skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Covered California Mulls Extending Cancelled Health Policies

Evening Edition

Aired 11/19/13 on KPBS Midday Edition.

Guests

David White, health insurance broker

Linda Keller, executive vice president, Intercare

Transcript

On the one hand, California's health exchange is doing much better than the troubled national website offering new Obamacare health plans. On the other hand, President Obama's new plan to allow insurers to extend substandard health policies through next year is adding an extra level of confusion into the process.

Covered California executive director Peter Lee said Monday that the health exchange will likely decide if it will reinstate 1 million cancelled policies by the week's end.

"California is looking very closely to how we respond to the call of the President," he said. "Having a risk pool is critical to the ongoing viability and the out-of-the-gate viability of exchanges."

But it's not clear that insurance companies would extend the coverage in any case.

California's Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones has said, Covered California should extend the policies.

"California has more than 1 million people with non-grandfathered policies facing cancellation; they should be given the opportunity to keep their existing coverage next year," he said. "I am calling on all health insurers in California to let their policyholders keep their existing coverage for an additional year if they want it."

Covered California requires its insurers to cancel policies which don't meet the Affordable Care Act's minimum coverage rules.

Other states, such as Massachusetts, announced they won't honor the president's request.

Despite the uncertainty for some, San Diegans are enrolling in Obamacare at a rate that exceeds the state average.

Comments

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | November 19, 2013 at 12:47 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Why are you pushing these lies from the insurance companies who want to destroy Obamacare more than the GOP.
Your guest claimed that the insurance companies could not reinstate the cancelled policies. Pure garbage.
-1. Me white claims he knows nothing about IT but says the program code has been destroyed. WRONG. You do not destroy that code since it supports all other policies with similar options.
2. That code is needed for claims until the end of the year.

You claim no bias. I disagree. Where is an opinion on the other side of the matter.

Me White claims no experience then lauds his years of insurance over you and you just sit there and gullibly swallow it.

Of he knows nothing how do the policies he services get entered?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | November 19, 2013 at 1:54 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Communus, I don't blame the health companies for wanting to destroy Obamacare. It may be the only way to prevent Obama from destroying this country.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | November 19, 2013 at 2:32 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Only 35,364 people in California have received a new plan yet over a million people have had their insurance cancelled.

That means Obamacare has resulted in a net loss of 964,636 Californians who are now without health insurance.

And it only gets worse around the rest of the country where nearly 5 million people have lost their insurance and only 26,794 have received a new plan via the federal website.

That is horrific especially considering Obama bold-faced lied to the American people about cancellations.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | November 19, 2013 at 3:47 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Obama knowingly lied, but he does not care. He knows once Obamacare is in place it will be impossible to end it, just like social security, medi-care, and welfare.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | November 19, 2013 at 4:18 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

It is impossible to end Obamacare politically, but it will likely collapse under its own weight within a few years anyway.

Insurance companies have said premiums will be going up due to Obama's last minute meddling. They have also said the entire system hinges on attracting enough young healthy people and so far it hasn't and likely never will.

What will happen to the people who were forced into those plans when it does collapse? Where will Obama be then? At the bottom of history's trash-heap is where.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | November 20, 2013 at 9:38 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

CaliforniaDefender your confidence is encouraging and I hope you are right. Obamas entire presidency has been an utter failure. He is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | November 20, 2013 at 12:02 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Everyone who says Obamacare is the worst thing that ever happened to the world doesn't consider what its done for people with preexisting conditions or adult children under the age of 26. How narrow is your worldview if you don't know someone whom Obamacare is currently helping? Are you loners? Do you get out much? NO ONE in polite society, except fake Christians, thinks bigotry, hate and exclusionary laws are the way to go.

