Skip to main content

View Diary: Vast Majority Will Pay Less And Get Better Coverage Under ObamaCare (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  bs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil

    in what universe did people in the individual market have any of those consumer protections?  There was absolutely no assurance that the college-aged son couldn't be dropped if he got sick or injured or then would be able to find coverage after he was.  As the Strib article pointed out the smaller individual market is being brought under the same standards as the larger employer market.  

    The argument about not knowing what is actually covered is not condescending nor insulting when it's very easy to find stories pre-2010 that confirm that.  Maybe not for your relatives but govt policies are not individualized to every single persons experience.

    Insurance companies spelling out the terms of their policies is very funny indeed especially when those terms and conditions are not written in a manner that is easily understood.  Again, it's not because people are stoooopid, it's because insurers are only interested in a sale.  And then it's in their best interest to avoid payment or make people jump through so many hoops that they give up.  

    The only people I've seen make this argument about treating people as if they are stupid are the ones who only have negative things to say about the ACA.

    •  You have no idea what you are talking about, of (4+ / 0-)

      course, because you don't know these people or what policy they had.  You don't have to believe me, because you don't know me, but you certainly can't make definitive assertions about the pre-ACA policies of people you know nothing about.  And  you have no credibility when you pretend to "know" what was, or was not, in their policies.

      Believe it or not, there are people out there who, even before the ACA, would actually read what was covered and would actually take the time to understand it.  Some people liked to do that kind of thing before they spent thousands of dollars.  Yes, insurance companies are trying to sell something.  So are people selling a house, or a car.  We don't assume that everyone who buys those are too stupid to understand what they are buying.  Instead, the government mandates what must be disclosed, and then lets people make up their own minds.  And that was EXACTLY the state of affairs before the ACA -- there were government mandates on what must be disclosed, how it had to be disclosed, and yes, people who took the time to read what they were buying DID know what they were buying.  

      I do not have "only" negative things to say about the ACA.  Certainly, as I said, it benefits many people, especially the older and sicker (who, through community rating and other provisions, do not pay premiums that are as disproportionately high as they were, if they could get insurance at all.)

      Where I fault the Administration is in not being honest in the selling of the ACA.  The "lie" told to many people was that we could do all these good things for people who didn't have coverage, people with pre-existing conditions, etc., without any down side for anyone who already liked the coverage they had  ("if you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period").  The Administration was honest about the "upside" for some.  The Administration was not honest about the "downside" for others.  

      It is that dishonesty, not necessarily the ACA itself, that is causing the Administration the problems, in my opinion.  

      •  Anecdotal Logic Fallacy (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil, glynis

        You have a story about your California relatives that sounds compelling. With your knowledge and intelligence, you know very well that their experience isn't indicative of the experience many other people have had.

        In a country of 316 million people nothing is ever going to be uniform. There are always outliers in much smaller sets of data.

        It's disingenuous to pretend that outliers are emblematic of an entire population. That's why you'll never get anywhere with your argument.

        There is no existence without doubt.

        by Mark Lippman on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 11:14:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am certainly not implying that they (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neuroptimalian

          are emblematic of an entire population.  In fact, I was using them as an example to counter the notion of other that all the pre-ACA policies that were cancelled were "junk" only people didn't know it.  My point is that I'm sure there are some like that, but there are also some people out there who had legitimate policies that served their needs who are now going to have to pay more,and it is disingenuous to pretend those kinds of situations don't exist as well.

          Supporters of the ACA point to situations were people are better off under the ACA, while the opposition points to people who are not better off. The truth is that both situations exist -- some people pay less, some people are going to have to pay more -- because the ACA was designed that way.  

          What I was saying is that the arguments presented are not going to be persuasive to those people like my California relatives.  I don't pretend that they are emblematic of the entire population, but I don't believe they are the only ones in that situation, either.

    •  The equity argument though is another good one (0+ / 0-)

      The people who are absorbing the higher costs on this are people already in the individual market.   They are essentially being singled out to be taxed to pay for those who have preexisting conditions instead of spreading these costs over all taxpayers particularly and progressively on those with higher incomes.  

      It's eat your peas centrism.  Shift the costs around but don't make the substantial commitment of government resources needed to make sure this moves us to sustainable universal healthcare.

      But hey, in the words, of our Senator Amy, "universal healthcare is unrealistic" so why would I expect her to deliver it?

      •  it is spreading the cost (0+ / 0-)

        in their insurance market as a group in the exchange.  

        •  Yeah but that's just playing insurance games (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nada Lemming

          in the "free" market.  We get the government involved to deliver the equity that the free market never provides.  We do if we're liberals.  There are always losers in a free market.  That's pretty much the whole premise.  If you believe healthcare is a human right, you shouldn't be depending on the market to provide equity.  

           

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site