I was sent this article by someone I was arguing with on Twitter (at least for a while--after perusing her feed, I decided I didn't want to waste any more of my valuable time on her), trying to convince me that the recent, hysterically-reported spate of insurance company cancellations is evidence of some Kenyan Muslim conspiracy. Or something.
This paragraph in the article struck me right away.
By all accounts, the new policies will offer consumers better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost -- especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify. The law requires policies sold in the individual market to cover 10 “essential” benefits, such as prescription drugs, mental health treatment and maternity care. In addition, insurers cannot reject people with medical problems or charge them higher prices. The policies must also cap consumers’ annual expenses at levels lower than many plans sold before the new rules.
(snip)
Health insurance experts say new prices will vary and much depends on where a person lives, their age and the type of policy they decide to buy. Some, including young people and those with skimpy or high-deductible plans, may see an increase. Others, including those with health problems or who buy coverage with higher deductibles than they have now, may see lower premiums.
Which would be the case with any insurance--it's called a "risk pool." Younger, healthier people do end up subsidizing older, sicker people. (Also, the important words here are "skimpy" and "high deductible." In other words, crappy insurance to start with, that usually won't pay just when you really need it.) That's how insurance works--just like the yearly premiums you pay on your car, home or renter's insurance, if you don't file any claims that year, subsidizes the people who do file claims.
I know everybody (egged on by Fox News) is up in arms over this right now. But if overall most people come out with a better deal (and who we're really talking about here are the 14 million Americans, roughly 5% of the population, who purchase individual policies)...what, pray tell, are you bitching about?
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
October 30, 2013
June 28, 2012
Winning, Skinning and Chinning
I thought for sure I'd have five (or more) Asshats of the Day after the Supreme Court ruling came down, with the possibility of creating an entirely new category to fit--maybe AssClownCanoe, or some such.
Instead, to my surprise and delight (and I'm sure to the President's immense relief; I can just imagine he and his advisors grappling how to wrestle with this issue during his reelection campaign if Obamacare was struck down) the ACA was largely upheld.
Still, I can't shake the feeling we got this win by the skin of John Roberts' chinny chin chin. Apparently the four dissenters--Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy--were prepared not only to strike the individual mandate but get rid of the law lock, stock, and barrel. According to the wonderful Steve Benen on Rachel Maddow's blog:
And yet, as of this morning, four justices -- Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas -- insisted on doing exactly that. The four dissenters demanded that the Supreme Court effectively throw out the entirety of the law -- the mandate, the consumer protections, the tax cuts, the subsidies, the benefits, everything.
To reach this conclusion, these four not only had to reject a century of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, they also had ignore the Necessary and Proper clause, and Congress' taxation power. I can't read Chief Justice John Roberts' mind, but it wouldn't surprise me if the extremism of the four dissenters effectively forced him to break ranks -- had Kennedy been willing to strike down the mandate while leaving the rest of the law intact, this may well have been a 5-4 ruling the other way.
In other words, this time around (too bad he didn't think this way when it came to Citizens United) Roberts wasn't quite willing to let the barbarians storm the gate.
There's also a few thoughts that the dissent was originally the majority opinion, later edited to reflect Justice Roberts' last-minute change of heart.
Whatever. However it shakes out, I'll take it. But the whole thing serves as a dire warning to any remaining undecided voters. What would just one more justice in the mold of Scalia, Alito and Thomas (appointed by President Romney) have done to this legislation, nevermind Roe v. Wade or any other important constitutional question?
That notion should give any thinking person the shivers.
Instead, to my surprise and delight (and I'm sure to the President's immense relief; I can just imagine he and his advisors grappling how to wrestle with this issue during his reelection campaign if Obamacare was struck down) the ACA was largely upheld.
Still, I can't shake the feeling we got this win by the skin of John Roberts' chinny chin chin. Apparently the four dissenters--Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy--were prepared not only to strike the individual mandate but get rid of the law lock, stock, and barrel. According to the wonderful Steve Benen on Rachel Maddow's blog:
And yet, as of this morning, four justices -- Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas -- insisted on doing exactly that. The four dissenters demanded that the Supreme Court effectively throw out the entirety of the law -- the mandate, the consumer protections, the tax cuts, the subsidies, the benefits, everything.
To reach this conclusion, these four not only had to reject a century of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, they also had ignore the Necessary and Proper clause, and Congress' taxation power. I can't read Chief Justice John Roberts' mind, but it wouldn't surprise me if the extremism of the four dissenters effectively forced him to break ranks -- had Kennedy been willing to strike down the mandate while leaving the rest of the law intact, this may well have been a 5-4 ruling the other way.
In other words, this time around (too bad he didn't think this way when it came to Citizens United) Roberts wasn't quite willing to let the barbarians storm the gate.
There's also a few thoughts that the dissent was originally the majority opinion, later edited to reflect Justice Roberts' last-minute change of heart.
