Frankly I'm almost sick of talking about it myself. If it wouldn't be for the fact
Sean Hannity's schtick right now features a woman on a laptop computer who seems to have all kinds of issues with the new healthcare legislation. Her latest BS is reading a bunch of tweets from people who are claiming their rates are going up 100% to 400%.
Duh!
There's a reason for that!
Paying Good Money For Bad Insurance
Amanda Marcotte did a write up for the 'Raw Story' which enlightens us as to why some policies are going up four or five times what some customers paid for them in the past. She explains before Obamacare some of these plans only pay the first $50 for doctors visits (even if they are specialists). The first $15 of a prescription and the first $50 for such things as mammograms, MRI and CT scans. Nothing for hospitalization (unless by a complicated pregnancy). In the particular example, Amanda was using, the customer was only paying $650 a year for their policy.
Anyone of reasonable mind can certainly understand if someone's paying $55 a month for medical coverage they're buying a no-plan insurance plan. In other words it's great coverage if you never have to use it. I could buy a car without a engine and one missing wheel damn cheap, but what good is that to me?
Then there comes this story via 'The Daily Mail'. It's about a lawyer who fell coming out of his shower at home and woke up 10 days later with a $150,000 hospital. The guy had a policy with a well known national company (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) who balked at paying any part of his bill. The reason given he was taken for care outside of his network provider. Some may find that understandable. However the hospital reassured him under (federal law since 1986) the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) would require he receive financial coverage. You can read more of the details for yourself.
My Point Is This
Those opposed to healthcare reform disingenuously label it as a government takeover of consumers freedoms by restricting their rights to choose.
One of Hannity's talking points is, why should men be forced to pay for women's maternity and health services? After all they'll never use it. For the same reason woman contribute into their insurance plans to treat testicular cancer.
Fox News' biggest lie of all is that rates are going sky high. Check out 'Salon.com'. Eric Stern fact checked Hannity's bullshit. Eric spoke to some of Sean's guests on his show who made these claims. Turns out none of them even looked into 'Obamacare'.
Let me explain what's been going on with insurance companies. They're turning this into a cash cow and then pointing the finger at Obama. Many (not all) are sending out letters telling customers they are dropping or converting their present plans. Some insurance companies are then offering much higher priced plans then the ones they offer through the exchange. In a few instances they've even told clients not to do anything. They will simply convert their polices to new ones costing up to 5x's more!
Those that are like minded as Hannity who think the world would be a better place without the ACA need to wake up and smell the coffee. If someone is so lazy and/or stupid as to not check out the exchanges or shop elsewhere based on a letter they receive from their insurance should keep their ignorant yappers shut. Either that or give Hannity a call. I'm sure he'd love to have more of them on as a guest.
Sure 'Obamacare' is messy and got off to a rough start, but it beats the hell out of letting the wild-wild West insurance companies run amuck. Is it government overreach when they require vehicles to measure up to certain standards? Is government the dark force of evil when it forces manufactures and food makers to comply to the things we regard as necessary for our safety and well being? Why then, when it come to insurance companies serving the public's basic healthcare needs so different?
Here's a few things the ACA requires--
Videos Hannity Doesn't Show You
BEFORE THE ACA..
Is this what we want to go back to?
For the majority of us we've done quite well under the old way of doing things. That is to say the doctors, insurance companies and those of us lucky enough to have good healthcare coverage. But there are a hellva' lot of others who haven't. It is they the ACA had in mind when it was created. We are left with only two choices. (1) Eliminate the ACA altogether and go back to the way things always were. Or (2) Fix or come up with a better plan then the ACA. Which choice one favors depends on how it affects someone's circumstance in life and how much concern they have for others.
What this boils down to is two different kinds of people. One which says 'I got mine.. so the hell with it'. Others who are open and willing to be concerned for those among us who have not been as fortunate for one reason or another. Some because they won't help themselves. Others who are trying their best, but have been left out in the cold because of prior medical conditions or lost their coverage because of extenuating circumstances.
Which side wins, in the end, speaks to us as to what kind of nation we wish to represent. I think I've made myself quite clear on where I stand.
If anyone has a better plan I'm all for it. Until such time, this is the one I'm going to continue my support in favor of.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are under moderation. Meaning pending approval. If comments are disrespectful or do not address this specific topic they will not be published