Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Letter: Real insurance

November 5, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

The Affordable Care Act (ACA, or “Obamacare”) outlaws Potemkin health insurance policies after Jan. 1. Unfortunately, some unscrupulous insurance companies are responding with political demagoguery.

“Potemkin insurance” means now you see it, now you don’t. You think you have good health insurance until the bills come in; then you discover all the loopholes. Some companies selling these policies have sent letters scaring their customers about huge premium increases to come, allegedly caused by the ACA.

Here’s what these letters leave out:

l It’s an “apples and oranges” comparison. The new premium covers real insurance. The old premium covered Potemkin insurance. Real insurance costs more than fake insurance.

l New tax credits are available for real insurance.

l Much better deals may be available from other companies. Companies that sell Potemkin insurance don’t usually offer the best deals on real insurance.

l You don’t have to buy from exploitative companies. Under the ACA, everyone is now eligible for insurance without discrimination or “underwriting.” You can’t be denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

l Competitive private insurance options are listed on the ACA insurance exchange. You don’t have to shop around.

The Lawrence-Douglas County League of Women Voters hopes that consumers will see through these distortions and avoid insurance companies that send dishonest letters.

Currently the ACA website isn’t working very well. To purchase insurance you may have to download an application to send through the mail. A list of expert “navigators” who will help you for free is available at http://insureks.org/assistance.php.

Comments

Bob Smith 4 months, 3 weeks ago

The hits just keep coming. "CNN reports that a woman the president hailed as an Obamacare success story just realized she won't be able to afford Obamacare because it's too expensive..." http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/woman-hailed-president-obamacare-success-story-now-cant-afford-obamacare_767868.html

0

Mike Ford 4 months, 4 weeks ago

guess what our household income is $28K. This isn't welfare. Nice straw argument constantly used by uninformed people. If I was to act like you act I would be angry that my late mother died in a car accident at age 63 after paying in her whole life on social security and she nor us got it. My father is a retired minister and since when is greed like yours a valued social attribute? it isn't. People pay in so that college students can get loans and people can get federal mortgages. This mythology that people use to say they can rise by their own actions is mythology. For libertarians and the like I have this to say.....you haven't risen on your own.... the federal government in the nineteenth century was pushed by states to seize on the cheap tribal reservation lands or Indian lands outright. Larger entities have always done the carrying so to speak even with things like this ACA act. Some people just don't pay attention. Having paid taxes since 1986 I'm glad my tax money is supporting me instead of buying missiles, mraps, or abandoned building projects, or no bid haliburton contracts in Iraq. Remember George W. Bush? I thought I'd remind you.

0

Bob Smith 4 months, 4 weeks ago

The income redistribution part of the ACA is working. Somebody is getting soaked to pay the extra $320 for Mike.

0

Mike Ford 5 months ago

I will get my ACA insurance this Tuesday. I've worked 16 years at a job that due to the brutality of the former insurance market was priced out of offering company plan insurance in Jan-Feb 2011. I work full time. My wife works full time. We both have minor preexisting conditions that made health insurance expensive and unattainable. I had to buy a Potemkin plan that I had for two years that I just cancelled as I got ACA insurance from BCBS Kansas. This insurance didn't cover squat. It was stop gap. Now we will have a silver level BCBS plan that's real. It was $437 before credits and $117.60 afterwards. I paid $274 for just myself back in February 2011. This plan is real and helpful and I'm tired of the whiners making needless noise. This ACA act will survive. The last couple of nights I called 1800 318 2695 I had a 30 minute wait so don't let the haters of ACA mislead you. People are signing up and enrolling.

0

Bob Smith 5 months ago

The train is off the tracks, upside down in the ditch and all the wheels have fallen off. Is Kathy still saying it will all be fixed by Dec 1?

0

Bob Smith 5 months, 1 week ago

Copied from another forum: "My neighbor, Barry, introduced himself and he noticed that I had a dog.

He blurted out, "If you like your dog, you can keep it. Period. And uh, you know, I will not run over your dog".

Of course after a short few weeks, while minding my own business walking my dog on my leash, Barry does, in fact, swerve and run over my dog.

Asking what he has to say about his killing my dog and his prior statements, all Barry said was, "I am sorry that you now find yourself in a situation where your dog is no longer alive."

Sound familiar?"

0

5 months, 1 week ago

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama apologized on Thursday to Americans whose insurance plans are being canceled due to the federal health law he championed even though he said repeatedly they could keep their coverage if they liked. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/politics/obama-obamacare-apology/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Why apologize? They were all Potemkin policies written by unscrupulous companies. People should be thanking the President for saving them from policies that they only thought they were happy with.

You've got to hate it when our president throws a spanner in a perfectly good meme.

0

Cait McKnelly 5 months, 1 week ago

From DDOS attacks to insurance companies dumping customers left and right (because their insurance doesn't meet minimum benefit requirements) and refusing to offer other plans; how many ways can the Tea Party screw the ACA?
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/11/new-denial-of-service-attack-aimed-directly-at-healthcare-gov/

0

Bob Smith 5 months, 1 week ago

"... but if the total cost of the care provided is less,..." That's a large but. If the new jazz forces people to change doctors and hospitals and demands higher premiums for fewer choices, the whole outfit is doomed.

0

Chris Golledge 5 months, 1 week ago

Prior to mandatory insurance, we had a system where health care providers were obligated by law to provide services, but payment for those services was essentially voluntary. Walk into an emergency room complaining of pain and they have to treat you. Ask to make an appointment with a doctor without demonstrating some means of paying and they will refuse. So, many people were going to the emergency room for treatment they could have gotten from a doctor's office visit if they had some form of health care plan. Going to a doctor's office costs less than going to an emergency room. Somebody is paying for those ER visits, and that somebody is the people voluntarily buying health insurance.

Yes, there will be some difficulties in getting the system worked out, but if the total cost of the care provided is less, the total amount we have to pay for that care is less.

Also, people complaining about having to buy health insurance are essentially asking for the rest of us to subsidize their health care risk. You can have a system where payment is voluntary and providing services is also voluntary, or you can have a system where everyone has to pay at least something, and everyone is entitled to services. What we had was obligated services and voluntary payment, and people wonder why providers were charging $10 for a Tylenol from the people who were actually paying.

1

Bob Smith 5 months, 1 week ago

Well, this thread has pretty much gone the way I thought it would.

0

Richard Heckler 5 months, 1 week ago

Obama Care eliminates lousy insurance coverage. No one can afford lousy medical insurance. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/obamacare-canceled-health-insurance

2

Richard Heckler 5 months, 1 week ago

Physicians for a National Health Program

Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($8,160 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 51 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. As a result, administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars, most of which is waste.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $400 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.

Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would no longer face financial barriers to care such as co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctor and hospital. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.

A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes, based on ability to pay, would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.

The links below will lead you to more specific information on the details of single-payer.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources

2

Richard Heckler 5 months, 1 week ago

What is IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance for ALL.

Single Payer Highlights

  • Easy to Implement: Medicare has been in existence since 1966, it provides healthcare to those 65 and older, and satisfaction levels are high. The structure is already in place and can be easily expanded to cover everyone.

  • Simple: One entity – established by the government – would handle billing and payment at a cost significantly lower than private insurance companies. Private insurance companies spend about 31% of every healthcare dollar on administration. Medicare now spends about 3%.

  • Real Choice: An expanded and improved Medicare for All would provide personal choice of doctors and other healthcare providers. While financing would be public, providers would remain private. As with Medicare, you choose your doctor, your hospital, and other healthcare providers.

  • State and Local Tax Relief: Medicare for All would assume the costs of healthcare delivery, thus relieving the states and local governments of the cost of healthcare, including Medicaid, and as a result reduce State and local tax burdens.

  • Expanded coverage: Would cover all medically necessary healthcare services – no more rationing by private insurance companies. There would be no limits on coverage, no co-pays or deductibles, and services would include not only primary and specialized care but also prescription drugs, dental, vision, mental health services, and long-term care.

  • Everyone In, Nobody Out: Everyone would be eligible and covered. No longer would doctors ask what insurance you have before they treat you.

  • No More Overpriced Private Health Insurance: Medicare for All would eliminate the need for private health insurance companies who put profit before healthcare, unfairly limit choice, restrict who gets coverage, and force people into bankruptcy.

  • Lower Costs: Most people will pay significantly less for healthcare. Savings will be achieved in reduced administrative costs and in negotiated prices for prescription drugs.

Physicians for a National Health Program http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources

http://www.healthcare-now.org/

1

Richard Heckler 5 months, 1 week ago

What is Medicare? Medicare is the federal health insurance program for people who are 65 or older, certain younger people with disabilities, and people with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or a transplant, sometimes called ESRD).

The different parts of Medicare help cover specific services:

Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) Part A covers inpatient hospital stays, care in a skilled nursing facility, hospice care, and some home health care.

Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) Part B covers certain doctors' services, outpatient care, medical supplies, and preventive services.

http://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change-plans/decide-how-to-get-medicare/whats-medicare/what-is-medicare.html

1

Richard Heckler 5 months, 1 week ago

The military and the Veterans Administration are examples of a government health care system.

Obamacare is insurance run by the medical insurance industry.

0

Grégoire Guillaume 5 months, 1 week ago

I'm a Kansan who is currently living in Missouri. Both states have done everything possible to put a blackout on information about signing up for the ACA. If your a Fox news watcher your really in the dark. Today I called Healthcare.gov and learned that I could have a representative come to my home to sign up for the ACA. I'd say it doesn't get much more convenient than that.

3

Bob Smith 5 months, 1 week ago

Coming soon to a government-run healthcare system near you. http://www.buffalonews.com/article/20131106/AP/311069849 I see, Richard, that you've not lost that set of links you've been posting here for the last few years.

0

Richard Heckler 5 months, 1 week ago

Billions in over charges billed to consumers does not seem like a consumer friendly approach. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html

Did consumers receive a refund?

What else increases the cost of medical insurance? Can we say reckless spending?

--- corp jets

--- its bureaucracy

--- profits

--- high corporate salaries

--- advertising

--- sales commissions

CIGNA CEO Receives $73 million retirement bonus seems like a waste of healthcare dollars. http://www.healthcare-now.org/denial-of-care-profits-73-million-for-cignas-retiring-ceo/

What is the point in retaining what was available to consumers? The Affordable Care Act eliminates lousy coverage, which ultimately saves cost for people when they receive care.

Obamacare is a first step. I'm ready for the next step. It is time for my tax dollars to support a fiscally prudent insurance program. No deductibles / No Co-pays --- http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

2

Kevin Elliott 5 months, 1 week ago

This debate is old.

Yes some of you hate this law.

I.don't expect you to change but I do expect you to grow up.

You urged the senate not to pass it.

You lost

You urged congress not to pass it

You lost

You urged the president not to sign it

You lost

You took it to the supreme.court

You lost

You tried to repeal it 88 times

You lost 88 times

You created a 24 billion dollar government shutdown putting the nations credit rating.at risk

You lost

Not only.did you loose but there.was a net gain in support for the law.

You repeat that more than 50% of the nation does not like the law but are not honest enough to admit that almost 30% of those do not like it because it is too conservative.

You blame obama even though it is modeled on romneys plan

20% or more of americans are uninsured with a great deal more being under insured and.you have.done nothing despite.the billions it costs our economy and ignoring the counless needless deaths.

Well we get it. Whine whine whine.

Get over it and either help the country move on. You lost.

5

Richard Heckler 5 months, 1 week ago

David Burress and Cille King are well educated on the issues of medical insurance. Hats off to the letter.

I am well aware who put the ACA together. The same people who have been writing the coverage and laws for 70 years. The medical insurance industry. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/10/bill_moyers_michael_winship_in.html#more

Am I defending Obamacare? No not necessarily. Just offered up some facts instead of misinformation.

My choice is and has been for a few years is Medicare Single Payer Insurance. http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf ( very interesting findings)

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources Physicians for a National Health Program

1

Richard Heckler 5 months, 1 week ago

No one can afford lousy medical insurance. Of course lousy insurance coverage is a huge profit item for the lousy insurance industry.

Make IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance for ALL available to all taxpayers as one of our choices.

Leave existing insurance on the table for those who enjoy spending large sums of money for medical insurance. What could possibly be more American?

I want my tax dollars spent on a useful endeavor not on:

  1. insurance over charges
  2. or obscene CEO salaries
  3. or golden parachutes
  4. or shareholders
  5. or special interest campaign funding!!!

It is time for my tax dollars to support this fiscally prudent insurance program.

How much is the sick USA insurance plan costing YOU? http://www.dollarsandsense.org/healthcare.html

http://www.healthcare-now.org/

Repubs have nothing better to offer. All they and their parrots have is nonsense rhetoric without substance to back up anything they spit out.

Listening to politicians on this issue is a dangerous route to accept. Listening to CEO's and lobbyists from the insurance industry is equally as dangerous as this is the source for misinformation coming from politicians.

Did you know the health care industry has 8 high dollar lobbyists per elected official? Do you know who is paying for these high dollar lobbyists? YOU ARE!

0

Richard Heckler 5 months, 1 week ago

ObamaCare eliminates lousy insurance coverage which is like no coverage. Consumers would have been better off creating a medical care savings account and managing their own affairs.

In 2009, when President Barack Obama first promised that people who liked their insurance coverage would be able to keep it under the Affordable Care Act, he overlooked one critical fact,

Many of the health policies that Americans like are terrible insurance plans that were created to scam consumers.

Over the past few weeks, insurers have been sending out hundreds of thousands of notices alerting customers that their current plans won't comply with the ACA as of January 1 and that the owners of these plans need to find alternatives.

The plans being canceled are ending because they offered insufficient coverage—and only a few years ago both Rs and Ds were upset about these kinds of plans. But there's been collective amnesia about the shoddy plans that GOPers have happily exploited in recent days.

Perhaps Obama should have said, "Those of you who obtain insurance on the individual market can keep your plans unless it’s the sort of rip-off plan the ACA will forbid. Otherwise, you will be offered new options that actually give you decent coverage at a decent price."

Many of the plans on the individual market are so bad that people who have them might as well be uninsured. "The only people who like those plans are people who have never needed them," says Nancy Metcalf, a senior editor at Consumer Reports. "They haven't figured out yet how terrible they are. They think they have good coverage but they don't."

The same is true of the other conservatives who've groused about losing a plan, including Malkin. As Metcalf points out, "If they're having to cancel out a plan with a $10,000 deductible and end up with a plan with a $2,500 deductible, that's a better plan, period.

The Affordable Care Act eliminates lousy coverage, which ultimately saves cost for people when they receive care."

[url]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/obamacare-canceled-health-insurance[/url]

The best bang for the buck is Medicare Single Payer Insurance. IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance for ALL would cover every person for all necessary medical care 24/7 to include:

Wellness /prescription drugs / hospital / surgical / outpatient services / primary and preventive care / emergency services / dental / mental health / home health / physical therapy / rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) / vision care / hearing services including hearing aids / chiropractic / medical equipment / palliative care / long term care

No deductibles / No Co-pays http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf

1

Kevin Groenhagen 5 months, 1 week ago

I don't see $80,000 as a "boatload." In any case, what she makes is immaterial. She is still greatly affected by Obama the Unready's lie that she could keep her insurance if she liked it.

1

Steve King 5 months, 1 week ago

Oh, I got to call you on that. 90% of us make less than $80,000/year. Teacher salaries average in the mid-$40's. Toss in $10,000 in benefits and your still a long, long way from $80,000/yr.

What's does everyone else think? Is $80,000/yr is a boatload? Or is that just average?

2

Kevin Groenhagen 5 months, 1 week ago

Steve King:

"$80,000/yr is a boatload of money."

That's not much more than the average government school teacher makes when you include all the benefits, and they still complain that they aren't paid enough. So, no, $80,000 isn't that much money, especially when you consider that an artist's income is not stable.

And I, like everyone else here, live on Earth.

0

5 months, 1 week ago

"I don't think you understand what the League of Women Voters does..."

Actually, I do. And to tell you the truth, I rather admire how they do it. The League of Women Voters builds up political capital and moral authority by conducting voter drives and informing people, by sponsoring debates and the like (what they call "Protecting and Engaging Voters.") Then they spend that political capital shilling for the left. Take any one of their issues that has nothing to do with voting, like guns or immigration, then figure out where the present left/right split is. 10 times in 10 they'll come down on the left. It's not really a secret. They have a web site and everything.

This letter is a perfect example. You have to admit, unless they are a subsidiary of the NSA, the LWV really doesn't know what's in other people's mail. They don't really know if people are happy with their policies because they are fitting policies or because people are too ignorant to know better. They don't even know what policies people have, what parts people figure they don't need, any of that. But they are willing to make up stuff like 'Potemkin Policies,' slandering insurers and calling their customers functional idiots, in order to provide political cover for Obamacare. It's really rather ingenious if a little unseemly.

3

Steve King 5 months, 1 week ago

"There was no mention of a husband in the story, so I wouldn't consider $80,000 a "huge amount of money" for a single mom."

What planet do you live on?

The defination of a "single mom" is there is no husband.

The US average is only around $50k.

$80,000/yr is a boatload of money.

According to a study by the The Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund:

"The median average income for all single-mother families was just $25,172 — down by more than $2,000 since 2000. The median average income for married couples with children was three times greater and, for the relatively few single-father families, nearly one and a half times greater.

Well over a third (38.5%) of single-mother families lived below the poverty threshold. This is more than four and a half times the rate for married couples with children and also considerably higher than the rate for single-father families.

About half the single-mother families below the poverty threshold were in “extreme poverty,” i.e., had incomes below 50% of the threshold.

Women were a large majority (79.6%) of the adults with children who were in emergency shelters.

About 20% of single-mother families were living doubled up with friends or relatives — often a precursor to literal homelessness.

Though a high percentage of single-mother families received food stamps, 36.6% of them experienced food insecurity, i.e., at least sometimes didn't have the resource for everyone to have enough food.

2

5 months, 1 week ago

It's sad to see that the League of Women Voters has degenerated into just another shill for big government.

3

Milton Bland 5 months, 1 week ago

"A list of expert “navigators” who will help you for free is available at http://insureks.org/assistance.php" Right! According to CNN, this list includes coffee shops and bakeries. Another Obama lie!

0

Scott Burkhart 5 months, 1 week ago

The real point being made by the authors of this LTE is the average individual seeking their own insurance is too stupid to keep from being duped by unscrupulous insurance companies seeking only their premium and denying coverage. The solution is not government designed healthcare plans. The solution is to allow insurance companies to compete with each other across state lines. You would see a decrease in premiums and an increase in services.

Big government solutions have failed wherever they have been instituted. These utopian ideas work great between the ears but they fall apart where the rubber meets the road. A free market has and will always provide the most, and best, goods and services for it participants.

2

Richard Payton 5 months, 1 week ago

I'm waiting for the CEO's of the insurance companies to start complaining. Why haven't the insurance executives said anything? If the ACA was such a good deal most Americans would have already downloaded the application and sent it in.

0

Gary Anderson 5 months, 1 week ago

"train wreck"?..."Obamacare"? Who is using their parties talking points? The ACA sucks overall...what did you expect from a Heritage Foundation conceived, Republican Governor implemented idea? It has parts I like...most added by the current administration. The ACA will one day be replaced with single payer. The ACA has exposed so much what is wrong when insurance companies stand between a patient and his doctor. People are waking up to the fact that they have been paying hundreds of dollars a month for crappy insurance for too many years. It's time we joined the rest of the civilized world.

2

John Graham 5 months, 1 week ago

Obama and the democrats sold Obamacare as more and better insurance for everyone at lower cost. I believe Obama stated the average family would save $2500. Who doesn't like more for less? Unfortunately the old saying "if it sounds too good to be true it often is" applies here. Did people actually believe that everyone was going to get better and more insurance for lower cost? Obama and the democrats repeatedly stated that if you had insurance you were happy with you keep it. Period. Did all of us actually believe this? All of us are guilty at times of believing what we want to hear.

Will Obamacare help some Americans get better and cheaper healthcare? I am sure it will. Though the reality for millions of Americans will be quite different than what Obama and the democrats promised. Millions will be forced off their current "good" insurance plans they are happy with. This is not the insurance companies fault but the fault of Obamacare. The guidelines for a "good" insurance plan to be grandfathered in are so restrictive that it is financially impossible for the insurance companies to continue them whether they are "good" policies or not. This means that millions of Americans with "good" insurance will be forced to buy new ACA approved policies that often will result in substantial increases in premiums and often even more substantial increases in deductibles. While government subsidies may help millions, many will find that the subsidies (if they qualify) fail to fully offset the significant increase in out of pocket expenses. In short, millions even with subsidies will be paying more total out of pocket money than under their previous "good" policies.

Now several news sources are reporting the White House was aware of these issues prior to Obama's statements about cost and keeping current insurance policies. Now Obama, the democrats and Obamacare supporters are trying to come up with a plan to justify the half-truths and lies told by Obama and the democrats in order to get the bill passed. Obama is no different than any other recent president in telling half-truths and lies in order to advance their agenda or cover their backside when caught doing something they shouldn't have (see Bush-WMDs, Clinton-little blue dress incident, Reagan-Iran Contra, etc). Obama's supporters that haven't already realized their disillusionment are being forced to face the fact he has not lived up to his promises on healthcare and he can not blame this on anyone but himself as he decided not to tell the full truth to the American people.

If it sounds too good to be true, it often is.

1

John Graham 5 months, 1 week ago

Contrary to your statement, not all insurance policies that will be cancelled are bad policies. I am sure some are but not all. My licensed insurance agent reviewed policies from all major companies working in Kansas. The policies I focused on were from BCBS and Coventry. Both policies were for "real insurance" not "fake". Similar policies in all aspects. Neither provided maternity care but as a single male I had no need. Other than that they are identical to "bronze" plans under ACA. The big difference is premium and deductible. The ACA plan premium is 50% higher and the deductible is $3700 higher. Any subsidies will not make up for the increased out of pocket costs. In short I will be forced to pay substantially more for the same insurance coverage. Though I do get maternity care which is a big plus for a single male.

While your claims are correct in some cases they most certainly are not in all cases. You may like Obamacare, That is your right. But you are repeating the Obama party line in trying to justify his repeated lies to the American voters about keeping their healthcare plans if they like them. Period. I have a quality insurance product by a nationwide company with a good reputation for their insurance plans. The company was not "exploitive". I am happy with my plan but unlike the promise Obama repeatedly made, I DO NOT get to keep my plan. Obama has decided that he knows better than I do with respect to what insurance coverage I need. What I don't need is increased premiums and deductibles for the same insurance coverage. What I don't need is maternity care. What I don't need is the government trying to control every aspect of my life.

3

Kevin Groenhagen 5 months, 1 week ago

Looks as if David Burress has received his talking points to deflect from Obama the Unready's lie, i.e., "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

He is correct, however, about the "apples and oranges" comparisons. Many of the insurance plans millions of Americans are now being forced to consider cost much more and have much higher deductibles. People in their 50s and 60s are even being forced to pay for maternity coverage. What Burress calls "Potemkin" plans (and "now you see it, now you don't" is not an apt characterization for Potemkin) are what millions of Americans liked and found suitable for their own personal situations. It's an exercise in extreme arrogance, even for this most arrogant of presidents, to tell these Americans that they lack the intelligence to pick their own plans.

Consider the case of Marlys Dietrich, an Obama-supporting artist from San Antonio:

"Her insurer, Humana, informed her that her plan was being canceled and that the rate for herself and her 21-year-old son for a plan compliant with the new law would rise from $300 to $705. On the federal Web site, she found a comparable plan for $623 a month. Because her annual income is about $80,000, she doesn’t qualify for subsidies.

"A cheaper alternative on the federal exchange, she said, had a premium of $490 a month — but it was an HMO plan rather than the PPO plan she currently has. “I wouldn’t be able to go to the doctor I’ve been going to for years,” she said. “That is not a deal.”

"And both the HMO and PPO exchange plans she examined had family deductibles of $12,700, compared with her current $7,000."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/for-consumers-whose-health-premiums-will-go-up-under-new-law-sticker-shock-leads-to-anger/2013/11/03/d858dd28-44a9-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story_1.html

Like millions of other Obama supporters, Ms. Dietrcih bought the lies of Obamacare, which is the actually Potemkin village in this debate.

"Currently the ACA website isn’t working very well."

It's not just the website that is not working. The website is merely a symptom of the incompetence, arrogance, and corruption of those who put this train wreck into motion.

2

Bob Smith 5 months, 1 week ago

"One of the fundamental flaws of the Affordable Care Act is that, despite its name, it makes health insurance more expensive. Today, the Manhattan Institute released the most comprehensive analysis yet conducted of premiums under Obamacare for people who shop for coverage on their own. Here’s what we learned. In the average state, Obamacare will increase underlying premiums by 41 percent. As we have long expected, the steepest hikes will be imposed on the healthy, the young, and the male. .." Read the rest at http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/ BTW, was "Potemkin Insurance" the official talking point this week?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.