Taxpayer Association hit by health care cancellation

chrthlthin13Taxpayer Association hit by healthcare cancellation

By Taxpayer Association of Oregon

The Taxpayer Association got the call that our health insurance is being cancelled. Its an individual policy because we are a small non-profit. As a small non-profit we try to keep expenses low, so the plan is affordable as not a burden to our mission and the insurance is only used for high expenses.  Such plans the federal government is trying to exterminate out of existence. A follow-up call and another insurer agent’s input only added massive confusion over what is happening — is it being cancelled? grandfathered? or a forced change where I will have to pay more for a different plan. We are getting three different answers from three different people. Such confusion is a killer for small businesses and non-profits. The idea of health cost going up is terrible for non-profits because health insurance is already more expensive than office rent, phone, postage & internet combined — and that’s the economical plan!

Forbes Magazine writer estimates that up to 120 million could see their plans change.

 

The Wall Street Journal did a good analysis of why this is happening.

In drafting rules to put ObamaCare into effect, the Health and Human Services department under Kathleen Sebelius tightened the grandfathering eligibility to make sure even more people would be forced to switch to the excessively costly policies that Mr. Obama wants them to buy. Mr. Obama says he cares about your incentive to get preventive care or tests that you may not get if they don’t appear to involve a free lunch.

But the truth is, he wants you to pay for coverage you’ll never use (mental-health services, cancer wigs, fertility treatments, Viagra) so the money can be spent on somebody else.

A nod goes to the Los Angeles Times, whose coverage of the inequities of ObamaCare has been exemplary. On Monday, it set the political world afire with a story about thousands of Californians losing coverage. “This is when the actual sticker shock comes into play for people,” UCLA health-care researcher Gerald Kominski told the paper. “There are winners and losers under the Affordable Care Act.”

The press stinks at covering abstractions, which the health-care debate was until a law was enacted and put into effect. With real-world results now to unpack and examine, NBC News gave airtime to a 62-year-old North Carolina man whose monthly premium just jumped $800: “I’m sitting here looking at this, thinking we ought to just pay the fine and just get insurance when we’re sick. Everybody’s worried about whether the website works or not, but that’s fixable. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. This stuff isn’t fixable.”

The Affordable Care Act was never going to make care more affordable, except for those receiving a big subsidy at the expense of taxpayers or other insurance buyers. A non-listening press might have known better if it had paid attention in the most admirable moment of John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign, when the candidate disabused a generation of liberal reporters by saying that covering the uninsured might be desirable for other reasons, but health-care costs would be driven out of sight once the government began subsidizing another large group of Americans to overconsume.

ObamaCare probably won’t succeed in covering even a majority of the uninsured. It will succeed, though, in forcing millions of Americans to buy more expensive insurance than they need or want, because that’s the insurance Mr. Obama likes and will let them keep

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:59 | Posted in Uncategorized | 50 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    I hope we can retain concierge doctor services in the state of Oregon, and not all get thrown into a single payer (the taxpayer) universal health system run by a state government bureaucracy (where some person in Salem thinking more about what he or she is having for lunch or where he or she are going on vacation, is deciding and lording over individual Oregonian’s healthcare.) Might have to resort to traveling to Mexico, Washington state, or maybe floating offshore hospitals; if the Oregon Commies should get their way.

    Another hope for escaping one-size fits all Cover Oregon (with communism) is if the federal government frees all U.S citizens to shop for health insurance across state lines.

    • DavidAppell

      A single payer system is about providing UNIVERSAL, basic, quality care, not everything Bob Clark would ever want. Many of those in single payer countries buy additional insurance to cover themselves in additional ways. Bob Clark can do the same.

      Selling health insurance across state lines is a dumb idea — it will mean that whichever state gives the insurance industry the most favorable terms will, over time, determine the defacto regulations of health insurance policies, whatever the industry wants, and they won’t be very good ones. Just like has happened in the credit card business.

      I want my representatives deciding what health insurance should be in my state, not representatives of Delaware or North Dakota whom I can’t vote against.

      • .

        Stand down, idiot!

      • redbean

        Defining “quality care” is the problem. Even supposedly evidence-based treatment guidelines contain biases. Given the pathological cronyism in Washington, expect to get the treatment deemed best for the bottom line of government and big business, not the health of the patient.

        Additional insurance will be of little use when care providers are unavailable due to unsustainably low reimbursements from the main payer. Canadians seek care here when their system either denies the care they seek or when delays are so long that care is effectively denied.

      • redbean

        I don’t want representatives of my state or any other state deciding what health insurance contract I can sign. If you don’t want representatives from Delaware or North Dakota deciding for you, why is it OK for D.C. (District of Crooks) to do it?

        • DavidAppell

          That’s obvious — because I have representation in D.C.

  • DavidAppell

    More dishonest numbers.

    A study by economists found that only 3% will be “potential losers,” by having to purchase a different policy:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chart-winners-and-losers-from-obamacare

    This has all been blown way out of proportion.

    • voterid

      Ok, let see the population of the US is: 313,914,040 (2012).
      3% if that figures is over 9 million. If that is just a drop in the bucket perhaps you need to tell that to each of these 9 million people. The numbers you refer to also expect that employers will keep their health care for their employees…perhaps you should rethink that too.
      No one really knows that will happen but right now, to force people past their prime to carry maternity insurance is down right wrong and should be illegal. You can’t lump all the people into one bowl and expect a free people in this United States to be happy. Don’t count on people to lay down and take the government shoving something down their throats by lying to them about the consequence of this law. It may be good for the 15% who had no coverage, but the law penalizes the 85% who had what they could afford.

      • DavidAppell

        3% is 3%, regardless of the size of the population, It is a small segment of the population.

        The law DOES NOT penalize 85% — most of them are uttterly unaffected by the ACA, as the chart I provided shows.

      • DavidAppell

        No one really knows what will happen but right now, to force people past their prime to carry maternity insurance is down right wrong and should be illegal.

        No more than requiring women to hold a policy that covers prostate cancer — which lowers the cost for all insured men.

        Insurance is about pooling risk — your risks, as well as everyone else’s.

        • redbean

          There are many ways to pool risk and if government would get out of the way, society is quite capable of solving this problem.

          • DavidAppell

            society is quite capable of solving this problem.

            REALLY? How? Be specific.

        • Myke

          Well the risk of me, a male, of ever getting pregnant is ZERO. I am not a part of the pool and should not be forced to pay for something that will NEVER affect me. That is not insurance, that is extortion.

          • DavidAppell

            Neither will women get prostate cancer. But its mandated coverage lowers your cost.

          • .

            Chaz Bono says what do I get?

        • Myke

          Except that to be in a pool, one should have some expectation of risk that the pool is supposed to protect you from. In my case, as with any other man, the expectation of my getting pregnant is tantamount to an atheist declaring Jesus’s virgin birth a fact. So, David, your solution to a wrong against women is to forego correcting that wrong in favor of a further wrong. Have you not heard that “Two wrongs don’t make a right”?

          • DavidAppell

            You are covered for prostate cancer, which women must pay premiums on but cannot ever acquire. Young people won’t get dementia, and the elderly are unlikely to acquire an STD.

            Everyone in society has a vested interest in seeing that babies are born and raised as healthy as possible. That includes you.

      • DavidAppell

        When the US government has chosen to lump all the people into one bowl, misses the fact that we are a free people and we enjoy making our own decisions.

        This is completely misleading. Many people do not get a “decision” about their health insurance, and you may well be one of them tomorrow. Tens of millions are discriminated against, unable to purchase health insurance at any price, and you could well be one of them tomorrow. People are going backrupt and their health is suffering, and you could well be one of them tomorrow.

        Open your eyes.

