent that it is, that has much more to do with our employer-based system than the ACA.

I don't need a policy to pay for an anual checkup. This is not insurance, this is socialism. Some folks only want or need catostropic health insurance.

Waah, waah! Baby not want to sleep in big person bed!

Seriously Rick, that is the problem with people like Ms. Barrette cited in the OP. She didn't have catastrophic insurance. That's why her premium was so (artificially) low, not because of the annual checkup thing, that's a minor cost (which happens to benefit society). Get it?

People of means can save alot of money with very high deductables.

Ms. Barrett was paying $650 a year. Under the ACA she'll be eligible for subsidies for actual, non-junk insurance for $1,980 per year. That means her junk insurance was saving her $1,330 per year -- if she saves for ten years, perhaps she'll have enough to buy some Tylenol when she ends up in the ER.

 

[Uberpod]

Health Insurance should not be one size fits all. I don't need a policy to pay for an anual checkup.

An annual check-up will save hundreds of thousands of dollars and heartache because it will lead to more preventative measures. This is true along side the fact that many will have an appointment that has no net change in their lives. There is no negative consequence except for a little inconvenience, however.

This is not insurance, this is socialism.

Sounds like a selling point for socialism.

Some folks only want or need catostropic health insurance.

And btw many of the junk plans do not have catastrophic coverage - just the illusion of it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Health Insurance should not be one size fits all. I don't need a policy to pay for an anual checkup. This is not insurance, this is socialism. Some folks only want or need catostropic health insurance.

That's not what Mitt Romney said before becoming the presidential nominee and that's not what he did in Massachusetts...and it certainly isn't the premise of Paul Ryan in regards to what he wants to do with Medicare.....:sad:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How about seriously looking at the current tax code and do away with it and go to a flat tax for everyone. Of course I would exempt income from SS below a set total income level.

I've heard the "flat tax" argument and I'm not on board with that either.

 

[esmith]

I've heard the "flat tax" argument and I'm not on board with that either.

and your objections are?

 

[Aquitaine]

Yes...we need to keep addressing ways to make the programs more efficient or even consolidating the programs. If we draw back on military spending, foreign spending, and cut corporate expenditures (tax deductions and other breaks)...we could easily pay for SS Security.....and even provide healthcare for all as well as repair our crumbling infrastructure....

Get back - filthy COMMUNIST!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Get back - filthy COMMUNIST!

No its worse...he's a socialist....

 

[Aquitaine]

Well it depends. Are we still going to have a government that requires more and more involvement in military adventurism. It seems that every time there is a crisis the first word out of the President's mouth is "where are the carriers". Until this idea that the US is the world policeman you are going to need a strong military. It seems that the current objective is go forth and break a country then walk away leaving it in worse conditions that it was in. For example Iraq, Libya, and soon to be Afghanistan.

Yup!

Solution: US stop acting like Empire, US Military come home, actually defend homeland.
US save money by not waging wars/military intervention, US put saved money into Education/Healthcare/Science & Technology and Infrastructure.

For the record, the country I'm from needs to do the same as well, I'm not just trying to "bash" the USA here. :no:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yup!

Solution: US stop acting like Empire, US Military come home, actually defend homeland.
US save money by not waging wars/military intervention, US put saved money into Education/Healthcare/Science & Technology and Infrastructure.

For the record, the country I'm from needs to do the same as well, I'm not just trying to "bash" the USA here. :no:

Completely agree....:yes:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

and your objections are?

You could start a new thread on Tax Reform and how you feel about a "Flat Tax"....

 

[BSM1]

I've heard the "flat tax" argument and I'm not on board with that either.

The "Fair Tax" plan is a little better.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Health Insurance should not be one size fits all. I don't need a policy to pay for an anual checkup. This is not insurance, this is socialism. Some folks only want or need catostropic health insurance.

If you have 100's of thousands in the bank, you should not have to have a "plan" when all you need is "insurance".

People of means can save alot of money with very high deductables.

Here, you can self-insure for auto liability. IIRC, a wealthy individual can put about $2 million into an escrow account that can't be touched except to pay out auto liability claims, and that will satisfy the requirement for auto insurance. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Health Insurance should not be one size fits all. I don't need a policy to pay for an anual checkup. This is not insurance, this is socialism. Some folks only want or need catostropic health insurance.

The simple fact is we all get sick. There is no "just need" for this catastrophic insurance, because chances are very good that at some point in time you won't need a surgery and ICU, but nothing more than anti-biotics. You may also experience something will cause emotional trauma, and you may need psychotherapy.

 

[Aquitaine]

The simple fact is we all get sick. There is no "just need" for this catastrophic insurance, because chances are very good that at some point in time you won't need a surgery and ICU, but nothing more than anti-biotics. You may also experience something will cause emotional trauma, and you may need psychotherapy.

Exactly. Not all cars (during one's ownership of it) will be involved in a car crash, you take out insurance to cover risk. Humans on the other hand are living beings - all living beings will eventually die, usually via sickness.

Seriously, as a yellow-toothed Tea-drinking Brit (thus a non-US citizen), the idea of people buying Health Insurance absolutely baffles me.

One buys insurance for something like a car, not your general health!
That's one thing the Good Old USA has gotten ***-backwards. :sorry1: