I thought these people were supposed to be about compassion, diversity, and tolerance!
This is literally painful, from Jonathan Cohn, at the New Republic, "Bill Clinton Is Wrong. This Is How Obamacare Works" (via Memeorandum):
The Affordable Care Act includes a so-called grandfather clause. That allows insurers to keep renewing plans, without changes or benefits and prices, as long as they were available before March 2010, when the Affordable Care Act became law. But the non-group market is volatile: Very few people stay on plans for more than two years anyway. And the grandfather clause is narrow, by design: If insurers made even modest changes, the protection goes away. Those plans are subject to the new regulations that take effect in January. As a result, the majority of people who buy insurance on their own are learning they can’t have what they had before, even though Obama promised everybody they could. Either their premiums are going up, as insurers accommodate the new regulations, or the plans are disappearing altogether. In those cases, people have to find new plans. And the sticker price of what they’ll find is higher than what they pay now.Read the whole thing. Utterly astounding.
This is not a glitch or an accident. This is the way health care reform is supposed to work. And it’s important to put these changes into context. For one thing, it’s a small number of people relative to the population as a whole. The vast majority of Americans get coverage through employers or a large government program like Medicare. These changes don’t really affect them. The law also anticipates these changes by, among other things, offering tax credits that discount the premiums—in many cases, by thousands of dollars. (Other provisions of the law, like a limit on insurance company profits and overhead, should restrain prices more.) As a result, many people buying coverage on their own will be paying less money for benefits that are as good, if not better, than what they have now.
But there are real people who must pay more and, in some cases, put up with less. Some of them are people walking around with junk insurance, the kind are practically worthless because they pay out so little. Some of them are young people, particularly young men, whom insurers have coveted and wooed with absurdly low premiums—and make too much money to qualify for substantial subsidies. And some of them are reasonably affluent, healthy people with generous, open-ended policies that are hard to find even through employers. Insurers kept selling them because they could restrict enrollment to healthy people. Absent that ability, insurers are canceling them or raising premiums so high only the truly rich can pay for them.
Those people are the ones everybody is hearing about now, partly because they are a compelling, sometimes well-connected group—and partly because, absent a well-functioning website, stories of people benefitting from the law’s changes aren’t competing for attention. It’s impossible to know how big this group is. The data on existing coverage just isn’t that good. The anecdotes are frequently, although not always, more complicated than they seem at first blush. It’s probably one to two percent of the population, which doesn’t sound like much—except that, in a country of 300 million, that’s 3 to 6 million people. Most experts I trust think they represent a minority of people buying coverage on their own, but nobody can say with certainty.
Is that a worthwhile tradeoff for reform? Obviously that’s a matter of opinion. The fact that some people—even a small, relatively affluent group—are giving up something they had makes their plight (genuinely) more sympathetic. They are right to feel burned, since Obama did not make clear his promise might not apply to them. And there’s a principled argument about whether people should be responsible for services they’re unlikely to use presently, whether it’s fifty-something year olds paying for maternity care or twenty-something year olds paying for cardiac stress tests.
Where to begin?
Well, for one thing, Obama lied to get this law passed, without a singe Republican vote in Congress. It's a wholly partisan bill that's now generating majority disapproval in national surveys. And right, it's not a glitch. Democrats literally had to destroy the private insurance market before they could ram down the ObamaCare monstrosity on the people.
How's the working out for you, Dems? Oh, not so great, eh? Well, people liked their healthcare plans. They shopped for what best fit their needs. That's the American way: individualism and diversity all in one. And all of a sudden statists like this idiot Jonathan Cohn are saying, "Hey, this is how it's supposed to work. Suck it up you privileged fat slobs." Well, f-k you buddy. The "real people" now forced to "pay more" are telling you to shove it. Just anecdotes, eh? Right. You tell "3 to 6 million people" they're just anecdotes, alright. You will be buried alive. Damned straight they "are right to feel burned," you smug a-hole. You burned them. You and your statist Democrat clusterf-k party that rejected all expert warnings because you didn't want to give the Republicans ammunition against the law. That is, you knew it wouldn't work, and you planned all along to stiff "3 to 6 million" people" for the absurd theory about how insurance markets are "supposed to work." Hey num-nuts, it's not working! Get that? It's a bleedin' disaster unfolding right before our eyes. Democrat defections are piling up faster the corpses in Stalin's Ukrainian famine. Because anecdotes! Those 60-year old couples needed that maternity coverage anyway! It's all for the common good. Sacrifice people!
Seriously, I'd like to pound this dolt Jonathan Cohn into the ground. In theory, of course. All in theory.
IMAGE CREDIT: Diogenes' Middle Finger, "ObamaCare or (SPMD) - Sick Pig of Mass Deception."
0 comments:
Post a Comment