As far as the insurance part of it goes, any health care professional would chuckle at the thought of anyone pitying the poor, poor individual health plan market. Individual policies are cancelled all the time for any variety of reasons. Health plans aggressively look for any excuse to cancel an individual member's policy if/when they pay any claims for that member.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | November 20, 2013 at 1:45 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Obama is guilty of:
(1) poor communication regarding what will happen to junk insurance plans
(2) being at the helm of a technological disastrous rollout of the ACA

Obama is credited for:
(1) tackling one of the most vital issues in our nation today - healthcare
(2) passing a law that includes many popular features such as staying on parents insurance longer and no penalties for pre-existing conditions
(3) passing major healthcare legislation after previous presidents have tried and failed for decades in the midst of a polarizes congress an the worst economic downtourn since the Great Depression
(4) actually doing something instead of standing by and watching as the richest country on earth festers with tens of millions of people who don't have access to healthcare while our global 1st world counterparts do provide care for all their citizens
(5) doing something that will halt the epidemic of bankruptcies in our country due to medical bills (it's almost unheard of in other developed nations for someone to go bankrupt due to medical bills, but in the U.S., it's a rampant and a major source of financial demise for millions of families
(6) recognizing that we ALL benefit economically from a healthy and robust working population instead of a vast underclass of the "working poor" who can't afford healthcare
(7) did something to finally tackle the situation of emergency rooms being used as doctors offices for the millions without insurance

The bottom line is that while the rollout and communication may have been sub-par, the meat of the bill is still sound.

All this hysteria over the ACA being te demise of the country and collapsing under itself was uttered when SD passed and again when Medicare passed.

It was a bunch of BS then, and it's a bunch of BS now.

The government SHOULD BE protecting citizens from sh insurance plans.

These dopes that go on Fox "news" complaining they can't keep their scam insurance plans are really something else.

They don't even realize many of them are not even worth the paper they are printed on.

Of course their cheap, because if you get sick they pay next to nothing and defy the whe point of having medical insurance!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | November 20, 2013 at 2:18 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

DeLaRick call me hateful but I believe people should be self-reliant. Oh, I am such a horrible person! I don't want to subsidize the lifestyles of people who choose to make extremely bad choices regarding their education, health, and finances!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | November 20, 2013 at 2:27 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

PDSD "The government SHOULD BE protecting citizens from sh insurance plans."
No, the government should be protecting citizens from fraud, which is not the same as cut rate insurance with minimal coverage. Just because an insurance plan doesn't cover everything you want it to does not make it "sh". There are varying degrees of coverage offered and one can rationally choose not to pay for comprehensive coverage for a number of legitimate reasons. One size fits all is a poor goal.

Further, I would be curious if you (personally) are being positively or negatively affected by this law. There are lots of winners (for the moment) and lots of losers and I suspect ones short term perspective correlates well to which side of that line one finds oneself occupying.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | November 20, 2013 at 2:39 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

No Jean not hateful just a typical Tea Party anarchist. Totally uneducated in government and reAdy to slash and burn because you cannot see beyond the tip of your nose and the Tea Party screamers. Mob rule is no way to run a country. That is what you condone as well as closet racism.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | November 20, 2013 at 2:44 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

DLR,
I'm not sure how you got from inefficient rationing of limited health care to bigotry, hate and exclusionary laws. What, specifically, are you talking about?

Do I understand your argument correctly that it is somehow deplorable for a company to cancel a policy but laudable for the government to do so? That doesn't make any sense to me. Please explain.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | November 20, 2013 at 6:10 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Benz, I get healthcare from my employer so I'm not impacted by the ACA.

Well not directly, I do, however, like knowing that if I was to ever be laid off or something there are options.

Plus, I'd like to see emergency rooms come back to being used for emergencies and not the default doctors office for the poor and uninsured.

And a lot of the "cut rate" plans ARE fraudulent. Listen to te stories that have come about, people being mis led by insurance companies and ridiculous things being intentionally out in the "fine print" giving people a false sense of security until they get sick and end up having to go bankrupt.

