Skip to main content

Remember when health care and websites used to be boring?  Not anymore!  The glitchy federal health exchange site, Healthcare.gov, has been at the top of the news for a couple weeks.  But there's more to this story than just some programming glitches.

While I'll take it over the crazy health insurance wilderness we've been living in, Obamacare has had serious problems from the start.  Thanks to a political process that first batted down the idea of just expanding Medicare, then freaked out at the prospect of a "public option" in the mix, we're now left with what could be cobbled together between government-ish and the almighty private sector.

These underlying problems are becoming more apparent when people get past the programming glitches and find out what the Affordable Care Act means to them.  Apparently, "affordable" means your current plan may be discontinued and the available new plans are more expensive.  But wait!  Your increased premiums will be heavily discounted thanks to government subsidies, so it may be cheaper after all.  Sigh, I wish I was an insurance company.  Either way, from here on out, any problem people have with health care will be blamed on Obama.  (Never mind the old days of huge premium increases, canceling policies and denying coverage for preexisting conditions.)

You can find out more by digging into the stories behind this animation.  Share this with your friends and enemies, and happy health care!

Mr. Dan:  Dogboy!

Dogboy:  Yes, Mr. Dan?  What is it-- [interrupted]

Mr. Dan:  Bwah-HAH!  I told you so!

Dogboy:  Told me so what?

Mr. Dan:  I told you Obamacare would be a disaster, Dogboy!

Dogboy:  Well, Healthcare.gov is messed up, but they're fixing it!  Soon, citizens everywhere will-- [interrupted]

Mr. Dan:  --will be suffering under iron-fisted government tyranny!

Dogboy:  You mean the tyranny of a federal, um, website?

Mr. Dan:  A government website run by the feds is tyranny!

Dogboy:  But, conservatives refused to build health exchange sites run by the states!

Mr. Dan:  Because we believe in states' rights!

Dogboy:  You mean like the right of states to let the federal government run things?

Mr. Dan:  Clearly, the government can't run something so complicated.

Dogboy:  A single-payer plan is much simpler . . .

Mr. Dan:  Bite your tongue, Dogboy!

Dogboy:  Is that covered, Mr. Dan?

Mr. Dan:  I don't know, but I do know that government should stay outta' the health care business!

Dogboy:  But people like Medicare, and the government runs that!

Mr. Dan:  Hah!  Private insurance is much more efficient.

Dogboy:  Efficient at rate hikes and canceling policies . . .

Mr. Dan:  But there are rate hikes under Obamacare, Dogboy!

Dogboy:  . . . which are subsidized and go to the insurance companies, right?

Mr. Dan:  As well they should.  Private insurance provides a service, the least the government can do is pay for it!

Dogboy:  . . . because single payer is bad.  So, they raise rates and the government subsidizes increased premiums, which go to insurance companies because the private sector is more efficient, right?

Mr. Dan:  Bbbbrrrr, yes, but that sounds like an Obamacare handout!  Wha-- [objects start to fall]

Dogboy:  And you blocked state websites so the federal one had to be bigger . . .

Mr. Dan:  Wha-- yes, but.  What th'?!

Dogboy:  And, and you wanted to keep government out, which meant fat subsidies for corporations who were in . . .

Mr. Dan:  Yes, but-- nnno, but . . .

Dobboy:  [shock, sucks in]  Mr. Dan!  I think you're . . . you're . . .

[WHAM! Contraption falls]

Dogboy:  Socialist?

Mr. Dan:  Grrrrrr, nnno, Dogb--

Dogboy:  Fortunately, pre-existing conditions are covered, Mr. Dan.  Mr Dan?  You should get that checked out . . .

Mr. Dan:  Gggroan…

Dogboy:  Just log on to Healthcare.gov!  Mr. Dan?

Originally posted to Comics on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's the BIG problem (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    quill, dinotrac

    Too many middle-ish income people are going to be jammed right in bad spots. Making too much to qualify for much of a subsidy (single person making $40-50k). But also facing a cancelling policy that doesn't meet the 10 "essential benefits".

    So they either pay a $500 fine next year (1% of income, going up to 2.5%, or $1,250)....and go without any coverage whatsoever.....or they have to buy a policy that's probabably a $200+ more/month.

    Doesn't even get into the possible death spirals the exchanges are facing going into next year.....related to a lot of the same issues mentioned above + website problems.

