Obamacare: The Bait & Switch
On Saturday, October 26, 2013, the Los Angeles Times rolled out this headline:
Some health insurance gets pricier as Obamacare rolls out
Some health insurance gets pricier?
Across the country, there are stories of people’s premiums going up, as little as 65% to as much as 400%.
This, in conjunction with a rise in deductibles and out of pocket expenses.
“This is when the actual sticker shock comes into play for people,” said Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. “There are winners and losers under the Affordable Care Act.”
We get the man on the street point of view.
“It doesn’t seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else,” said [Jennifer] Harris [a self employed lawyer], who is three months pregnant. “This increase is simply not affordable.”
But then, the author attempts to defend Obamacare.
On balance, many Americans will benefit from the healthcare expansion. They are guaranteed coverage regardless of their medical history. And lower-income families will gain access to comprehensive coverage at little or no cost.
Yes they will, but is it fair for the government to reach into my pocket and say “You are going to help your neighbor get health coverage.”
So, how long before the government decides that my neighbor can’t afford fire insurance for his house, so I have to help pay for it?
How about not being able to afford his house? What about that shiny new hybrid the government is trying to push onto us?
Televisions and cable for everyone? We already have the government sponsored cell phones (more affectionately known as Obamaphones)
My point is, where does it end? Should healthcare coverage be a government function at all, or should it be a matter left up to the States themselves?
Many Americans will benefit, but many more will get screwed, but the liberals don’t seem to care. What we should have here is a voluntary tax. If you want to provide the less fortunate with healthcare, then you should pay the tax to cover them. I bet you that tax would dry up and blow away quickly.
Those who support Obamacare claim this is not a government takeover of your healthcare.
Then why is it that a large chunk of people who have “enrolled” through the government website have been told that they qualify for Medicaid, rather than having to pick up insurance themselves? Medicaid is a government run healthcare system, where the government pays for a private health insurance policy for those who can’t afford it. But these policies lowball doctors, and more and more doctors are refusing Medicaid patients because of this. So, what good does it do to increase the number of Medicaid enrollees, if doctors won’t see them? Why do the rest of us have to pay for Medicaid, through higher premiums, on a program that isn’t working?
But middle-income consumers face an estimated 30% rate increase, on average, in California due to several factors tied to the healthcare law.
Only 30%? I find that hard to believe with the stories I’ve been hearing. What are these factors driving premiums up?
The same factors that is driving insurance companies to drop customers. That many of these policies don’t meet Federal standards.
Standards such as requiring maternity care for men and senior citizens. Seriously? Maternity care for grandma?
In addition, a lot of sick/sickly people are seeking coverage, and the rest of us have to pick up the tab. That’s to be expected, as often sick people don’t have coverage of their own. But there are free clinics out there, doctors who do donate their time and energy.
Understandably, people who do have health insurance get frustrated by having to pick up the tab for the uninsured, but now the government is essentially mandating that your premiums skyrocket in order to address this problem. How is that better?
It seems to be a no brainer that the only way to stop premiums going up due to people being uninsured is to require everyone to purchase health insurance, but that isn’t how it is working. Your premiums are doubling to cover uninsured/poor people.
What happens to people who simply can’t afford the higher premiums, but don’t qualify for subsidies or Medicaid? What do people do when their insurance premiums eclipse their mortgage payment? Which is more important? Health insurance or shelter? Food?
Some people are waking up to the fact that Obamacare isn’t free, and that it isn’t what was advertised. Someone has to pay for it somewhere along the line.
Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law.
“She said, ‘I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,'” Kehaly said.
I’ve heard various people say that they don’t care who pays for their healthcare as long as it isn’t them. They would rather leech off the rest of us.
“People could have kept their cheaper, bad coverage, and those people wouldn’t have been part of the common risk pool,” [Peter] Lee [executive director of Covered California] said. “We are better off all being in this together. We are transforming the individual market and making it better.”
Really? By requiring I have coverage I don’t want or need? As I heard one person say this weekend, better by my standards, or the government’s?
The President’s supporters are desperately trying to spin the President’s promise of being able to keep your plan or doctor if you like them.
Supporters of the healthcare law say Obama was referring to people who are insured through their employers or through government programs such as Medicare. Still, they acknowledge the confusion and anger from individual policyholders who are being forced to change.
Uh-huh, and he didn’t mean to insult business owners by saying “you didn’t build that.”
The entire scheme is predicated on charging the young higher premiums in order to offset costs to seniors. That is, if the youth aren’t already covered by their parent’s insurance up to age 26. How is that supposed to work, exactly?
Rates would be going up regardless of changes from the healthcare expansion. The average individual premium will climb 9% next year because of rising healthcare costs and increases in medical provider reimbursement, according to Milliman’s estimates [Milliman Inc. in San Diego].
In order to justify your rates jumping 65% to 400%, you need to be informed that your rates were most likely going up 9% anyway.
Sounds comparable to me. If they were going up just under 10% next year, why not just take the plunge and pay double?
It’s beginning to look more and more like a scheme to increase the numbers of those dependent on the government.
Kathleen Sebelius once said on the Daily Show that all we have is anecdotal evidence that Obamacare isn’t working. Well, all they have is anecdotal evidence that it is working.
What we do have, however, is hard statistics courtesy of the Census Bureau, that the number of Americans who are reliant on government assistance has surpassed the number of full time workers for the first time, ever.
Is this president interested in the economy recovering, or making us a nation of dependents, where we can’t do anything for ourselves, or without the permission of the government?