General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDaring to Complain About Obamacare
"THE Anthem Blue Cross representative who answered my call told me that there was a silver lining in the cancellation of my individual P.P.O. policy and the $5,400 annual increase that I would have to pay for the Affordable Care Act-compliant option: now if I have Stage 4 cancer or need a sex-change operation, I’d be covered regardless of pre-existing conditions. Never mind that the new provider network would eliminate coverage for my and my son’s long-term doctors and hospitals.
The Anthem rep cheerily explained that despite the company’s — I paraphrase — draconian rates and limited network, my benefits, which also include maternity coverage (handy for a 46-year-old), would “be actually much richer.”
I, of course, would be actually much poorer. And it was this aspect of the bum deal that, to my surprise, turned out to be a very unpopular thing to gripe about."
full OpEd piece in NY Times today here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/opinion/daring-to-complain-about-obamacare.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
This is a long whine/rant by a best selling author.
There are interesting responses to this OpEd piece that follows the article...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tridim
(45,358 posts)Phew, close call there. 
CTyankee
(63,900 posts)I found the comments to be revealing...
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Interesting huh?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Lori Gottlieb.
Nine
(1,741 posts)There was one story about people suing Anthem for not being grandfathered in after changing their policies post-2010. In fact, it was in 2011 that I altered mine, dumping maternity benefits so that I didn’t have to pay for everyone else’s pregnancies. Little did I know I’d end up losing my insurance and paying for everyone else’s pregnancies.
ETA - I can't post a better reply than the first one under the article:
My heart bleeds that the writer picked a policy without maternity care so that she "didn’t have to pay for everyone else’s pregnancies" and now she can't have it. I have no children but have to pay property taxes so everyone else's children can go to school. I rent, so if the writer owns a property (and I'm sure she does) I'm paying for her mortgage interest tax deduction. People without cars subsidize roads and highways. I also subsidize people on Medicare and Social Security, even though I'm more than a decade away from collecting.
As a man, I subsidize every woman's healthcare as it is far more expensive. Therefore I pay for the writer's OB-GYN, and I'll never use one.
It seems the writer is very worried about paying for other people's stuff. I guess she doesn't understand insurance. But if she or anyone on her policy gets sick, the amount she will have paid in premiums won't even be close to what she will receive in benefits, and I'm sure she would yell the loudest if she were denied any benefit that she wanted and feels entitled to.
It's telling, though, that she didn't publish a word about what other policies are available to her beyond the one she was pitched by Anthem. I guess she doesn't understand what salespeople do, either.
CTyankee
(63,900 posts)And why she thinks she is "stuck" with that and that alone? What am I missing here?
Nine
(1,741 posts)WHY hasn't she shopped around? I'm guessing it's either because (A) it's more fun to write a story bitching about ACA and sex-change operations, or (B) she's a victim of the right-wing noise machine and their disinformation so she doesn't realize she can actually do that.
CTyankee
(63,900 posts)It's the New York Times, fer gawd's sake, not Fox News...
Nine
(1,741 posts)In any case, there have been plenty of ACA horror stories that got published as journalism and were later debunked. And not just on Fox News.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
surrealAmerican
(11,359 posts)... she's a sucker, who believes her insurance company wouldn't intentionally mislead her.
It's funny how people would rather believe that the President is lying to them, that that some insurance salesperson is lying to them. Well not exactly funny, more like pathetic.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)If anything, it implies that she already has checked the exchange and found no deals:
("
friends) asked why I didn’t “just” switch all of our long-term doctors, suck it up and pay an extra $200 a month for a restrictive network on the exchange")
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Not even close. 
Nine
(1,741 posts)It leaves that up to the insurance companies, just as it was before ACA.
CTyankee
(63,900 posts)but doesn't the NYT Opinion section editor review such things before it gets printed?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)How much should we each sacrifice, to guarantee Aetna's profitability?
Another friend wrote, “Yes, I’m paying an extra 200 a month, but I’m okay with doing that so that others who need it can have health care.”
CTyankee
(63,900 posts)socialized medicine and get us REAL universal coverage, perhaps in the form of Medicare for All.
I can only hope...
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Guaranteed profits for insurers will mean a guaranteed stream of campaign contributions to elected officials, effectively making the private insurance insurance industry a quasi-governmental group.
edit: sorry, misread your post. I changed my response after re-reading.
