« Houston we have a problem -- unemployment exceeds 10% | MiddleClassBill's Blog | Why is Obama spending more time on healthcare instead of job creation »
What Health Reform Will Do To My Insurance
This is a great piece in today's WSJ by a writer who describes why he will lose his health insurance under the House's latest bill.
Definitely worth a read. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704402404574527493169603118.html#mod=todays_us_opinion
Definitely worth a read. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704402404574527493169603118.html#mod=todays_us_opinion
Advertisement
Reality Check for WSJ and MCB - you can't reform the health care system and have every last insurance plan preserved as is forever, reform means things will change.
November 14, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Ferrin is lying, as is typically the case.
November 14, 2009 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who is Bill Ferrin? And what is he lying about?
November 14, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Obama has said many times is if you like your plan you can keep it. The author of this article likely won't be able to keep his current plan.
November 14, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. His insurance only covers him in the event something happens to him and he has to check into a hospital. He pays for everything else out of pocket. I suspect he's been in contact with his insurer and has been informed his policy will go away if the current health care reform bill is approved. Would explain why he wrote the article - wouldn't make sense otherwise.
November 14, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Obama said we can keep what we have if we like it. Did Obama realize he was not speaking the truth?
November 14, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal is not a credible source for any information.
November 14, 2009 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an opinion piece. It has nothing to do with Mr. Murdoch. Rather than argue the author's points you just choose a classic ad hominem response.
November 14, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
All you show by making a comment like that is that you have a closed mind. And Bill is right that it makes even less sense to say it about an opinion piece.
November 14, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of recent op-ed pieces from Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal:
October 15, 2009
Massachusetts Is a Health-Reform Model
Our system insures 97% of state residents.
By DEVAL L. PATRICK
Mr. Patrick, a Democrat, is the governor of Massachusetts.
September 27, 2009
Testing Afghanistan Assumptions
The lesson of Vietnam is don't commit troops without a clear strategy.
By JOHN KERRY
Mr. Kerry, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Massachusetts.
November 14, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You neglect to mention that nearly everyone's health insurance is presently threatened even if we do nothing on health care reform. I spend more today than ever on my employer provided health insurance, and I receive the lowest level of benefits ever. And that is PRECISELY why we need to get costs under control and enact legitimate health care reform NOW, before this slides into an even bigger crisis of people uninsured due to escalating costs.
November 14, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry - I neglected to preface my comments by saying that I am not in favor of "doing nothing". But I think that the current legislation is aimed at universal coverage and not about costs.
As you'll see in my other post, I wrote:
"Voters would like to see compromise on key points of healthcare to reduce costs, while the Democrats' plan is very much focused on expanding coverage. Many voters want something passed but less than a majority approve of the current bill. Most people would prefer a less costly bill that incrementally improves coverage, provides reform for pre-existing conditions and experiments with tort reform and competition along state lines. "
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/middleclassbill/2009/11/why-is-obama-spending-more-tim.php#comments
November 14, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you explain to me why every American should not expect basic health care as they do basic education, policing, fire protection, pharmacological protection, highway maintenance, air safety, protection from invading armies, as well as other things? Can you? Id didn't think so.
November 14, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although the WSJ author misunderstands fundamental elements of proposed reforms, he's correct that ultimately (e.g., within 5 years), all insurers would be required to cover essential services - hospitalization, physician visits, laboratory services, medication, etc. - and that plans that lacked some of these would be forbidden. In the interim, even some deficient plans could be continued.
The question as to what fine should be levied on those who don't purchase insurance is a difficult one, although of course, low income families would enjoy some subsidization of premiums, and would be totally exempt in hardship cases.
The fine would certainly be less than the cost of premiums, because someone paying it would get nothing in return, while those paying premiums would get insurance. The optimal level is still a matter of uncertainty but needs to be high enough to discourage most individuals from opting out of insurance coverage when they can afford it, as well as ample enough to help defray the cost of subsidies the government will offer to low income individuals.
November 14, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, my current insurance costs me $1100 every three months and I have a $2000 deductible. I would opt out of any plan this Congress is proposing and pay a flat penalty fee - that way I'd have more cash in my pocket to pay for medical services I have to do without because what little disposable income I have is being eaten up by insurance premiums and deductibles.
November 14, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
With reform, the $2000 deductible will be gone, and if you pay a $2000 fine (not necessarily the final figure), you'll be sacrificing the chance to have insurance with good benefits and low deductibles that could end up saving you money and worry over the long haul. If your income is low enough to qualify, government subsidies will help you with the premiums.
Whatever the final arrangement, mandated insurance will probably be of net benefit to all except two groups. The first comprises young, healthy individuals with a good income, who will pay more into the system than they receive in benefits - a requirement that asks them to share the burdens of healthcare affordability with the less fortunate. The second will be low income individuals whose subsidies are too meager to fully offset the cost of premiums plus out of pocket expenses. This inequitability can and should be rectified by ensuring that subsidy levels are adequate.
November 14, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to keep posting this link until someone watches and comments on it! :-))
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/view/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_medium=proglist&utm_source=proglist
November 14, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great documentary Chuck. I used it as a reference in one of my blogs back in January. It's one thing that is not being addressed in the current legislation: Why do we insure fewer people than other OECD nations, and yet have higher per capita healthcare costs than those other nations. MCB is correct that this legislation is about expanding coverage within our flawed system, and not about reducing costs. Other countries address the issue either through a government operated system, or tightly regulating costs and profits in private insurance/supply. According to the president we as Americans demand a "unique solution" to the problem. Unless those other issues are addressed, our "solution" will be both unique and still expensive.
November 14, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
More of the same...WTF!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
November 14, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink