An article from CNN (ostensibly centrist, but known to have leftward leanings) list five major ways in which the health care reform will restrict freedoms we currently enjoy. Points 3 and 4 are major problems for me and my family.
First, we currently have a high deductible HSA and we like it a lot. It encourages us to make minimal use of health care resources, and we have a Health Savings Account that we use to make payments for medical expenses and we make monthly payments into the account. If we need a high-cost medical procedure, we are covered, but otherwise we pay for minor medical expenses from the account. We really like our plan.
Second, point 4 is indeed what I have feared, and I have read on pages 15-18 of the health care reform bill that current plans will be grandfathered. That is, current plans can continue unless some change (even minor changes) is made to the plan. If some change occurs, then you are thrown into exchange and you must shop for insurance from the exchange. The plan cannot add new people unless they are dependents of current subscribers, so the plan will die by attrition.
These points in addition to the unacceptable cost to the nation overall prevents me from even entertaining thoughts of supporting it.
7 comments:
I was just logging on to make a new post about the exact pages you quoted (15-18), specifically 16. I have been told and since read those pages and indeed what you have said is correct.
Obama is not lying when he says, "if you like your plan you can keep your plan." What he doesn't say is if your plan changes in anyway, then it is not the plan that you were previously in and therefore you must participate in this "exchange" or new government plan.
Also, under section 100.A (3)(d) of the bill for "purpose of the bill" it states, "so that all AMERICANS have coverage of essential health benefits. Two items here...first this rules out the illegals that are in our country but yet the uninsured numbers the admin put out there include the illegals. Secondly...essential health benefits are already guaranteed by law. No hospital can refuse life saving essential services from anyone as it is.
I should like to point out that this is not a CNN article. CNN is the on-line organ through which Fortune Magazine has chosen to have a web-presence. Fortune Magazine is a business magazine that is not centrist or leftward leaning, more of the opposite from what I have been able to understand. It is a Fortune Magazine article.
That is only a detail not worthy of much attention. But it is important to note that this is written by someone who is not neutral either.
Nevertheless, I understand Alan's concerns regarding points 3 and 4 as they are presented in the article and am tempted to suspend my support of the plan until these things are ironed out or until I hear a good rebuttal to this article. Whatever suspending my support might mean. My support or non-support for the plan is no importance. All three elected officials who represent me (Hatch, Bennett, Bishop) are all dead set against it. Even if I wrote to President Obama, it would be of no importance. Utah is such a red state that he has no interest in what people here think, regardless of what he does, Utah will never give its electoral votes to a Democrat in this political climate that has been and will continue to be polarized. Utah brings him nothing. Indiana, on the other hand, could be his and he visits it often. This is extremely typical politics for all candidates.
Now, some very important questions: just what are the exchanges? If I must go to an exchange, does that mean that Blue Cross/Blue Shield (my current insurer) can not participate in the exchange? Of course not, and of course they can and will. Does that mean that my school cannot contribute to my premium costs if not pay them entirely? Of course they can (must or pay a penalty!). It does mean that instead of the three BCBS plans available to me via my school offerings, I can shop more widely. That sounds good to me.
To have a fuller understanding of the article Alan cited, a rebuttal to it would be enlightening. There is always two sides to most such articles. Another interesting pursuit would be to understand the rhetoric behind five points criticized in the article. The rhetoric is not just to force everyone into a socialist system or even into a single payer morass.
Alan's position is well defined and persuasive. When a plan is presented that improves the current state of health care delivery, I hope we will all support it even if that means little coming from Utah.
I should like to point out that if changes however minor are made to current plans that end up chucking all employees into the exchange, the insuring companies will likely be smart enough to not make any changes. Something is weird in the logic here whether it be the bill itself or the interpretations.
I accept your correction that this is a Fortune Magazine article. I guess is something like the NY Times publishing AP articles (but we rarely pay attention to such a fact - we just say "I saw it in the NY Times.).
As far as I understand it, all plans in the exchange will be required to follow government rules and regulations, and they will be matched side by side with the government plan, which will obviously be cheaper than other plans. It seems obvious what the result of that will be.
Also, health insurance plans change details almost every year to meet current circumstances. It is unreasonable to ask health insurance companies to keep plans unchanged ad infinitum. This requirement is obviously designed to milk private insurance plans dry of subscribers and force everyone into the exchange.
Also, I sympathize with your representation dilemma. I experienced the same living in Minnesota, which is mostly a Democrat state. I never call congressional offices, because I know my voice is very likely ignored, whether my representatives are Dem or Rep. I make my voice heard on election day.
Public option reminds me of the the quality that one can find in HMO, which can be excellent or poor to very poor. I have the option for an HMO type insurance but am willing to pay for better. I think that many would see the public option in the same light and pay more. It would force the insurance companies to new levels of quality control and heightened competition which usually leads to a better product.
I make my voice heard on election day too. But when it comes to statewide elections, it seems a waste of my time, but I do it out of a sense of duty.
Sometimes, but by no means every time, I just punch the D to get out of there faster.
It seems odd to me that one would be forced out of a plan because there is a change. It doesn't pass the sniff test. I think that it might be required that one have the option to do so because of the change. That seems to make more sense. Is that not what the language of the famous pages allow for?
The language is so arcane it's hard to know what is really meant.
I would just like to make clarifying statement regarding my position. In a utopian world, I would not be against the public option, the utopian world being a world in which the government is run efficiently without fraud, but such is not the case. Fraud is rampant in Medicare and the government is one of the least efficient organizations ever devised by man. Also, we are in debt up to our eyeballs, so why would we want to compound that? So I would love to have a public option, but it seems fantastically reckless at this point.
I guess I see it as a necessity and that is why I am persistent. Government administers a great number of programs that we all benefit from a lot despite the waste involved in everyone of them. From the military to NASA to the CDC, only three among scores. Locally the UTA does not pay for itself but we all acknowledge its importance on a lot of levels, same for education. I guess I view the reform with the public option in this light.
I don't know that it can be a break-even proposition, but President Obama insists that it will save money in the long run and that it will be part of a balanced budget once established.
I guess we can't have all the reform I would like to see (have I been worn down by the arguments?), but I think that I must be content to know that we are at least on the path to meaningful reform even if it takes several administrations to work it all out.
The discussion has been good and not just for the health care issue, it reminds us all of how onerous policy making can be when we actually really pay attention!
I see your point about important and beneficial programs, and I could even accept such programs that run a deficit, but what it really comes down to for me is achieving the balanced budget that you mentioned and that Pres. Obama speaks of. In fact, if we could achieve a consistent and sustainable annual balanced budget, I could pretty much accept anything reasonable that the majority decides to do, but I don't trust politicians of either party to sincerely work toward such a budget. Call me a cynic, but I don't believe that most politicians have the good of the people in mind. Their main goal is to keep themselves in office and a balanced budget often works against that goal.
Post a Comment