Whatever. However it shakes out, I'll take it. But the whole thing serves as a dire warning to any remaining undecided voters. What would just one more justice in the mold of Scalia, Alito and Thomas (appointed by President Romney) have done to this legislation, nevermind Roe v. Wade or any other important constitutional question?
That notion should give any thinking person the shivers.
January 18, 2012
"The willingness to share makes one free"
"At the heart of my politics has always been the value of community, the belief that we are not merely individuals struggling in isolation from each other, but members of a community who depend on each other, who benefit from each other's help, who owe obligations to each other. From that everything stems: solidarity, social justice, equality, freedom." ~Tony Blair
Another must-read piece from Charlie Pierce, about his nightmare of navigating the health-insurance maze to receive medication for a chronic illness. It ends this way.
I mention all of this because, tomorrow night, the five remaining Republican candidates will get up on stage and they will promise to repeal even the tepid, insurance-friendly reform of the way we do health-care in this country. Willard Romney will do this even though the tepid, insurance-friendly reform is one he virtually invented. They will have nothing to replace it. They will argue for "market-based" solutions. The above — that is a "market-based solution." And, by the way, this is the kind of thing that zombie-eyed granny starver Paul Ryan wants to put elderly people through in place of Medicare. Phone trees. Automated voices. Hours of their dwindling lives on hold, waiting for purportedly live persons who won't be able to help them. And zombie-eyed granny-starver Paul Ryan is considered by people in my business to be a serious thinker on these matters.
I work for the Veterans Administration. For all its shortcomings, people who need care can damn well get it. People who need medication can get it. I see it every day. It is "socialist medicine," probably not at its finest, but it bloody well works.
Republicans want to deny this or any other health-care reforms to Americans, and throw them to the insurance-company sharks, all in the name of profit and "market solutions."
President Obama's Affordable Care Act is not in the realm of VA care, and certainly not comparable to Canadian or European health care, but I'll take it. And if further down the line we can get rid of for-profit health care altogether and institute Medicare for all or VA-style health care for all, so much the better.
It is high time we grew up as a country, put aside our selfish, immature Wild West "bootstrap" mentality, and realize that we are indeed our brothers' and sisters' keepers. As Kris Kristofferson so eloquently stated, "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose."
Another must-read piece from Charlie Pierce, about his nightmare of navigating the health-insurance maze to receive medication for a chronic illness. It ends this way.
I mention all of this because, tomorrow night, the five remaining Republican candidates will get up on stage and they will promise to repeal even the tepid, insurance-friendly reform of the way we do health-care in this country. Willard Romney will do this even though the tepid, insurance-friendly reform is one he virtually invented. They will have nothing to replace it. They will argue for "market-based" solutions. The above — that is a "market-based solution." And, by the way, this is the kind of thing that zombie-eyed granny starver Paul Ryan wants to put elderly people through in place of Medicare. Phone trees. Automated voices. Hours of their dwindling lives on hold, waiting for purportedly live persons who won't be able to help them. And zombie-eyed granny-starver Paul Ryan is considered by people in my business to be a serious thinker on these matters.
Every single one of these Republicans will make the argument that, because of the entire morning I spent dealing with the preposterous way we do health-care in this country, that I am a "freer" person than are the people in Canada, or New Zealand, or Germany, or Finland. That I had to spend an entire morning mired in bureaucratic absurdity means I have retained my "freedom" as an American.
I work for the Veterans Administration. For all its shortcomings, people who need care can damn well get it. People who need medication can get it. I see it every day. It is "socialist medicine," probably not at its finest, but it bloody well works.
Republicans want to deny this or any other health-care reforms to Americans, and throw them to the insurance-company sharks, all in the name of profit and "market solutions."
President Obama's Affordable Care Act is not in the realm of VA care, and certainly not comparable to Canadian or European health care, but I'll take it. And if further down the line we can get rid of for-profit health care altogether and institute Medicare for all or VA-style health care for all, so much the better.
It is high time we grew up as a country, put aside our selfish, immature Wild West "bootstrap" mentality, and realize that we are indeed our brothers' and sisters' keepers. As Kris Kristofferson so eloquently stated, "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose."
May 9, 2011
"Despair has its own calms"
This astute commenter at Krugman's place points out something I think could catch on. In politics, it's all about the framing, or so I've heard.
Therefore, from now on the GOP will be dubbed the Bloody Old Party (or BLOP). As in, "We are coming for what's left of yours."
Paul Ryan's proposal will hereafter be referred to as "Vampire Medicare."
Drain you dry and then you die,
Quickly, to the gates of dawn,
Insurance gangsters soldier on!
His budget as a whole shall be known as "Vampire Economics."
Voodoo is so Reagan-esque.
Let's propose a better test,
The blood! The fangs! The people rest!
The CEOs will come out best!
Groups of Bloppers will also be known as "the Sparklies," for easier identification.
John Boehner and Eric Cantor, in their newfound immortality, will write this.
Anthem for a Block-Grant Nation
Oh say can you see,
By sorrow's stolen light,
What so sickly we hailed,
At the New Deal's last reaming,
Whose proud bites and thick scars
With their winning old fight
O'er the care they denied
Were so lavishly gleaming.
And the Koch-ster's white hair,
Shone their corporate flair,
Gave proof through the night,
That our thieves were still there.
Oh say does that blood-spattered money yet wave
O'er the land of the poor,
And the graves of the brave!
Where's Abraham Van Helsing when you need him?
Therefore, from now on the GOP will be dubbed the Bloody Old Party (or BLOP). As in, "We are coming for what's left of yours."
Paul Ryan's proposal will hereafter be referred to as "Vampire Medicare."
Drain you dry and then you die,
Quickly, to the gates of dawn,
Insurance gangsters soldier on!
His budget as a whole shall be known as "Vampire Economics."
Voodoo is so Reagan-esque.
Let's propose a better test,
The blood! The fangs! The people rest!
The CEOs will come out best!
Groups of Bloppers will also be known as "the Sparklies," for easier identification.
John Boehner and Eric Cantor, in their newfound immortality, will write this.
Anthem for a Block-Grant Nation
Oh say can you see,
By sorrow's stolen light,
What so sickly we hailed,
At the New Deal's last reaming,
Whose proud bites and thick scars
With their winning old fight
O'er the care they denied
Were so lavishly gleaming.
And the Koch-ster's white hair,
Shone their corporate flair,
Gave proof through the night,
That our thieves were still there.
Oh say does that blood-spattered money yet wave
O'er the land of the poor,
And the graves of the brave!
Where's Abraham Van Helsing when you need him?
February 6, 2011
Hypocrisy for Dummies
I saw this letter in the Arizona Republic today and couldn't help but reply to it. I don't expect the paper to publish my reply, so I decided to post it here.
The letter:
I would like to say "Bravo" to Gov. Jan Brewer for telling New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg to keep his nose out of Arizona's business regarding gun sales. I am proud that Arizona has lawmakers who do what is right and not what might be politically correct.
For all the folks wanting taxpayers to pay for their transplants, I don't recall the Constitution requiring taxpayers to pay for everyone's health care. I know the liberals will say that is cruel. But I fought for this country for people to be free, not for free stuff. - Doyle Carmody,Mesa
One could take this apart sentence by sentence, starting with the idiocy of approving of demonstrably illegal activity regarding gun sales, and the "political correctness" of trying to gut the Constitution. I concentrated on the last paragraph. Here's what I said.
Re: "Free country, yes; free stuff, no"
Shorter Doyle Carmody: "I've got mine, so screw you."
If he is indeed a veteran, as implied in his letter ("I fought for this country for people to be free") then he is a monumental hypocrite. He is given low-cost or free health care, courtesy of the taxpayers via the Veterans Administration, yet he would deny such life-saving care to others.
He seems to forget that among the things he fought for is the obligation of a civilized society to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.
There's a word for that, my friends. Selfishness.
This is, of course, in reference to my state's cutting off Medicaid coverage for transplants, and possibly condemning 96 people to death.
Mr. Carmody doesn't say he's a conservative, although it's strongly implied. Regardless, this is how conservatives run. As I've stated before, their philosophy is morally bankrupt.
The letter:
I would like to say "Bravo" to Gov. Jan Brewer for telling New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg to keep his nose out of Arizona's business regarding gun sales. I am proud that Arizona has lawmakers who do what is right and not what might be politically correct.
For all the folks wanting taxpayers to pay for their transplants, I don't recall the Constitution requiring taxpayers to pay for everyone's health care. I know the liberals will say that is cruel. But I fought for this country for people to be free, not for free stuff. - Doyle Carmody,Mesa
One could take this apart sentence by sentence, starting with the idiocy of approving of demonstrably illegal activity regarding gun sales, and the "political correctness" of trying to gut the Constitution. I concentrated on the last paragraph. Here's what I said.
Re: "Free country, yes; free stuff, no"
Shorter Doyle Carmody: "I've got mine, so screw you."
If he is indeed a veteran, as implied in his letter ("I fought for this country for people to be free") then he is a monumental hypocrite. He is given low-cost or free health care, courtesy of the taxpayers via the Veterans Administration, yet he would deny such life-saving care to others.
He seems to forget that among the things he fought for is the obligation of a civilized society to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.
There's a word for that, my friends. Selfishness.
This is, of course, in reference to my state's cutting off Medicaid coverage for transplants, and possibly condemning 96 people to death.
Mr. Carmody doesn't say he's a conservative, although it's strongly implied. Regardless, this is how conservatives run. As I've stated before, their philosophy is morally bankrupt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)