Skip to main content

No more crocodile tears for those folks whose sub-par insurance is no longer available to them. So what if the Affordable Care Act is forcing you to chose a new health insurance plan? Big deal. My employer did the same thing to me just 18 months after I had had my aortic valve replaced, with the result that I could no longer see my physician of 20 years! AND my premiums and co-pays went up.

My experience is hardly unique or even special. A health insurance system that puts decision-making largely in the hands of employers and for-profit companies results in situations like mine -- and I'm sure tens of millions of other people in the country have experienced similarly unwanted changes to their policies and providers over the years.

Can those of you insured through an employer even remember all the changes that have been imposed on you over the last decade, or even the last five years? Premiums increasing, co-pays increasing, co-insurance creeping up: shifting the costs to individuals who have absolutely no way to predict or even calculate the costs any given ailment is going to entail.

Sure, Obamacare is a messy kludge. But what could we expect when taking the private profit out of the system was always going to be a nonstarter? We know we need single-payer. Failing that, we know we need a public option.

Don't let the media get away with crying fake tears for the poor folks who are moaning about the loss of crappy, for-profit insurance. The least we can do is tell our own stories and show just how false all this concern is.

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

  •  Maybe we could get an insurance company in Kenya (5+ / 0-)

    to offer them the same plan.

    Now that would be funny.

    Why is it easier to buy a gun than it is to register to vote in most states?

    by 88kathy on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 03:15:05 PM PST

  •  Three quarters of medical related bankruptcies (11+ / 0-)

    had health insurance:

    Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001. […]
    In 2007, before the current economic downturn, an American family filed for bankruptcy in the aftermath of illness every 90 seconds; three quarters of them were insured.

    Since 2001, the proportion of all bankruptcies attributable to medical problems has increased by 50%. Nearly two thirds of all bankruptcies are now linked to illness.

    How did medical problems propel so many middle-class, insured Americans toward bankruptcy? For 92% of the medically bankrupt, high medical bills directly contributed to their bankruptcy. Many families with continuous cover- age found themselves under-insured, responsible for thou- sands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Others had private coverage but lost it when they became too sick to work. Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year. Income loss due to illness also was common, but nearly always coupled with high medical bills

    .
  •  Well... (5+ / 0-)
    Sure, Obamacare is a messy kludge. But what could we expect when taking the private profit out of the system was always going to be a nonstarter? We know we need single-payer. Failing that, we know we need a public option.
    That we knew at the time that single-payer and/or a public option were needed makes the "always going to be a non-starter" part of your comment even more difficult to accept.




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

    by DeadHead on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 03:25:19 PM PST

  •  I'm not shedding any tears... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron

    I'm not too happy too...

    At least I knew it would happen.

  •  Except (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward, VClib

    Trying to convince, say, a bachelor that his previous plan with carefully chosen coverage was crap and his new, more expensive plan with maternity coverage is awesome -- that's not going to fly, methinks.

    •  People have to realize how insurance works (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Val, ciganka

      Health insurance is like any other kind of insurance.  You buy it to protect against catastrophe.  Almost all of us have paid much more in auto insurance or homeowners / renters insurance than we will ever get back.  A certain amount goes in (premiums) and that same amount goes out (payments to health care providers AND, unfortunately, profit to insurance companies).  In order for a few people to be protected from catastrophe, i.e., for a few people to get more out than they put in, most of us are going to have to pay more than we get out.

      Everyone seems to think that we all can get more out of health insurance than we put in.  Sorry - it just doesn't work that way.

      (Now, of course, in a progressive system, taxes and so forth will cover the premiums for lower income individuals - so many people will in the end get to more than they personally pay in - and in employer-provided coverage your employer takes it out of your pay before you even know you earned it -but the point is someone is still paying.)

  •  I haven't been following this story closely enough (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    second gen, Neuroptimalian, VClib

    but my understanding is that people are more upset about the President's statement that people wouldn't have to switch plans than the fact that they actually had to switch.  

    •  Yes, when a very nuanced statement was needed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AaronInSanDiego, ciganka

      the President made several bold promises about the ACA that turned out not be be true. Even all the Democrats who are talking heads agree that the President needed to make an apology and that it should have been weeks ago, rather than a few days ago.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 06:08:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand why he said what he did. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ciganka

        Explaining the ACA to people has been essentially impossible.  It was easier to say "if you like your plan you can keep it" rather than "If you like your plan and it provides sufficiently comprehensive coverage as defined in this ten trillion page statute then you can keep your plan, unless your provider decides to drop that particular plan and the cost doesn't become prohibitively expensive."  

        What he said was true for the vast majority of people.  He still shouldn't have said it, but I see why he did.

  •  Civil service worker (0+ / 0-)

    here, with what's assumed to be a great menu of insurance plans available.  Rates have increased 300% in 8 years.  Yeah, that "works".

    "The light which puts out our sight is darkness to us." Thoreau

    by NancyWH on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 05:22:08 AM PST

  •  I lost my doctor of 20 years (0+ / 0-)

    in April, due to my insurance company dropping him. And it had nothing to do with Obamacare, so I'm with ya.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site