CTyankee
(63,900 posts)alternative to what we were told we couldn't get, a public option. Things have shifted around now. We are not in that same place and the electorate is having second thoughts. I think the ACA opened up some thinking by people as to what "could" be.
I hope I am not just dreaming...
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Nine
(1,741 posts)Lori Gottlieb is the New York Times bestselling author of Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough, a surprising look at modern love, marriage, and what really matters for true romantic happiness. A New York Times Editors' Choice selection, the book was an international bestseller and has been translated into fourteen languages.
Lori's other books include the national bestseller, Stick Figure: A Diary of My Former Self, an American Library Association "Best Books" selection and Book-of-the-Month Club selection that was optioned for film by Martin Scorsese, who described it as "Holden Caulfield goes on a misguided diet"; Inside the Cult of Kibu: And Other Tales of the Millennial Gold Rush, an exposé of her experience as editor-in-chief of an online magazine with a mission to "empower" teen girls but whose culture devolved into "Heathers meets Lord of the Flies."; and I Love You, Nice to Meet You (co-written with Kevin Bleyer of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) which comically explores the status of modern relationships from the male and female points of view. Or as they like to put it: “Twice the perspective, half the insight.”
A contributing editor for The Atlantic, Lori has also written for such publications as The New York Times, Time, People, Elle, Glamour, Marie Claire, Redbook, Self, Parents, Slate, More, and Salon and has contributed commentaries and feature stories to NPR’s All Things Considered, This American Life, Weekend Edition, and Marketplace. Her work has been included in numerous anthologies including the National Jewish Book Award winner The Modern Jewish Girl's Guide to Guilt, The Secret Currency of Love, and The Best of Technology Writing. Lori has also co-created original pilots for Showtime, Oxygen, TBS and Nickelodeon, and was a staff writer on the NBC/Bravo series Significant Others, a sitcom about couples in therapy.
Lori has been featured on, among other programs, The Today Show, Good Morning America, The Early Show, CNN, Dr. Phil, Inside Edition, Entertainment Tonight, CNBC, Oprah Radio, and NPR's "Talk of the Nation." She is a parenting expert for Lifetime Moms and speaks frequently at events across the country on topics including parenting, relationships, teen girls, body image and media culture.
When she's not writing, she's helping people to live more fulfilling lives and consulting with organizations to help make their programming, events, and organizational culture better. For therapy or consultation services please visit lorigottliebtherapy.com.
Do ACA-bashers really want to make her the poster child for "middle class" people hurt by ACA?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Nine
(1,741 posts)Compare her promotional bio with how she portrays herself in the opinion piece:
The Anthem rep cheerily explained that... my benefits, which also include maternity coverage (handy for a 46-year-old), would “be actually much richer.”
I, of course, would be actually much poorer....
I posted on Facebook as soon as I hung up with Anthem. I vented about the call and wrote that the president should be protecting the middle class, not making our lives substantially harder. For extra sympathy, I may have thrown in the fact that I’m a single mom. (O.K., I did.)....
Has Obamacare made it un-P.C. to be concerned by a serious burden on my family’s well-being?....
But the self-employed middle class is being sacrificed at the altar of politically correct rhetoric, with nobody helping to ensure our health, fiscal or otherwise
No one with this woman's resume can be described as poor or middle class. And she's a fool if she thinks a 46-year-old can't get pregnant. The article is full of bullshit from start to finish. She's blaming the ACA for things done by her insurance company or by herself. She was underinsured before and one bit of bad luck could have wiped her out. And I'll bet if that had happened, she'd be whining that Obama didn't do enough to protect "middle class" people like her. If she were 10 years younger, she'd be complaining if the ACA didn't mandate maternity care. She's a selfish twit.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)give to guarantee insurers' profits. 
Nine
(1,741 posts)Rich people are allowed to express their opinions on ACA.
She could have written, "As the author of international and national bestsellers, as a psychotherapist, as someone who routinely makes the morning show circuit, I'm obviously not going to go broke from ACA. But the point is I don't like being forced to buy insurance on the private market." (Although I have the suspicion that if she were paying a tax for single payer healthcare, she would be just as livid.)
She also could have said, "I'm obviously not going to go broke from ACA, but there are middle class people in this country who will be paying more for insurance now and who just miss the subsidies cutoff and I'm really concerned about this group of people." (But I don't think she actually gives a damn about them.)