Now I have a question for you and Jean and the others who are so opposed to "socialized medicine": KPBS ran a story this week about a very expensive military hospital that opened up in Oceanside - I believe the cost was $500,000,000.

It sounds amazing - terraces, relaxing decor, designed to make people feel
Like they are new at home than in a hospital.

You have a problem with that?

I didn't see any of those who cry "socialism" posting on that article.

Maybe certain classes of people are worthy of government paid healthcare and others aren't ??

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | November 21, 2013 at 8:13 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

PDSD,
I haven't seen the article, but my initial though would be that the appropriate comparison would be to the cost of other hospitals. It may be excessive, I don't know. Would you like to go through the design and appropriation decisions and check for waste, fraud or abuse? I certainly have no issue with that. We should keep the government honest and we should not allow extravagance 'on the public’s dime'.

For the second half, I absolutely believe that there are people who earn government health care. Just as you work hard for your employer and are covered by that insurance there are people who work hard (and expose themselves to significant danger) for the government and earn medical care as a result. This seems so obvious to me that I fear I may be misunderstanding your question. Was there more to it than that?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | November 21, 2013 at 8:51 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Sorry PDSD
there is nothing class related in the new hospital at Pendlton. It is all budget maneuvering by officers and Pentagon types in the Dept of the Navy.
Funny that this is the second fancy new hospital there in just a few years. Considering the on going troop reductions and automation in all military branches over 30 years.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | November 21, 2013 at 9:41 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Benz, I was not asking for a detailed analysis of spending with the new hospital, I was just trying to see where you stand re: government healthcare.

A lot of people claim they are against ANY form of socialized medicine.

It sound like you are saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you are ok with tax-payer funded healthcare as long as those receiving it are deemed "worthy"?

And what is the standard to use for this determination?

Someone who works in a job where they are not exposed to physical danger should not qualify?

Should tax payers be paying for postal workers and DMV workers to have health insurance?

What about military people who work stateside and are not in a risky assignment, should they have access to socialized military care?

Their families?

What about Medicare - you for or against?

I am asking all these questions because I feel all citizens should be entitled to basic health care be they in the military or not. That is the way it's done in every other developed nation on the planet.

This idea set forth that healthcare is something only a select few should have or that one must pore their worthiness for is arbitrary and ridiculous.

Let's face it, unless you are a millionaire, nobody really "pays their own way" when it comes to healthcare.

Healthcare is not like other necessities such as food and shelter in that the outright costs would be prohibitive for even upper middle class folks.

An event requiring hospitalization paid outright without insurance can easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket, something even most fiscally responsible middle class Americans would not be able to come up with if without insurance OR with a INSUFFICIENT SUB-STANDARD plan.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | November 21, 2013 at 9:55 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Furthermore, I find it hypocritical that many of those who rail against the ACA because it forces young healthy people to have a minimum standard of required health insurance seem to have no problem with private sector medical insurance through employers even though it works the SAME WAY!!

This is a basic principle of ANY insurance.

If not enough young healthy folk sign up for insurance through employers, premiums go up. It's the same with the ACA. Any insurance is based on this principle.

And let's not forget that having insurance even be a part of the ACA at all was a COMPROMISE to appease conservatives.

Many on the left, myself included, wanted to simply expand Medicare by lowering the age for it. This was floated at the time, and Republicans threw a fit because they (as well as many dems) are in the pockets of big insurance.

So we compromises and found a way to expand healthcare to those without it while still keeping the free market insurance companies as part of it and, in fact, expanding their business.

Now republicans hope this fails.

What is the Republican alternative?

If you awry rich or fortunate enough to have insurance at your employer you just die if you get sick?

Or, you prefer the pre ACA Back-door goverent insurance of people going to the hospital, not being able to pay, then the government has to bail out the hospitals
So our healthcare infrastructure doesn't collapse??