    •  NO,HERE'S THE BIG PROBLEM (10+ / 0-)

      The Affordable care act was written by and for the benefit of the INSURANCE COMMPANIES NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

      Although I believe there will be some improvement because of this law I'm hoping we can force Hillary Clinton to come out in favor of a huge expansion of Medicare (especially to people over 50 years old) as part of what she runs on in 2016.The ACA was a very small baby step towards the goal of universal single payer government sponsored healthcare being recognized as a right of citizenship of the USA which is still the goal.

      http://dumpjoe.com/

      by ctkeith on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 07:48:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is the big problem. (4+ / 0-)

        Not that the powers-that-be care to admit it.

        We're supposed to be delighted at having this piece of crap jammed down our throats.

        The subsidies -- that cover the majority of Americans to some degree -- should have been a giant red flag that something was terribly wrong with this plan.  Real reform would not have needed such a massive band-aid.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:57:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, the BIG problem is the millions left out (5+ / 0-)

      By the states that refused to expand Medicaid. The poor and near poor that are working, especially the ones thta don't have children so have been responsible or lucky, have been completely cut out, with nothing for them.



      Women create the entire labor force.
      ---------------------------------------------
      Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:22:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Subsidies go to just OVER $50k/yr income (0+ / 0-)
      •  Not for a single person (0+ / 0-)

        The subsidies cut out at around $46k/year for single people, and around $92k/year for a family of four.

        For people who are near retirement age and who are just above the cutoff for subsidies, that really is a problem.

        While folks that fall into that category won't have to pay the fine (since no affordable insurance will be available), many of them will also be unable to afford a health care plan.

        While I generally support the ACA, it is worthwhile to note things that will eventually need to be fixed (assuming we ever have a functional congress again), and this is definitely one of those fixes that is needed.

        Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

        by TexasTom on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:06:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Your increased premiums will be heavily discounted (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DocGonzo, quill, dinotrac, nextstep

    Make that: Your increased premiums may be heavily discounted.

    And, of course, although you deal with only intra-state insurance companies, the subsidy limits are federal, as if a $46K annual income in rural Alabama has anything like the same purchasing power as $46K in New York City.

    So, our small (tiny) business in NYC has already been told to expect no subsidy and a 20% increase. My sister in NJ was told that her plan, already with a huge deductible, will be up 40%. The good news just keeps coming.

  •  Who needs a TV network hatchet job on the (5+ / 0-)

    ACA when you can get one here on our precious blog?

    Keep feeding the rightie meme, boys.

    "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

    by Wildthumb on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 07:30:01 AM PDT

    •  Is it really a meme if it's the truth? (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DocGonzo, quill, tandrews, dinotrac, mrkvica, Nattiq

      Some people come out ahead with the ACA and some people come out behind.  Why is it so hard for some of you to understand or admit that?  Anyone who says they will be spending more on health care with the ACA is apparently a troll, damn the facts!

      •  True Memes (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        quill, ColoTim, Nattiq

        It's still a meme, especially when it's true. And especially when it's true the meme should appear on a blog like DKos.

        Ignoring the inconveniently true memes is the way to become the Republican Party.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:00:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are forgetting the QUALITY of your policy (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kefauver, tekno2600, TF in VA

          People may have had cheap policies but they were JUNK policies that were subject to exclusions and cancellations.

          •  The problem with quality is that it relates to (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ColoTim, mrkvica, Not A Bot

            your need.

            Ferrari makes great cars, but they would be lousy for my needs, even if I could afford one.  Insurance policies that cost more because they protect against problems you will never have are not higher quality policies for you. Just more expensive.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:00:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's not ferrarris vs. fords, it's rollerblading (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kefauver, TexasTom, Lefty Ladig

              on the freeway. People were being sold products that could literally get them killed. Then they are being told to gripe about how cars cost more than rollerblades and they were "doing just fine" before because no one had run them over yet. It's sad to see people on the Left and Right buying into this dumb argument.

              Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

              by tekno2600 on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:14:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Some people also bought Yugos. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Not A Bot

                So what?

                This is a case of some people deciding that they know better what we need than we do.  That, frankly, is offensive.

                The problem to be solved was that some people could not buy the insurance that they needed.  The solution was a decision that people should buy insurance they don't need.  That is a sop to the insurance companies, not to the American people.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:20:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Having argued with you before, I won't waste my (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kefauver, Lefty Ladig

                  time responding to your usually endless stream of weak, BS arguments.