She could have stuck to facts instead of peppering her piece with misinformation. Instead, she chose to be dishonest.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Nine
(1,741 posts)She is dishonest when she presents herself as a middle class person hurt by ACA. She is dishonest when she implies that ACA mandates coverage for sex-change operations. She is dishonest when she acts like ACA cancelled her policy when the truth is she cancelled her own grandfathered policy to save a few bucks. She is dishonest when she makes it seem like the policy Anthem is trying to sell to her is her only option. I could go on.
I hope you realize that if a public option plan were on the table right now with a more progressive tax plan that gave a break to the real middle class and made people like her pay more than she is now that she would be screaming her head off about the injustice of it all. But I guess politics makes strange bedfellows.
CTyankee
(63,900 posts)evidently, her career depends on her opinion being solicited and broadcast throughout the media. Shame on the NYT for printing it. We have better thinkers out there that could make much better use of that space...
Phentex
(16,334 posts)that gets attention than not.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)a rightwing shill...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)better hang on to it...
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)can't wait till all those broken eggs shut up and realize some of us are just as OK as we were before the ACA trigger was pulled. This isn't even the tough part of the ACA, if the broken eggs think they hate the sign up phase and deductible costs,....just wait for the implementation phase.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but you can dismiss that all you want!
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)I get to keep my current health coverage with what I consider an acceptable and affordable increase in cost. All those broken eggs who have lost and are currently losing their coverage, ........ they will be OK,....so long as nothing medical happens until the ACA is operational.
Broken eggs just don't know how to see the brilliance in blending every bad insurance coverage "patch" applied to healthcare over the last 40 years, mixing in a few well intended additions,...... then pouring the ACA batter onto the stove top without a pan, only to demand it be made into a cake to avoid embarrassment.
"You cannot go bankrupt due to medical care"..........lol Even the Captain of the Titanic had to finally admit,......"hey....we're sinking,... but that's not the worst news..........the worst news is that we don't have enough life rafts for everyone because there was no way we could sink, so after the screaming stops coming from the water, we can get stared telling everyone left alive how good they have it".
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I don't understand you position therefore I cannot respond to it.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)More people are without health coverage now than before the ACA was rolled out. The President is double-talking the exact verbage he used to sell the ACA. The deductible structure will be crippling to very low income participants is was designed to protect. The website to sign up participants has a complete disappointment and entirely ineffective, it will be postponed and the people dropped from coverage will be left in limbo, ....RIPE for medical bankruptcy. The ACA was not going to be problem free, no way it could be,.. but right out the gate it is a larger belly flop than could ever been feared. Consumer confidence is key to making the ACA fly, without consumer confidence and participation is will implode under it's own cost, and we haven't even gotten to actual implementation, billing, the IRS, medical records security, medical records' transfer etc etc etc........
The medical insurance sector is like a rototilled garden, descriptions of how beautiful your garden can be don't mean shit until something is planted and cared for. The promising and campaigning time is over, the ACA is law,.... another law that cannot be depended on to perform to the standard it was sold, and is yet another law that the ruling elite are not required to be a part of,..... that is my position.
However since I still have my coverage, I guess I really shouldn't be too concerned...right ?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that more are without than before...
You do understand that more young people are now insured than have ever been in our history...
WASHINGTON — For the second year in a row, the proportion of Americans without health insurance declined in 2012, even though real household income and the poverty rate were not significantly different from their 2011 levels, the Census Bureau reported on Tuesday.
In 2012, the bureau said, 15.4 percent of people were uninsured, down from 15.7 percent in 2011. The number of uninsured people, 48 million, was not statistically different from the estimate of 48.6 million in 2011.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/percentage-of-americans-lacking-health-coverage-falls-again.html
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)The young you speak of, are insured because of their parents ability to keep them on plans till mid twenties, that was one of the best sales hooks ever thrown. That estimate has a pretty ugly reality when you revise after all the health care cancellations are complete. Limbo is where those people end up, both the parents and the young - uninsured yet still used as a sales ploy. There is no mythical population of the young running around buying health insurance all of a sudden, the parents are paying for it...for now. I know you understand this, but I also understand why you can't admit it. If things are improving so radically, who cares if the ACA ever operates ? right ? After all, we can just borrow money indefinitely to give the illusion.
That was a flawless execution on ACA's silver lining talking points that got it sold. I like the President's remarks about all those statistically quantified families losing heath care while the ACA flops around........."sorry", do you even have a "sorry" for those that already have, and the many more that will go without coverage ?
