Some Americans are furious over losing their terrible insurance

[Mr Spinkles]

... 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

We're supposed to be scandalized by this, since President Obama himself assured everyone that if they liked their insurance they'd be able to keep it. And people just love plans that in some cases cost just $50 a month. At that price, what's not to love?

Back in March, Consumer Reports published a study of many of these plans and placed them in a special category: "junk health insurance." Some plans, the magazine declared, may be worse than none at all.
...
Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. (We mentioned the Barrette case on Tuesday.)

CR's Metcalf examined Barrette's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette's $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she's on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services -- and then only if her treatment is for "complications of pregnancy." Nothing for outpatient services.

"She's paying $650 a year to be uninsured," said an insurance expert Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, "she would have lost the house she's sitting in."

As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. (Or she will once the federal system gets running.) Metcalf estimated that she'll be eligible for "real insurance that covers all essential health benefits" for as little as $165 a month -- a higher premium than she's paying now, sure, but one that won't cost her her home.

Another Obamacare horror story debunked - latimes.com

Deborah Cavallaro is a hard-working real estate agent in the Westchester suburb of Los Angeles who has been featured prominently on a round of news shows lately, talking about how badly Obamacare is going to cost her when her existing plan gets canceled and she has to find a replacement.

She says she's angry at President Obama for having promised that people who like their health plans could keep them, when hers is getting canceled for not meeting Obamacare's standards.

"Please explain to me," she told Maria Bartiromo on CNBC Wednesday, "how my plan is a 'substandard' plan when ... I'd be paying more for the exchange plans than I am currently paying by a wide margin."
...
The bottom line is that Cavallaro's assertion that "there's nothing affordable about the Affordable Care Act," as she put it Tuesday on NBC Channel 4, is the product of her own misunderstandings, abetted by a passel of uninformed and incurious news reporters.

I talked with Cavallaro, 60, after her CNBC appearance. Let's walk through what she told me.
...

 

[nilsz]

It's a manufactroversy.

 

[Sunstone]

It's even worse than you think, Spinks! Not only are millions and millions of Americans losing their insurance because of Obamacare, but I have it on equally good authority that Obama himself was born in Kenya! Land sakes! I just don't know what's happening to this country.

 

[esmith]

Yes, but what right does the government have in telling a person what is or is not right for them. We always here from those that are supporters of the ACA that it is permissible for the government to tell you what you have to buy and use car insurance as a talking point. Yes, I agree that if you own a car you should have liability insurance or some form of Financial Responsibility. However, each state sets its own requirements for the amount of coverage, some higher some lower. Yet you can drive a car in any state if you have a license. Does government require every homeowner to have insurance? How about that liability insurance for your property? The answer is no. We also hear that one reason for having health insurance is bankruptcy due to medical bills that the ACA will address. However, from the following Article that may not be the silver bullet that that fixes the problem. So to the point of the article who are you to say that a persons insurance is "terrible". I would say that it is the responsibility of each person to determine what is right for them. Whether it is the amount of coverage for health care, car insurance, home insurance, liability insurance, financial reserves, long term care, end of life planning, or a myriad of issues that affects a person or their family. Yet there are those that believe that the government is all knowing and should and will protect you from cradle to grave. Sorry, I do not agree with that premiss totally.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So to the point of the article who are you to say that a persons insurance is "terrible". I would say that it is the responsibility of each person to determine what is right for them.

I would answer this by saying three things:

(1) It's not about govt. telling people what's right for them, it's about govt. protecting consumers from being swindled. It's just like regulations which require certain minimum standards on cars, children's toys, or food and drugs. Some products are objectively terrible and they only persist by slipping under the radar of uninformed consumers, not by being competitive products. And the options that are replacing the terrible insurance are, by all reasonable measures, objectively better.

(2) Why don't you ask conservative/libertarian thought-leaders why they advocated in the 80s and 90s that every American should get insurance (real, not junk insurance)? I think the conservative Heritage Foundation explained it quite well:

Original document where Heritage created Obamacare individual mandate

 

[esmith]

I would answer this by saying three things:

(1) It's not about govt. telling people what's right for them, it's about govt. protecting consumers from being swindled. It's just like regulations which require certain minimum standards on cars, children's toys, or food and drugs. Some products are objectively terrible and they only persist by slipping under the radar of uninformed consumers, not by being competitive products. And the options that are replacing the terrible insurance are, by all reasonable measures, objectively better.

So you are basically saying that the government is really not telling you what you should or should not buy or do it is protecting you from yourself. Is, that a correct assumption?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So you are basically saying that the government is really not telling you what you should or should not buy or do it is protecting you from yourself. Is, that a correct assumption?

No it's protecting me from predatory businesses selling "junk" as if it's the real thing.

Again read the document I quoted in the post above, your conservative buddies explained it very well.

