Hundreds of thousands of Californians who purchase their own health insurance are bracing to pay more for their plans, as the cost of the federal health care overhaul lands harder on middle-class customers.This is the cost of "free" health care.
Notices began arriving in recent weeks informing consumers that their plans are being phased out and replaced with policies that comply with requirements of the health care law. Many are being told to expect double-digit percentage increases in monthly costs, in part to help balance the cost of covering the underprivileged and those with pre-existing medical conditions who may not have had coverage.
Education, politics, and anything else that catches my attention.
Monday, November 04, 2013
Even The Local (Liberal) Paper Can't Ignore It Any Longer
From today's major Sacramento newspaper, on the latest socialist rage that's collapsing in on itself:
Entirely correct ... we have a president who lies with impunity. I wrote a note on facebook about this. Too long to post here, but if you'd like to read it, check out fb, or send me a friend request and I'll get you in.
ReplyDeleteSo ... for starters ... can we agree that Obama lied about his health care plan? The statement that he made, numerous times, that "If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it. Period." seems fairly unequivocal. When you vocalize your punctuation ... you're leaving no room for exceptions or caveats. Yesterday, though, to respond to the FACT that many people (and I'm not going to argue numbers...they are unimportant in terms of the president's honesty) had, in fact, been told that they couldn't keep the policy that they had, and were being offered more expensive policies, Obama changed his tune: "What we said was, if you like your policy, and that policy doesn't change, you can keep it." Well, that's entirely different. And given that virtually every plan adjusts its price each year ... it's completely disingenuous. Or, a lie. But -- it sells the policy. And once it's enacted, good luck getting rid of it. Using deceit to pass legislation is wrong, and it's clear that that happened.
ReplyDeleteHere's where I lean to the left. Obamacare has the right idea. The whole idea behind insurance is shared risk. The reason why you can afford homeowners insurance is that most people's homes aren't burgled or set on fire. The many who never need it pay for the few who do. The same is true for healthcare. The Fox News pundits who are trumpeting the 'why should men and old people pay for maternity coverage, or young people pay for pre-existing conditions' are idiots. The equivalent argument would be, my house never burns down, so why should I pay for someone else whose house does burn down? For years, I had Kaiser insurance through my employer which provided for my family. Every single one of us could have used maternity care, were it needed. But no one discusses that, because it's a group plan where you don't have to write a check. You take it, the coverage is there. So ... forcing people to a) carry health insurance and b) pay for things they may not need is exactly the right first step.
The problem is...Obama was completely unable to articulate this, lied about how his plan would be imposed, and then, didn't protect anyone who was either self paying or uninsured. You, as an individual, are a crappy insurance risk. As the person giving you insurance, I must assume that everything that could go wrong with you, will. Therefore, I'm going to charge you a rate that reflects that. And it will be high. On the other hand ... if you, and, say, a 100,000 (or more) people are offered the same rate? Some of you will be super healthy; some will be super sick; most will be average. If I'm a health care provider bidding on that group, I'm much more likely to offer each member a lower rate. It would work; government could randomize the groups of those not covered, and allowing interstate competition would lower costs. But no... we have a policy which does nothing to lower costs, many things to raise them, and requires deceit to pass.
I wanted to believe in Obama, and I certainly didn't vote for Romney ... or McCain. But he is clearly not presidential. Obamacare is deeply flawed legislation that required lies to pass. The website design contract was given to the American subsidiary of a Canadian firm that had failed the Canadians on several contracts, and whose CEO has ties to Michelle Obama. I saw the CEO of Macafee securities do an interview with John Stossel in which he reported that he turned down an offer to let him fix the website because he didn't think the administration was serious about fixing security issues or starting from scratch. Now, combine that with all the things that Obama has admitted to knowing nothing about until he saw it in the papers: the Benghazi attack (with the 60 minutes piece ... apparently a lie, and something that would have been a clear impediment to his re-election); the completely moronic fast and furious debacle; the irs targeting right wing pacs; the nsa spying on us; the nsa spying on allied leaders. The presidency doesn't really hold that much power. It's more of a bully pulpit. But it is an administrative one, where the primary thing that you need to do is keep abreast of what those underneath you are doing. I don't think Romney would have been any better ... butI sure as hell wish that the American public had been more responsive to Gary Johnson.
ReplyDelete