You do understand that the ACA will collapse without citizen participation ? The IRS cannot run down enough end of year penalties to pay the costs of the ACA.
"They" also say that unemployment is down in the mid 7% range, so I guess all is well in the job market too huh ? "Statistically speaking" I can prove your family doesn't exist, I can prove anything you want "statistically speaking"...."actually true" should've been your goal.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)none to be found is where...
and your point appears to be "because I say so that's why..."
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)You quoted snippets from an online news story, is that the "proof" of your position you hang your hat on ?
Your "proof" is somewhat less than impressive, I assume you read the whole story, I did. My point is that you are smart enough to see what is going on around you, ....apply what you see and experience in your world and see if there are things that don't add up to the rosy picture someone else is being paid to provide you with.
In the year that the ACA was passed into law, which included the benefit of allowing parents to keep kids on insurance policies till 26...why are there statistically more young people with insurance ? hmmm.... that's pretty complex huh. What happens to families that are currently being dropped from policies ( the tens of thousands of them) because they do not comply with the ACA, yet cannot get coverage through the ACA ?...they could suffer, but it's for the greater good huh. With the undeniable inability of the ACA websites to function even remotely correctly during the sign up phase, how confident do YOU think the general population will be that the REALLY challenging parts will operate correctly ? Like I said, the ACA requires public participation, the IRS cannot shag down enough yearly penalities to allow the ACA to operate ... a significant public participation, without it the ACA will implode. "medicare had trouble too when it first started"......is hardly the inspirational leadership that will fly with me after the decades of time, effort and treasure invested in healthcare reform preparation, so please don't link to a story with that "proof".
What you call "proof" of a position, I call regurgitating a narrow field of vision where the desire to appear informed overrides an ability to look into the full spectrum of cause and effect. I am truly one of the fortunate few, I am all but immune to the ACA tangle, which may be why it's easier for me to see the inefficiency in it's implementation, I have no skin in the "see the ACA is working" fight.
"because I say so that's why", lol..... no...because it's happening in the real world...that's why.
take care.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)obviously you didn't!
PROOF IS a news story...WTF are you going on about?
Read what the link itself says dude..."percentage-of-americans-lacking-health-coverage-falls-again"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/percentage-of-americans-lacking-health-coverage-falls-again.html
Your proof again is...."because I said so"
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)I asked if you could use your own brain, and apply some forward thought to what is actually happening now, in real time ...dude. Guess you can't.
without people signing into the ACA there is no funding, without an implemented ACA program people cannot join the ACA = funding not available to support. The rate of people losing coverage without the ability to GAIN coverage is way out of balance, and if not corrected by the ACA becoming operational, the ACA and all that NY Times "proof" is going to go "POOF".
If you insure 100 bajillion people, but cannot implement the program that supplies the required assets for said program, the program fails, and the 100 bajillion people that had the coverage you "proved" are now without coverage.
The ACA is at the Jesus Bolt phase of implementation, (google it if you don't understand Jesus Bolt).
After you read your article, look beyond it's "proof".... to the reality of how devastating it is going to be to not have the ACA funded by the population's engagement...and soon ! The population can't engage because the first rung of the ACA ladder is closed for repairs, but people are still LOSING their coverage. factor that into your "proof", because the "news" won't tell you the part of the truth you don't want to hear, the whole story is bad for business.
Not "because I said so"...lol...but because it actually happening right in front of you,...remarkably even though the NY Times isn't reporting it...lol, all the progress the ACA brought to the table is being undone because of it's own implementation failure. 11-12-13, even as the sign up is delayed, postponed etc, people are losing coverage and are exposed to the very problems the ACA was supposed to help solve, or do you deny that's happening because the NY Times just hasn't told you yet ?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that just pulls stats out of thin air and demands I recognize the validity of...I don't.
I say again...Where is your evidence?
Here some more of mine...notice where it comes from:
The number of Americans with health insurance held steady in 2012, according to a Census Bureau report issued Tuesday morning. The number of insured Americans should increase significantly in 2014 when Obamacare is expected to cover an estimated 14 million Americans.
The rate of Americans without health insurance declined to 15.4 percent and the number of uninsured people fell slightly to 48 million people in 2012, according to the report. From 2011 to 2012, the number of people who had some form of health coverage grew from to 260.2 million to 263.2 million. The number of uninsured was down by 662,000 last year, not a statistically significant difference from 2011, the census reports.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/census-uninsured-2012_n_3941339.html
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)All this insurance progress has to be paid for or it will go away
How is it going to be paid for?