I mean the only other alternative really is to say deny people who can't pay from even getting treatment. That would result in people simply rotting at home/on the street and then I guess their families can be billed for the government hauling away the body.

Is that what republicans want?

Of course they don't SAY this is what they want, but by process of elimination there is really nothing left.

If any of those opposed to healthcare for all would be kid enough to let me know what YOU would do about the tens of millions of uninsured if love to hear your thoughts!!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | November 21, 2013 at 11:08 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

PDSD, there are a lot of questions in your last two posts and not all of them are clear.
Let me make a few general statements:

Everybody must either provide for themselves or rely on someone else to provide for them. This is true of all scarce resources; Food, medicine, BMWs, swimming pools ... whatever.

Not everybody is worth providing for. There are people who are foolish, irresponsible, criminal, inappropriately violent, grossly negligent or self-destructive enough to be poor investments of other’s resources.

If someone is worth providing for then that worthiness should be obvious to the provider and the provision should be conditional, appreciated by the recipient and preferably temporary. There should be no expectation of provision without effort, though if a provider chooses to be indulgent with their own resources then that is their right.

Many of your questions seemed to revolve around the specifics of employment related medical insurance. In general, if an employer and employee can agree on compensation (whether that includes medical insurance or not) then I see no place for the government to involve itself. Employees who do not negotiate that aspect of compensation explicitly should be preparing for medical expenses in some other manner (e.g. private insurance, medical line of credit, savings, etc.).

Is that clear?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | November 21, 2013 at 11:37 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

There are places where it makes sense for the government to provide free medical services to anyone. This is a very narrow class of services though. Immunization requires a substantial portion of the public to be inoculated and, as a true public good, it is reasonable for the government to undertake that task.

You ask about what republicans want and I can’t answer that for two reasons. Firstly I am not one. Secondly, I do not believe that they have a single plan in mind. To be fair to them though, I don’t think the democrats are all behind the ACA as a permanent solution either because I still hear about single payer from them.

I am concerned about the following quote from your post
“If you awry rich or fortunate enough to have insurance at your employer you just die if you get sick?”
First, not all diseases are fatal so it seems like you are employing hyperbole here.
Second, employment and compensation (including medical coverage by an employer’s health plan) are not the results of chance or some blind luck. They require effort, dedication and knowledge. You would probably argue against a statement like ‘PDSD doesn’t earn his pay and benefits, he’s just lucky’.
Third, everybody dies regardless of the amount of effort to delay that inevitable outcome. The appropriate comparison to make is not if they will die without medical intervention but rather is the intervention to cause that delay a wise investment.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | November 21, 2013 at 12:36 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Benz, what I meant by the quote above was "if you are not fortunate enough to have employer insurance, should you just be allowed to rot and die".

I'm on my phone and the autocorrect has a mind of its own somethimes.

While diseases that being about quick death are not too common, certain disease like high blood pressure and diabetes which cause slow death if untreated are rampant.

Within the coming years it's estimated 1/3 of the world'd population will be afflicted with diabetes.

I see that you view healthcare through the lense of personal responsibility.

But, do you also see the broader societal impacts?

Don't you think being the only developed nation on earth with a significant part of our population without access to affordable healthcare has wider economic/ productivity implications.

More sick time.

An unhealthier and less productive workforce that takes more sick days

Rampant bankruptcies for healthcare bills

All the while our global competitors don't haw these problems

Is it worth harming our entire nation out of spite that someone lazy might get to go to the doctor on behalf of the government ??

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | November 21, 2013 at 1:28 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

I think you may be misunderstanding at least a portion of my argument.

You say "Don't you think being the only developed nation on earth with a significant part of our population without access to affordable healthcare has wider economic/ productivity implications."

Absolutely, but probably not in the way you intended the question to be read. This indicates that we have excess population and that until that excess is corrected there will be a substantial unproductive portion of the population. This further implies that our policies will be increasingly skewed away from positive reinvestment and toward unproductive consumption. I do not consider this to be a good thing.