        • redbean

          Insurance is a product to protect against risk so it’s not discrimination to be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition. At that point, the person needs care, not an insurance policy. A better solution: healthcare savings accounts, funded by government $ for the needy, coupled with catastrophic insurance policies, which protect against calculable risk like car accidents. This idea was put forth by Republicans but apparently it couldn’t grease the palms of enough powerful cronies to be considered.

          • DavidAppell

            At that point, the person needs care, not an insurance policy.

            What crap. People with pre-existing conditions are denied a policy for ANYTHING, not just their particular condition.

            And even still, that condition still needs treatment that usually still requires insurance. Because a diabetic is denied insurance doesn’t mean they don’t need a lot of care, testing, and supplies.

          • redbean

            If you’ve got a $6,000 deductible, you’re still out of luck. Instead of giving people insurance, give them actual money to buy the supplies and care themselves. Consumers are the best watchdogs against fraud and overpricing.

          • DavidAppell

            “Caring for themselves” can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for serious accidents and illnesses. For that you need insurance. Given the cost of health care now in this country, even a broken bone could be unaffordable without insurance.

          • redbean

            I apologize if I was unclear, but I didn’t say, “caring for themselves.” I was responding to your specific example of recurring expenses for the diabetic, not “serious accidents and illnesses.” Healthcare costs are high because of third party payers – both governmental and private.

            In the faux market of the Obamacaid exchanges, broken bones are still unaffordable due to high deductibles coupled with high premiums that prevent people from saving up to cover the deductible. We could provide catastrophic policies and health-savings accounts to offset high deductibles to those in need for much less than the ACA authoritarian scheme.

          • DavidAppell

            Not everyone has sufficient income to save for a health savings account, but they still need health care, and society pays for it if they can’t.

            Health care costs are high because a lot of people and corporations are making a lot of money off of the current system, at the expense of all Americans.

          • redbean

            A health savings account can be funded by government, an employer, a union, or a charity, fraternal society or church. The owner of the account is the patient/consumer regardless of how it is funded.

          • DavidAppell

            What is the point, if it doesn’t cover expensive accidents and illnesses? That’s when you need insurance. Are you trying to say there should only be insurance coverage for catastrophes, and everything else should be paid in cash?

          • redbean

            I consider expensive accidents and illnesses to fall in the category of “catastrophic.” I didn’t intend to suggest limiting consumer options to catastrophic policies and I didn’t say how things “should” be paid – cash or otherwise. I brought it up because it works for some people. One size does not fit all.

            There are many reforms that could make insurance more affordable and coupling such a policy with an HSA is but one facet of an evolving solution. Consumer-driven health care produces many possibilities.

        • Myke

          You are correct, many don’t get a “decision” about their health care. Many also don’t get to choose their employment options, shall the government start making that decision as well? The logic is not far off.

          Rather than creating false pools how about refining the pools. The truth is that everything in our ‘human world’ is made up, and we have the power to change it into anything without it being forced on to us.

          • DavidAppell

            The logic is not far off.

            Absurd baloney.

          • Noble Durham

            “Smart is when you believe only half of what hear. Brilliant is when you know which half to believe.”

  • Pingback: prediksi bola akurat()

  • Pingback: accessories for ipad()

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster()

  • Pingback: underground music()

  • Pingback: online casinos()

  • Pingback: lan penge nu uden renter()

  • Pingback: car parking()

  • Pingback: stop parking()

  • Pingback: insulated electricians tool kits()

  • Pingback: Website for more fun()

  • Pingback: water ionizer loan()

  • Pingback: house blue()

  • Pingback: electrician tool sets for sale()

  • Pingback: ionizer payment plan()

  • Pingback: bottled alkaline water()

  • Pingback: loan payment plan()

  • Pingback: water ionizer()

  • Pingback: http://makemoney.camkingz.com/()

  • Pingback: link()

  • Pingback: ilovedooney()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)