General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI’m pretty sure the “freedom” to buy crappy health insurance policies ...
Im pretty sure the freedom to buy crappy health insurance policies was not what the Founders meant by LIBERTY.
Im pretty sure the freedom to go into debt for the rest of ones life to get an education was not what the Founders meant by LIBERTY.
Im pretty sure the freedom to buy cheap goods made in sweatshops was not what the Founders meant by LIBERTY.
Im pretty sure the freedom to not know whats in the food you eat was not what the Founders meant by LIBERTY. (Sorry for the double negative.)
Please feel free to add to this list.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)alc
(1,151 posts)I'm free (and should be free) to buy a crappy house, crappy car, crappy food & "mystery" food, crappy clothes, crappy electronics, see a crappy barber or crappy dentist. And I can do those things even if they put me into debt.
My wife's idea of the ideal house is crappy to me (old, creaky, expensive to heat). My ideal is crappy to her (too small).
My idea of the ideal vehicle is a mini-van but I have single friends who think that's crappy. I think one of them (a tesla owner) has a crappy car because of cost and distance he can drive.
I'm fine eating whatever-the-hell is in the burger I get at the fast food restaurant sometimes. I also sometimes go to whole foods and talk to someone about exactly what I'm buying (e.g. when a relative with dietary needs is visiting). I want the freedom to do both of those.
I buy the cheap/expiring food at the grocery store. Many people consider it crappy but it saves me money and my priorities are different.
I have a cheap laptop. Many friends think it's crappy but I think their mac is crappy because of the cost.
My haircut looks bad sometimes. I don't care because I want it cheap and am not concerned about the looks.
You probably get my point - everyone has the freedom/liberty to define crappy for themselves. If you want to say health care (or health insurance) or education, or anything else is a right, that's a different issue. You can make those a right without taking away other rights. When you say that we don't have the right to purchase crappy products you are taking away our right to define crappy and giving that power to the government (I assume it will be the government - if I get to define crappy for everyone then we agree).
johnd83
(593 posts)All those "crappy" products have tons of safety regulations that we really don't notice because they are so common. The ACA is really just adding minimum safety standards. Almost every consumer product you buy has a little "UL" logo on it meaning that it has passed mandated safety testing. If it doesn't have that logo you shouldn't buy it...
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)You can disagree with what was cutting edge thinking 250 years ago. It is probably reasonable to disagree with cutting edge thinking from 250 years ago.
But the freedom to fail is exactly what the founders had in mind.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)"Freedom" means something different when you look at the Founders in terms of their slave-holding ways, doesn't it?
Chuck Smythe
(15 posts)San Francisco architect Lee Hammack says he and his wife, JoEllen Brothers, are cradle Democrats. They have donated to the liberal group Organizing for America and worked the phone banks a year ago for President Obamas re-election.
Since 1995, Hammack and Brothers have received their health coverage from Kaiser Permanente, where Brothers worked until 2009 as a dietitian and diabetes educator. Weve both been in very good health all of our lives exercise, dont smoke, drink lightly, healthy weight, no health issues, and so on, Hammack told me.
The couple Lee, 60, and JoEllen, 59 have been paying $550 a month for their health coverage a plan that offers solid coverage, not one of the skimpy plans Obama has criticized. But recently, Kaiser informed them the plan would be canceled at the end of the year because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. The couple would need to find another one. The cost would be around double what they pay now, but the benefits would be worse.
From all of the sob stories Ive heard and read, ours is the most extreme, Lee told me in an email last week.
Ive been skeptical about media stories featuring those who claimed they would be worse off because their insurance policies were being canceled on account of the ACA. In many cases, it turns out, the consumers could have found cheaper coverage through the new health insurance marketplaces, or their plans werent very good to begin with. Some didnt know they could qualify for subsidies that would lower their insurance premiums.
So I tried to find flaws in what Hammack told me. I couldnt find any.
* The couples existing Kaiser plan was a good one.
* Their new options were indeed more expensive, and the benefits didnt seem any better.
* They do not qualify for premium subsidies because they make more than four times the federal poverty level, though Hammack says not by much.
.
http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2013/10/04/obamacare-downside-reports-of-premiums-going-up/
The notice from Kaiser came in the mail about ten days ago.
Luke Donavans health insurance premiums were going up. A lot.
Donavan, 41 of San Francisco, is self-employed and buys his own health insurance. Currently he pays $841 per month for insurance for himself, his wife and three young children. But, Kaiser is canceling that policy and offering him a new one that fully complies with the Affordable Care Act. Effective Jan. 1, his familys premium is going up to $1,000, with a higher deductible.
Donavan says he voted for Obama in both elections and calls himself a big proponent of the health law. He has a pretty calm demeanor and says he was surprised by this news from Kaiser.
I just keep coming back to the name Affordable Care Act, he said. I thought Id pay the same or less for better coverage.
Subsidies are available for people to buy insurance, but they are dependent on income. Donavan says he earns too much to qualify.
doc03
(35,337 posts)found out yesterday he can get insurance through the ACA for $200, he is 61? Then I see these stories about people haveing great
insurance and paying 4 times as much under the ACA for worse insurance. How is that?
penultimate
(1,110 posts)it didn't meet. Even he acknowledged that his out-of-pocket maximum is less. There is also the part of the ACA that covers the whole pre-existing condition thing. I'm sure everyone has known someone who has had issues with insurance companies trying to weasel their way out of paying. I, for one, do not mind paying a little bit more for coverage to have such guarantees. It's also nice to know that if some day in the future I find myself in a tough spot due to job loss/whatever and I need medical care, I won't be stuck without the ability to get care. The trade offs seem worth it for me.
gopiscrap
(23,760 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)to buttress your assertion.
EC
(12,287 posts)and rather we have them or not. Do we accept people ripping off other people (snake oil salesmen) or do we set standards?
kentuck
(111,095 posts)good post!