Paying for the progress the aca offers is what you are missing. Good luck.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You said...Less were insured. And I proved you wrong about that...
Now you are changing the argument?
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)A bill comes due....how is it paid, I assume you understand what I mean by paid for and funded.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)How are the subsidies paid for? Are my taxes going up?
There are essentially two big funding streams for the Affordable Care Act. The first are cuts to Medicare reimbursements. We heard a lot about this during the presidential campaign, when Mitt Romney would talk about the law cutting $716 billion from Medicare. These are cuts largely to the rates that we pay doctors who see Medicare patients, and also what we pay private insurers that cover these subscribers.
The other big funding source are taxes on different health care industries like hospitals, insurance companies and, more relevant in recent days, medical device makers. There's a debate about whether those taxes will get passed on to consumers, but, as it stands, they're not direct taxes on you as an individual.
There is one tax that is applied to some individuals, which began last year: The Affordable Care Act raised taxes on investment income for people who earn more than $200,000.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)you "cut and pasted" that right out of the campaign sales pitch right ?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You wanted to know how it was funded....and I gave the answer...
Or was it some kind of twisted "test"?
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)I thought you were just being obtuse, however I've come to realize you just don't understand, .... there is a monetary, currency based COST to all the additional benefits of the ACA, that article you no doubt have framed in you office is an example of the benefits resulting from the passing of the ACA.
All the additional insured, all the additional benefits, all the progress the ACA is promising...has a monetary cost. If that monetary cost is not realized, then all benefits go away. the funding for all these benefits is from the enrollment and participation that is currently unable to occur. While the enrollment is unable to occur, there are tens of thousands of people being removed from their current policy, because their current policy does not meet the ACA guidelines.
No money = no ACA...let me break it down for you.
No enrollment = no participation
No participation = no premiums, no money no funding
No funding = all for shit, and no ACA
the people being kicked off plans, but cannot enroll with the ACA= Tough Shit.
BKH70041
(961 posts)But it doesn't matter because what you're saying doesn't match the templet. The templet is Obama is perfect and the ACA is the closest thing to deity on earth. Never mind all the things you said were true, it's outside the realm of approved thought, ergo it's anathema.
You might as we'll be talking to a rock.
Went down that very road earlier. They deny, obfuscate, try and change the subject, appeal to authority, and any number of other logical facilities. And then they pound the hell out of the alert button. Not necessarily in that order. Watched it happen all too often.
At this point, I'm somewhat reserved to watch what I know will happen and snicker at the amazement.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)The ACA is here to stay....
and the word is "template".
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)Another ineffective, ill conceived expensive law that even though it had the best intentions, cannot support it's own financial weight. However it will still be cheered and celebrated as divine prophecy by those that don't understand the value of results.
The following is hypothetical, meant as an example because you're not understanding what the problem with the ACA is.......don't flip out and demand a link to someone else's article as proof.
If a law were to be passed that promised a high sped rail system which would connect all major cities in an efficient environmentally friendly manner, lower the commute time and the cost of private fuel costs, then convinced people to fund it through mandatory participation with the caveat that if your current car didn't meet standards it would be taken away and you would HAVE to use the new fancy high speed train. Then at the time of start up, revealed that there was no track in place to run the train, no ability to connect the stations and it would/could be delayed for months, if not the end of the next election cycle... but since your car doesn't meet standard you lose it anyway until the tracks are finished. To you that would be success, to me it means a whole lot of people who believed the sales pitch are walking the long mile alone,..... then because you can't understand why nobody is riding the train call the people who point out the flaw..."Repuplican". You are an inspiration to snake oil salesmen everywhere.
Guessing...... you're not very good at that either.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I demand YOU back up your claims....or else it is just stuff you pull out of your underwear. That is how reasoned debate works...
Or are you Rand Paul?
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)Your ability to insult, is as juvenile as your ability to comprehend more than what is spoon-fed to you.
Good thing parents can keep their children on insurance policies huh ?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You are Republican too!
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Oh you have none...???
Let me break it down for you...
NEXT!
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)I guess you haven't lost your insurance either ? That means the people losing theirs are just whining, there is no evidence of people losing insurance while not being able to sign up to the ACA.
