Rare News Desk
PolitiFact gave that infamous claim by President Obama a “Half True” rating all the way back in August 2009. Looks like it’s officially time for a change to “Pants on Fire,” or maybe even a retroactive award for the fact checkers’ “Lie of the Year.” From NBC News:
Videos by Rare
“Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage, frustrating some consumers who want to keep what they have and forcing others to buy more costly policies.
“The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1. Most are ending policies sold after the law passed in March 2010. At least a few are canceling plans sold to people with pre-existing medical conditions.”
The article goes on to claim these new plans offer “better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost.” But that claim is both unsupported and beside the point.
It’s beside the point, because not everyone wants “better coverage” than they have now, at least not for a higher price. And in any case, what’s “better” varies from person to person: If you’re a woman in your 20s, mandated coverage of maternity care may well qualify as “better” for you and worth a higher premium. If you’re a woman in your late 50s, you probably disagree.
But it’s also unsupported, because the only anecdote included in the story undermines the part about “comparable cost”:
“Kris Malean, 56, lives outside Seattle, and has a health policy that costs $390 a month with a $2,500 deductible and a $10,000 in potential out-of-pocket costs for such things as doctor visits, drug costs or hospital care.
“As a replacement, Regence BlueShield is offering her a plan for $79 more a month with a deductible twice as large as what she pays now, but which limits her potential out-of-pocket costs to $6,250 a year, including the deductible.”
Again, if you expect to have a lot of medical expenses, you might decide the higher premium and deductible are worth it. If you don’t, then paying nearly $1,000 a year more, and having to spend $5,000 before getting much in the way of covered expenses, might well seem like a raw deal. (A writer at Daily Kos had the same reaction; his/her self-identification as an Obamacare rube is entertaining if you don’t mind the R-rated language.)
The point is that consumers should be able to decide these things for themselves. Under Obamacare, they can’t. And this particular anecdote isn’t even about the “young invincibles” who are being counted on to pay more to subsidize older Americans, as this country becomes even more of a place where the income of younger, relatively worse-off people is redistributed to older, relatively better-off people.
The dilemma for Obamacare is that the disastrous rollout of the online federal exchange is helping the administration by keeping large numbers of Americans from learning about just how bad a deal they’re going to get. The IT problems with Obamacare may turn out to be the law’s least serious flaw.
This article ran earlier in The Atlanta Journal-Consitution.
Related articles
- Why Obamacare’s exchanges will bring huge out-of-pocket costs (rare.go-vip.net)
- Video: The Affordable Care Act is looking pretty darned unafforable (hotair.com)
- For thousands, keeping your old health insurance policy isn’t an option… (mcclatchydc.com)
