Bette from Spokane

[questionmark]

Paul Krugman has a great item up on “Bette in Spokane,” the woman who was featured in the nationally watched GOP response to the State of the Union speech as a symbol of victimization at the hands of Big Bad Obamacare. As GOP Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers put it in the response, Bette “hoped the President’s health care law would save her money – but found out instead that her premiums were going up nearly $700 a month.”

That does sound awful. But then a local reporter got in touch with Bette Grenier, and found out the story is far more complex than it first appeared. As Krugman puts it:

Her previous plan was catastrophic coverage only, with a $10,000 deductible — and the “$700 a month more” was the most expensive option offered by her insurer. She didn’t go to the healthcare.gov website, where she could have found cheaper plans. So this wasn’t sticker shock, at least as described. This was someone finding out that the ACA requires that you have a minimum level of insurance, and that minimalist plans are no longer allowed — and it was also Ms. Rodgers misrepresenting what had happened.

Read more

Is it just my impression or are the Dems on the offensive?

[Startraveler]

Might as well be. PricewaterhouseCoopers just released an analysis the other day showing that premiums in the exchanges are lower than those for equivalent plans in the employer-based group market. And all the GOP is putting out are faux sob stories that only sound impressive because they're left deliberately vague (with good reason! they unravel pretty quickly when the details spill out). They ought to be playing some offense at this point.

[Rut Roh]

Okay, lets just take the rhetoric of both sides and just throw it out the window for a moment. One side says it is going to be bright and glorious and the other says that hell is literally being opened on earth at this very moment. Dually noted.

How in the world are premiums not going to be more costly when the ACA is raising the minimum level of coverage on EVERY person that was not insured or had deficient policies before this? The premiums are going up regardless of what side of whatever political aisle you are currently standing. There is no choice on this. This is math and logic based alone. No rhetoric needed. Lets not even discuss the currently uninsured and just talk about the ACA in regards to the current policy holders....If the ACA standards were set in place for just those that had "bad" policies it would still increase rates across the board. Insurance companies and their actuaries "run the numbers" and have to increase premiums to cover the heavier burden of exposure to more risk. Quid pro quo, premiums raise to policy holders. This has to be a pass through cost because they cant just cover people out of the kindness of their hearts, nor would they. It is a business and they are in the business of making, not losing, money.

Answer one simple question honestly for me, please.... Why is this particular administration giving so much control to the private sector in this circumstance? Why now? To what end? For what purpose?

[andy4]

Okay, lets just take the rhetoric of both sides and just throw it out the window for a moment. One side says it is going to be bright and glorious and the other says that hell is literally being opened on earth at this very moment. Dually noted.

How in the world are premiums not going to be more costly when the ACA is raising the minimum level of coverage on EVERY person that was not insured or had deficient policies before this? The premiums are going up regardless of what side of whatever political aisle you are currently standing. There is no choice on this. This is math and logic based alone. No rhetoric needed. Lets not even discuss the currently uninsured and just talk about the ACA in regards to the current policy holders....If the ACA standards were set in place for just those that had "bad" policies it would still increase rates across the board. Insurance companies and their actuaries "run the numbers" and have to increase premiums to cover the heavier burden of exposure to more risk. Quid pro quo, premiums raise to policy holders. This has to be a pass through cost because they cant just cover people out of the kindness of their hearts, nor would they. It is a business and they are in the business of making, not losing, money.

Answer one simple question honestly for me, please.... Why is this particular administration giving so much control to the private sector in this circumstance? Why now? To what end? For what purpose?

You're second paragraph doesn't make any sense because you forgot one key aspect. The new policies are dictated by income, so that makes the whole argument null and void. Sure they could be covering more, but if you don't make a lot, it wouldn't matter either way, even if that were true.

An honest answer? Well from my point of view the whole medical establishment was only interested in making money, and didn't care about the people, only the profits. Now that healthcare is mandatory, and minimums have been put in place, the regulations set forth will do more good than harm. There was nothing left to lose, so now was that time.

[Harte]

You're second paragraph doesn't make any sense because you forgot one key aspect. The new policies are dictated by income, so that makes the whole argument null and void. Sure they could be covering more, but if you don't make a lot, it wouldn't matter either way, even if that were true.

Not a word in that argument is null OR void.

The fact that some people recieve free money from the government to help pay their premiums doesn't mean that the premiums themselves are lower. It means that other people's premiums are actually higher than they would be, if everyone had to pay 100%.

That is, unless the government decides to print money to cover these cost themselves, which would also lead to higher premiums (not to mention higher prices for everything else for everyone.)

In fact, the argument can be made that if people don't have to pay in full for the services they receive, that alone will cause pricing to increase. As evidence, I offer college tuition.

An honest answer? Well from my point of view the whole medical establishment was only interested in making money, and didn't care about the people, only the profits.

Caring about people is caring about profits. Without profits, there would be no medical industry at all and thus no medical care. Your argument here is as baseless as the crocodile tears shed by the left when the right correctly points out that before too long, people will not be getting any government aid at all, if we don't do anything about the proven unsustainable growth of entitlement payments.

Harte

[preacherman76]

Okay, lets just take the rhetoric of both sides and just throw it out the window for a moment. One side says it is going to be bright and glorious and the other says that hell is literally being opened on earth at this very moment. Dually noted.

How in the world are premiums not going to be more costly when the ACA is raising the minimum level of coverage on EVERY person that was not insured or had deficient policies before this? The premiums are going up regardless of what side of whatever political aisle you are currently standing. There is no choice on this. This is math and logic based alone. No rhetoric needed. Lets not even discuss the currently uninsured and just talk about the ACA in regards to the current policy holders....If the ACA standards were set in place for just those that had "bad" policies it would still increase rates across the board. Insurance companies and their actuaries "run the numbers" and have to increase premiums to cover the heavier burden of exposure to more risk. Quid pro quo, premiums raise to policy holders. This has to be a pass through cost because they cant just cover people out of the kindness of their hearts, nor would they. It is a business and they are in the business of making, not losing, money.

Answer one simple question honestly for me, please.... Why is this particular administration giving so much control to the private sector in this circumstance? Why now? To what end? For what purpose?

From my house, it looks like his intent was to take my decent insurance, put it way outta my price range, so that over a few years he can punnish me by stealing thousands of dollars for not being able to afford what I once did. Seems he would really like it if my kids had no coverage at all. I guess you'd have to ask him what his motive for that is.

[preacherman76]

You're second paragraph doesn't make any sense because you forgot one key aspect. The new policies are dictated by income, so that makes the whole argument null and void. Sure they could be covering more, but if you don't make a lot, it wouldn't matter either way, even if that were true.

An honest answer? Well from my point of view the whole medical establishment was only interested in making money, and didn't care about the people, only the profits. Now that healthcare is mandatory, and minimums have been put in place, the regulations set forth will do more good than harm. There was nothing left to lose, so now was that time.

Insurance companies wrote the bill. They arent losing profits at all. They are gaining them big time.

[lightly]

Now that healthcare is mandatory

Just a minor point?... i don't belileve the ACA has made healthcare mandatory.. it has made healthcare INSURANCE mandatory.

Mandatory healthcare.... Dr. Visits... and mandatory TESTING and mandatory PRESCRIPTIONS .. will come later.

Edited February 2, 2014 by lightly