                  If it's offensive to set standards, then you should be in favor of letting people rollerblade on the freeway. I find the absurdity of that argument more offensive that the offense you take at being told what to do.

                  Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

                  by tekno2600 on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:28:12 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Isn't this what government does? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dinotrac, Lefty Ladig
                  This is a case of some people deciding that they know better what we need than we do.  That, frankly, is offensive.
                  Sorry, but I have to disagree -- strongly -- with you on that one.

                  Most of government is about making decisions for other people, rather than letting them make those decisions themselves.  Obviously, this applies to things like seatbelt laws and helmet laws.

                  But it also applies to the mandate for kids to go to school -- by your reasoning, a decision that should properly be left to their parents.  Or to child labor laws -- if a 12 year old chooses to work, why shouldn't he be allowed to decide for himself?  Or, for that matter, minimum wage, overtime rules, and pretty much all labor laws -- all of which are predicated on the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to freely choose badly paying jobs, dangerous working conditions, etc.

                  So, no, I don't agree that you have a valid argument against requiring people to get insurance that meets minimal standards.

                  Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

                  by TexasTom on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:11:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It is what government does, but not always so (0+ / 0-)

                    heavy-handedly.

                    Go to your basic example of requiring that children be educated and see how that differs from ACA in very fundamental ways:

                    1. The government provides an educational alternative

                    You are not required to pay private industry for the education your child must receive.

                    2.  The government does not force you to choose from a limited list of alternatives.

                    You can choose to send your kids to public school.
                    You can choose to send you kids to a dizzying variety of private schools -- including parochial, military, and experimental schools.
                    You can choose to educate your children at home.
                    We've used all three of those options at one point or another, and are home-schooling now.

                    So why, especially when forcing us into the arms of giant profit-making, charge what the market will bear, corporations, must our choices be limited so?

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 03:46:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Nobody Said Rollerblading Would Be Prohibited (0+ / 0-)

                I don't think there's anything wrong with minimum performance requirements for health insurance policies to be sold.

                I do think it was wrong that Obama etc publicly insisted, over and over again, that anybody who liked their insurance policy would keep it. That's not true, in the many cases where people liked their bad policy.

                It might be better for them, but they were lied into getting it. That's not OK.

                "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                by DocGonzo on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:07:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Except that wasn't always the case (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mrkvica, DocGonzo

            as some people have written about in many comments here.  

            I have what many of you are calling a junk policy, but it fit what I needed.  It also paid $290k+ for the heart attack I had last year, leaving me to pay only a few thousand dollars out of pocket (not too junky in my opinion).  My insurer (BC/BS) didn't drop me and my rate only went up $25/month on my renewal date.  The catastrophic plan offered to me on the exchange is almost 50% more in monthly premiums and doesn't even kick in until I reach a $6500 deductible.  The lowest cost bronze plan starts at almost 100% more in monthly premiums and again doesn't even kick in until I hit over $6000 in deductibles.  

            Again, why is it so hard for some people to admit that not everybody is coming out ahead in this deal?

            •  The overwhelming majority of people are coming (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kefauver, elfling, Lefty Ladig

              out ahead. If your insurance paid $290K for a heart attack, it doesn't sound like a junk policy. In cases where people buy catastrophic coverage right before they need it, that is great timing. But, that's not the norm (or insurance companies would all go broke). So, we shouldn't be telling everyone to just keep buying low cost catastrophic coverage and hoping for the best. There will be winners and losers in the new system, just as there were in the old one, but the reason things will turn out better on average with wider coverage is that there is a bigger pool. You can't get something for nothing. When you got your catastrophic coverage, your win was someone else's loss in increased premiums. As more people get on better plans, some will pay more in the beginning and some will pay less. But, the unsustainable growth in healthcare costs will slow down.

              Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

              by tekno2600 on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:23:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  If your policy really was that terrific (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lefty Ladig, GrumpyOldGeek

              then you were very fortunate.

              However, the experience you report is an outlier. I have a lot of experience with both individual and small group policies and I would say your experience is extraordinary, to have a policy that paid so well and that has not been annually increasing your premiums and dropping you on to lesser and lesser plans.

