What Congress didn't say: Obamacare outlaws policies that are essentially worthless

[Playinghardball]

As I watched Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius being grilled by members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week, it was immediately clear to me just how many of them are in the pockets of the industry I used to work for.

Former colleagues of mine undoubtedly had a hand in writing the members’ comments and questions. Their behavior showed just how much more willing they are to protect the profits of health insurers than protect the health and financial well- being of their constituents.

I got the same treatment from many of those committee members when I provided testimony in March — or tried to. I had been invited to talk about the business practices of insurers — practices that have contributed to the rising number of uninsured and underinsured Americans. Among them: refusing to sell policies to millions of us because of preexisting conditions and charging exorbitant premiums for skimpy coverage to others.

When I tried to tell the tale of a Florida woman who died of cancer last year because she was priced out of the market and was unable to buy coverage at any price, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from my home state of Tennessee, cut me off. She clearly had no interest in hearing about Leslie Elder or anything else I had to say. Instead, Blackburn held forth for more than five minutes and gave me all of 20 seconds to respond.

Throughout that hearing, a former co-worker from my Humana days, who later worked for the industry’s big lobbying group and then the Bush administration, stood a few feet behind Blackburn. That former co-worker now serves as senior policy adviser to the committee. So I was not the least bit surprised that Blackburn was determined to give me as little time to talk as possible.

During the Sebelius hearing, Blackburn and other GOP members talked about letters constituents have received informing them that their policies will not be available next year. How could that be, they asked, when the president assured us four years ago that, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Blackburn, et al accused the president of being dishonest.

Obama should not have used those exact words. That’s because one reason for the Affordable Care Act in the first place was to protect us from insurers all too willing to lure us into inadequate policies with slick marketing materials. Insurers have made billions in profits from selling such junk insurance, and people like Blackburn clearly want to get rid of the law that makes junk insurance illegal.

More here: http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/11/04/13676/what-congress-didnt-say-obamacare-outlaws-policies-are-essentially-worthless?utm_source=publicintegrity&utm_medium=social_media&utm_campaign=twitter

Discovered on the Obamadiary

[frazzled]

1. Was Obama "dishonest" or "naive"?

It occurs to me (and ignore this if others have said it), that he thought his slogan "If you like your plan you can keep it" was essentially honest. Based on past statements he'd made (for instance, during the 2008 primaries, that he thought "most people" would want to buy insurance, even without a mandate), I truly think he believed that people who had these crappy plans that would be ended under the law could not possibly have "liked" them.

He underestimated the stupidity or obstinacy or mendacity of those people, or the groups that are exploiting them.

[851-977]

2. k & r nt

[unblock]

3. it doesn't "outlaw" anything, i don't think.

afaik, it just says that if a policy isn't good enough, then that policy doesn't, in and of itself, get you out of whatever penalties you might face.

you can still get the policy and pay the penalty, or you can get the policy as a supplement to a real policy and avoid the penalty.