 

[esmith]

No it's protecting me from predatory businesses selling "junk" as if it's the real thing.

Again read the document I quoted in the post above, your conservative buddies explained it very well.

Them you are assuming that the average American is too stupid to realize what is "junk" and blindly follows the commercials put before them?
Guess that is how Obama became president:sarcastic

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Them you are assuming that the average American is too stupid to realize what is "junk" and blindly follows the commercials put before them?

I do not need to make use of such an assumption, no. I think what I in previous posts was pretty clear.

Tell me, should there be any legal minimum health and safety requirements on the food/service offered at a restaurant? E.g., should it be a legal requirement that employees handling food at restaurants wash their hands, or should it be the responsibility of consumers to find this out and make their own decisions? Hey, maybe some people ENJOY eating bacteria from human feces, maybe that's their choice and what right does the govt. have to restrict that choice? And if you want to eat at restaurants where employees wash their hands, you should be a responsible consumer and monitor that restaurant 24/7 to make sure they comply, don't rely on some govt. to do your homework for you.

 

[esmith]

I do not need to make use of such an assumption, no. I think what I in previous posts was pretty clear.

Tell me, should there be any legal minimum health and safety requirements on the food/service offered at a restaurant? E.g., should it be a legal requirement that employees handling food at restaurants wash their hands, or should it be the responsibility of consumers to find this out and make their own decisions? Hey, maybe some people ENJOY eating bacteria from human feces, maybe that's their choice and what right does the govt. have to restrict that choice? And if you want to eat at restaurants where employees wash their hands, you should be a responsible consumer and monitor that restaurant 24/7 to make sure they comply, don't rely on some govt. to do your homework for you.

I agree that there has to be some and I repeat some oversight by rules and regulations. What I and a lot of others object to is those that support large government that assumes that they have to control and or protect you from cradle to grave. We do not need it. Learn to think and be responsible!!!!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree that there has to be some and I repeat some oversight by rules and regulations. What I and a lot of others object to is those that support large government that assumes that they have to control and or protect you from cradle to grave. We do not need it. Learn to think and be responsible!!!!

I totally agree with you. I also don't believe large government should be controlling and protecting people from cradle to grave, people should learn to think and be responsible. I just don't think the health insurance requirements in question are doing that.

 

[esmith]

I totally agree with you. I also don't believe large government should be controlling and protecting people from cradle to grave, people should learn to think and be responsible. I just don't think the health insurance requirements in question are doing that.

No problem. However, do you really think that all of the requirements should be mandated for everyone?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No problem. However, do you really think that all of the requirements should be mandated for everyone?

Yes I think all the requirements should be mandated for everyone, just like car insurance there should be a minimum level of coverage everyone must have. The justification for this is explained quite well by the Heritage Foundation in that report I cited a few posts back, it's very much compatible with conservative principles of individual choice, personal responsibility, etc.

 

[Aquitaine]

I agree that there has to be some and I repeat some oversight by rules and regulations. What I and a lot of others object to is those that support large government that assumes that they have to control and or protect you from cradle to grave. We do not need it. Learn to think and be responsible!!!!

Exactly - which is why the US needs to seriously reduce it's Military spending, wouldn't you say?

 

[Pegg]

... 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

the health industry should never have been privatised in the first place...and this is why.

 

[MoonWater]

I knew there was something fishy about all those reports of people losing insurance because of obamacare. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

 

[esmith]

Exactly - which is why the US needs to seriously reduce it's Military spending, wouldn't you say?

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.
On a second note there should be a serious look at the current entitlement system. It is going broke and taking the country down with it. The results are not in as of yet what the ACA will eventually cost the nation. Yes there has been estimates, but as it is well known the actual price is usually 2 to 3 to 4 times the estimate. So, yeah everything needs to be looked at and looked at very hard.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.
On a second note there should be a serious look at the current entitlement system. It is going broke and taking the country down with it. The results are not in as of yet what the ACA will eventually cost the nation. Yes there has been estimates, but as it is well known the actual price is usually 2 to 3 to 4 times the estimate. So, yeah everything needs to be looked at and looked at very hard.

Well the president doesn't speak for the behalf of all "liberals". In fact it seems to be a liberal trend that they want lower military spending. Obama however is pretty far right when it comes to things like that. He is just as bad as Bush if not worse (Drone strikes, continuation of NSA, multiple locations of military force, ect). Which ties back into the fact that obama isn't a major left leaning president. He is by all means a conservative on a number of issues. His track record overall was more conservative than Mitt.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

On a second note there should be a serious look at the current entitlement system. It is going broke and taking the country down with it. The results are not in as of yet what the ACA will eventually cost the nation. Yes there has been estimates, but as it is well known the actual price is usually 2 to 3 to 4 times the estimate. So, yeah everything needs to be looked at and looked at very hard.

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....