              You should check also that you are reading this new plan correctly. A $6500 deductible does not actually mean that you get no benefits until that is reached under most health insurance plans. For example, by law, preventative care is covered free before any deductible is considered. Most plans also have co-pays for visits and medication that mean you'll get far more than $6,000 in health care before you hit $6,000 as your out of pocket maximum.

              If you had a heart attack last year, you already benefit from insurance regulations that prevent your insurance company from dropping you or for dramatically increasing your individual rate. Believe me, they would if the law allowed. Certainly no other insurance company would offer you a policy - you'd have been chained to Blue Cross indefinitely and at their mercy as to what they chose to offer you.

              Given the benefits you say you received last year, and considering the amount of care you are likely to consume this year in followups, I would say that you might worry less about the specific detail of what the President said and more about your relationship with the system as a whole and how you'll benefit going forward.

              Imagine if you'd found out last year that your health insurance had a $100,000 annual maximum.

              Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

              by elfling on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 11:31:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Or wait 'till eligible for Medicare (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kefauver

                Want single payer?

                I've paid for private health policies. $2000/mo and unemployed.

                Welcome to Dark Ages Insurance Company.
                Your policy has been cancelled.
                Thank you for choosing Dark Ages.
                Have a nice day.

                Uninsured for many years.
                Pre-existing condition. No coverage for polio. No problem with that.
                Can't afford any reasonable coverage.
                Finally eligible for Medicare.
                Then the ACA kicks in a few weeks later.
                Now it's affordable.
                But now I have single payer.
                Not eligible to sign up through ACA exchange anyway.
                Story of my life.....

                Your explanation is reality.

                The complainers won't figure out what the ACA is all about until they hit bottom.

                "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

                by GrumpyOldGeek on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:55:07 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  So? (0+ / 0-)

            I don't see what I've forgotten. I mentioned only the need to discuss facts instead of ignore them when they're inconvenient.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:05:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  It is if you're here. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lefty Ladig

        Or a right-wing talking point.
        Or false equivalency.
        Or trolling.
        Or just plain mean.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:59:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm really surprised you and Mark fell for this BS (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kefauver, Lefty Ladig

        As pointed out by many right here at the kos, most of the so-called "plans" being cancelled are actually scams. They are things like this $50 a month "health care plan," which is actually a "medical discount" scam, not insurance. The ACA sets standards for real health insurance and drives the scammers out of the business, where they belong.

        So, unfortunately, you are repeating Teabagger BS. What is even worse, is that you are couching it in true arguments from the Left, such as the fact that Medicare for All would be better. While that is the case, not only were there never enough votes for this in the past--what with all the Obstructionist Republicans, Blue Dogs (more so in the last Congress than now), and the various liberal dupes attacking the ACA from the left--but there will not be votes for single payer in the future if you root for the failure of the ACA. If it does not succeed, you will never ever see another attempt at health care reform. EVER. EVER. EVER. But, when, it does succeed, you will see people moving toward better systems--no thanks to the people on the left and right who f-ed up the process all the way along with their concern trolling.

        Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

        by tekno2600 on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:06:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, You're Back with the Same Tired Story! (0+ / 0-)

        Troll?!

        Well, you have 9 comments here now since you signed up a week ago.

        All basically stating the same thing over and over again.

        WE GET IT!!!

        I'm a "right-wing freak show," or at least that's what one nobody on DKOS seems to think.

        by kefauver on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:24:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Who has really said anything (0+ / 0-)

      that isn't factual?

    •  You are forgetting NO PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, kefauver, TexasTom, Lefty Ladig

      Before ACA, I could not get healthcare insurance AT ALL...except for the policy I converted from when I was employed.  Could not change my policy. Which had huge deductibles and copayments and cost me about $500/mo.

      •  That is a very good thing. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ColoTim, mrkvica, Not A Bot

        There will be many winners from ACA.  I'm not yet sure that I won't be one of them.  Doesn't make it a good thing on balance.

        That said, perhaps it's better to pull back from comparing ACA to something good and instead to compare ACA with something very, very bad: the status quo.  American health care is a horrible, thieving mess.  The process of extracting every penny it can get does more than leave you poor -- it impacts the quality of the care you receive.  ACA may be a terrible mess, but it's a better mess than what came before.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:03:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Politically, the problems with the ACA (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wildthumb, Lefty Ladig

      will be muted, thanks to our friends in the Republican Party.    They have promised nothing less than the destruction of the American way of life.  