To put it another way, if those people you mention were capable and motivated to produce enough to purchase the insurance we suppose they desire then it would be affordable by definition. Subsidizing them to continue to consume more than they produce is not a sustainable program in the long term.

Also, I'm not sure where you are seeing spite in my position.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | November 21, 2013 at 2:16 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Well I guess we won't see completely eye to eye on the issue, in my opinion it's about choices.

I think we could reduce military spending and still be the world'd largest military power, reform out drug laws and curb the defunct "war on drugs" and reduce our over bloated prison population and use the money saved for national healthcare.

I guess my only remaining question for you Benz (apologies if you already answered it previously) is if you support Medicare?

The reason I ask is because, cost-wise, that is really the largest expenditure in our healthcare system. The vast majority of expensive medical procedures are seen in senior citizens, and the last year of ones life typically accounts for the most a person will spend/use the healthcare system.

Since we already pay for healthcare of the most costly segment of society, what's wrong with expecting young healthy people (who will be seniors themselves one day) from at least having minimum insurance plans at reasonable costs to support the system?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | November 21, 2013 at 2:41 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Benz,

Duck makes good points, so do you. Your argument speaks to the Medicaid expansion part of the ACA. However, it's dead on arrival when it comes to the reformative parts of the ACA. Duck is right on the money in pointing out that the individual policies being cancelled are not worth the paper on which they're printed. Hospitals and providers are writing-off record amounts of self pay balances AFTER insurance company payments. So, even if the insurance company pays, the balances left for patients are overwhelming and inaffordable. The ACA mandates minimal coverage requirements so that hospitalization doesn't result in bankruptcy even when the patient is "insured." Let me preempt your counterpoint by saying that not every case of insufficient coverage is the result of willful neglect on the part of the insured. Health plans and brokers knowingly sell policies that are great unless you have to actually use them. The ACA would eventually help standardize and stabilize the individual plan market.

The part of the ACA you're speaking to is Medicaid expansion. Some folks believe that a wealthy nation, especially a "Christian" one, should provide basic medical access to its poorer citizens and residents. Some folks, even "Christians," believe that government should not. The ACA is multi-faceted with some parts that are wildly popular with all groups. It's a very complicated issue that is not helped by mixing-in arguments about overpopulation. Technocratic governing styles have already proven to be failures because human beings can't be governed by scientific methods. People are people.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | November 21, 2013 at 2:43 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

PDSD, are you asking 'Do you support all of Medicare as it is currently constituted?' or 'Do you support the idea of a (possibly optional) national health insurance program for seniors?' Those are different answers. Also, many people conflate Medicare and Medicaid, so even still, this is not a simple answer. Sorry, I’m really not trying to dodge your question but it is a bit too vague to answer adequately.

"Since we already pay for healthcare of the most costly segment of society, what's wrong with expecting young healthy people (who will be seniors themselves one day) from at least having minimum insurance plans at reasonable costs to support the system?"
1) The first step to climbing out of a hole is to stop digging. You correctly listed many good options for reducing expenses and national debt. It does not follow that the funds saved from those reductions must therefore be spent on different programs. The debt is a threat to our long term stability in a way that no other national issue (including healthcare) is.
2) Not all people (especially young people) agree on what a reasonable expense is. It is OK to take chances with your own health so long as you bear the consequences of that choice.

"Well I guess we won't see completely eye to eye on the issue, in my opinion it's about choices.”
I agree, on both the individual and government levels, and one of those choices is ‘None of the above’.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | November 21, 2013 at 3:03 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

DLR” The ACA mandates minimal coverage requirements so that hospitalization doesn't result in bankruptcy even when the patient is "insured." Let me preempt your counterpoint by saying that not every case of insufficient coverage is the result of willful neglect on the part of the insured. Health plans and brokers knowingly sell policies that are great unless you have to actually use them. The ACA would eventually help standardize and stabilize the individual plan market.”