LOL....we agree the Soup Nazi was funny,...you..not so much.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You mean in the states like yours that didn't expand the Medicaid Option?
And I may not be funny....but at least I make sense...YOU meh...not so much!
You do understand that they WERE allowed to keep their policies it was a grandfather clause..BUT written into the clause was..IF any insurance policy bought before the ACA changed ANYTHING about the policy...the policy had to be canceled and then brought into line with the 10 Essentials laid out in the ACA for legitimate Health Insurance. THAT was the Grandfather clause.
So....if the Insurance Company canceled the policy (to make changes) how is THAT President Obama's fault?
As I said...NEXT!
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)You made your blind faith, and inability to see past what you are told to believe.... crystal clear with your last statement.
I see your only desire is to protect President Obama from blame, the people who get screwed because of an ineffective law that up-ended the entire medical insurance industry, that didn't take into account the ramifications of it's own inadequate policies.. need to just shut up and get over it. They're probably all Republicans anyway so ...meh who cares.
Everybody thrown overboard the USS Affordable Care Act need only remember...it's not Obama's fault.......and as soon as the engines arrive to propel the boat you'll get to come back aboard,.... or at least MOST of em... until then, please keep your gasping and flailing around to a minimum,....you're ruining the celebration party.
Bravo.....
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The ACA is mainly about insurance, not medical care. The terms are not interchangeable.
CTyankee
(63,900 posts)through AARP. So far, so good..
gulliver
(13,180 posts)If the ACA falls, there won't be anyone proposing healthcare anything for another decade. A lot of folks will suffer, and a lot will pay the ultimate price if that happens. A lot.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)You should Google that.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)with guaranteed profits. ACA will not make the insurance industry weaker. Quite the contrary, it will cement their power for generations.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)It's a start because there are limits to profits.
It's a start because lifetime caps are gone
It's a start because people with preexisting and chronic illness can't be denied coverage
It's a start.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
Tarheel_Dem
(31,228 posts)".....Not only is this information made available to consumers for the first time, if an insurance company spends less than 80% of premiums on medical care and quality or less than 85% in the large group market, which is generally insurance provided through large employers, it must rebate the portion of premium dollars that exceeded this limit. This 80/20 rule is commonly known as the Medical Loss Ratio MLR rule."
- See more at: http://www.workplace-weekly.com/2012/07/30/the-aca-8020-rule-provides-value-and-rebates-to-millions-of-consumers/#sthash.oSEoH1Nx.dpuf
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,228 posts) 
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Many of them co-opting private insurance providers.
You couldn't be more wrong.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts) 
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The reality is that costs and profits continue to skyrocket. The subsidies help certain individuals, but they also guarantee that the overall predatory system, with skyrocketing costs and obscene profits for middlemen who contribute nothing to healthcare, is strengthened and entrenched.
We pay for the subsidies with our tax dollars. The INSURANCE companies, not the people, receive these subsidies.
Every single dollar that is funneled into the pockets of health insurance vultures is not going into education, infrastructure, or social services.
We are farm animals for these predators.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)leftstreet
(36,103 posts)
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)They weren't even taking people with pre-existing or over middle aged up until the law change made them!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Nine
(1,741 posts)Author even references this, although she gets it wrong:
There was one story about people suing Anthem for not being grandfathered in after changing their policies post-2010. In fact, it was in 2011 that I altered mine, dumping maternity benefits so that I didn’t have to pay for everyone else’s pregnancies.
From your link:
In their Los Angeles County Superior Court suits, Simon and Coker allege that Anthem pressured them in 2011 to give up their grandfathered status, a position that would have shielded them from changes under the healthcare law.
People who bought their individual policy before March 2010, when the healthcare law was enacted, and kept it in place aren't affected by the current changes in the market.
People say Obama lied when he said people would be able to keep their plans. The fact is they COULD have kept their plans. They chose not to, as the author herself admitted in her own case. Or the insurance companies chose to discontinue them. Or the insurance companies tricked people into giving up their grandfathered plans, as the lawsuit alleges. None of that means Obama lied. He never said you could sign up for brand new non-ACA compliant plans after the law was enacted and expect to keep those as well.
Ohio Joe
(21,748 posts)Another rich asshole pissing and moaning... Fuck 'em.
Nine
(1,741 posts)If you do, you'll be accused of "poor-bashing." 
Romulox
(25,960 posts)