      Instead, we get problems with the website, a few people who don't get to renew their junk insurance, blah, blah, blah.

      People are sick of hearing about it, and the reality is that it affects most people not at all.  

      The sleep of reason brings forth monsters. --Goya

      by MadScientist on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:36:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama bought this HealthCareMess, Public Option (0+ / 0-)

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up!

    by Churchill on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 07:39:19 AM PDT

  •  I do worry that every insurance company woe (0+ / 0-)

    --all the horrible things they do all the time in dnying claims or being hard to work with--will now be blamed on Obamacare for anyone buying through the exchanges.

    Even though it's a private insurance company, everything they do will be attributed to the government!

    Some people fight fire with fire. Professionals use water.

    by Happy Days on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 07:39:57 AM PDT

  •  Banksters Get Cured Again (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dinotrac

    The ACA seems to do much better for the insurance companies - banks - than for the people, even if overall the people get to survive while banksters thrive. That kind of Obama outcome should surprise no one.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:02:25 AM PDT

    •  Obama outcome? (0+ / 0-)

      The president did have to get this plan through congress.  Remember?  Both many Democrats and all the Republicans had to take their pound of flesh before they would commit to vote for health care reform at all.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:42:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Passing the buck (feature not bug) (4+ / 0-)

    Now all the problems with a private insurance system plus a private network of health care providers can be magically transferred to the mean incompetent socialist government run by a Kenyan muslim who wants to kill American babies.

    Example: The fact (in today's breathless headlines) that in some places, the exchanges offer people very very few options, with very narrow networks of providers. Guess what? Private insurance companies don't have to write policies that they don't want to. I'm guessing there are areas of the country that no one is particularly eager to cover, and nothing in the ACA forces them to cover them, or to make sure that people who are actually sick or injured have access to the best care available.

    I hope that what this leads to, within a few years, is first a public option to supplement whatever the private companies deign to offer, and then that public option becoming the overwhelming choice of most people and the benchmark for private policies to try to beat if they want the business.

    For that to happen, however, we need massive GOTV for the 2014 and 2016 elections.

    •  We stand a good chance of a public option (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lefty Ladig

      in the future.  Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in 2009, who killed the public option in committee, will be gone from the senate.   Of course he had help from other Democrats (Blue Dogs) on the committee - Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson and Kent Conrad - who also refused to let it out of committee by voting with the Republicans.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:55:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My wife, a nurse, has told me that her patients (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrkvica

    are having their policies cancelled, but they're being cancelled now, not at the end of the year, so until the end of the year, they're without coverage, for even prescriptions.  Just anecdotal, but this whole deal about policies covering the calendar year is apparently about to screw people over for the next couple months.  

    Just passing along a report from the front line.

    •  Many people have low quality, scam health (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kefauver

      insurance, or even worse "medical discount cards." Those things are often worthless if people really needed serious medical care. The ACA sets standards that drive the scammers out. So, while it may seem like people are losing something, it's better that they get rid of the crap coverage they had as soon as possible and get on a real plan. Also, remember that if the insurance industry was not selling so many crap products before, the transition to getting people decent coverage would be smoother. So, it is not a flaw of the ACA that scam policies are being forced out. It is a good and necessary benefit.

      Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

      by tekno2600 on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:04:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not arguing that point. It's just that they (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mrkvica

        are being left high and dry now, rather than at the end of the year and they need medicine and will have health issues between now and then.

        •  Yes. But, they can buy temporary coverage. I know (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kefauver, ColoTim, Lefty Ladig

          it's a pain, but they need to remember that their insurance companies did this to them by selling them crap policies and then cancelling those policies on them abruptly and without warning. So, while some people blame the law for a coverage gap, the blame really rests on the insurance companies for being bad actors.

          Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

          by tekno2600 on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:31:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They have pre-existing conditions. They can't (0+ / 0-)

            buy insurance, probably at any price.  They have to rely on whatever prescription or insurance discount cards might be available through chains or discounters like Walmart or Costco who will fill prescriptions.  New issues - well, one has to hope they can go to the Republican Emergency Room route.

    •  If those policies are being cancelled now... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, Lefty Ladig

      ...that is the choice of those insurance companies, and not a mandate of the ACA.

      The blame in that instance should be placed with the insurance companies.

      Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

      by TexasTom on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:14:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site