This seems to be solution to a different problem then. If your concern is really about fraud, why not address it as fraud?
I’m not convinced that all cut rate insurance has no value, though I do agree that it does not have the same value as comprehensive insurance (obviously). Buying insurance only against a ‘full catastrophe’ when a ‘mere calamity’ will bankrupt you is really not the fault of the insurer. If one can’t afford the deductibles then one chose the wrong plan. The standardization you speak of would prevent people from saving to pay deductibles out of pocket while still carrying catastrophic insurance. What is your rationale for forbidding that?

“The ACA is multi-faceted with some parts that are wildly popular with all groups.”
Can you please point out this part?

I don’t see a way to adequately address the economy in general or the insurance market in particular in the context of long term stability without addressing the populations that comprise them. They are integral to these discussions.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | November 22, 2013 at 7:38 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

There is no question that the individual plan market needs reform. I stated facts, not questions. It's more than just about deductibles. There are coverage limits that a reasonable layperson cannot understand unless they're specifically addressed by the health plan or broker.

“The ACA is multi-faceted with some parts that are wildly popular with all groups.”
Can you please point out this part?"

Whenever the ACA comes up for debate on this board, I point to the abolishment of preexisting condition clauses and coverage for adult children up to the age of 26 as parts that the entire country likes. What people must understand is that those provisions were traded for the individual mandate by the medical insurance industry.

"This seems to be solution to a different problem then. If your concern is really about fraud, why not address it as fraud?"

I didn't describe a fraud. That's the thing. I described a legal business practice. Legal business practices which produce losers and bankrupt citizens after one hospitalization can only be reformed. Reformation of the individual plan market is one of the ACA's major components. Medicaid expansion is another topic altogether.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | November 22, 2013 at 12:03 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

DLR, We seem to be talking past each other.

The ability to exclude pre-existing conditions from coverage makes insurance cheaper for those without it and is therefore popular with many of them. Similarly with adult children, shifting a burden is unpopular with those it is shifted onto.

As to fraud or misunderstanding legal language and the actual coverage of insurance, why not require clearer explanations like were recently enacted for credit card debt (apparently for the benefit of people who can't calculate compound interest)? It seems like an overreach to mandate comprehensive coverage even for those who would prefer to buy only catastrophic coverage. One size does not fit all.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | November 22, 2013 at 12:48 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Benz,

We're not speaking past each other. Modern arguments about public policy are reduced to two possibilities: exclusion or inclusion. Duck and others have already made arguments for inclusion. Others, including yourself, make exclusionary arguments. The fact that our health care system yields a miserable return on investment, before and after the ACA, is incontrovertible.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | November 22, 2013 at 1:37 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

There are plenty of people who believe that the health care system is (or at least was)working well for them. It seems like we have not been able to agree on a public policy that doesn't harm individuals. Can you suggest one?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | November 22, 2013 at 3:36 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

The healthcare system was working fine for me. Then again, I am financially responsible, and I eat healthy food and exercise. I don't allow myself to become a morbidly obese diabetic smoker and then wait for someone to pay for my medical bills.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'MrsGrundy'

MrsGrundy | November 22, 2013 at 7:05 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Why would anyone want health insurance?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | November 24, 2013 at 8:11 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

If you're happy with your health plan, your employer purchased it and you have no idea what it costs. The ACA is mostly about the uninsured and the individual plan market. It's about what isn't working, not what is.

I wish Obama had said, "If you don't have a crummy plan in January 2014, you can keep it for as long as your insurance company lets you. If you have a crummy plan, you can buy an even better one."

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | November 24, 2013 at 6:24 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Making things better for others is great if it doesn't dismember the system that is working for a lot of people. "Better" almost always implies 'costlier' and that may not be a good value for everybody. Again, one size does not fit all.

( | suggest removal )