Insurance canceled? Don't blame Obama or the ACA, blame America's insurance companies

[JanT]

Source: FOX news

"The fact is if you are one of the estimated 2 million Americans whose health insurance plans may have been cancelled this month, you should not be blaming President Obama or the Affordable Care Act.

You should be blaming your insurance company because they have not been providing you with coverage that meets the minimum basic standards for health care."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/05/insurance-cancelled-dont-blame-obama-or-aca-blame-america-insurance-companies/

---

makes me wonder how many FAUX news watchers will say this is propaganda?

[MoreGOPoop]

1. OMG!

Has Fox become slightly less unbalanced lately?

[Scairp]

11. Excuse me?

Did they really say something POSITIVE and also TRUE about the Affordable Care Act?!! No way, I don't believe it. This has to be a joke, or some form of sarcasm on their part.

[sakabatou]

2. Hell has official frozen over. Fox "News" said something that's true!

[cilla4progress]

3. Blame the whole damn industry!

Or capitalism!

These companies "have to" make a profit...for their shareholders.

F****ed up system.

[AndyA]

9. That's the problem with everything related to health care: profit

You simply cannot configure a way for a private, for profit corporation to be involved in health care without it compromising people's health. It cannot happen. Single payer is the only way to remove the profit mandate from the picture.

Why does Congress have to protect the health care industry? Let it go the way of pagers and pay phones. The health insurers need to update their business plan, or go away. They've sucked enough out of people over the years.

[EC]

4. read the comments

all of them disagreed. A bunch of stupid people watch and believe in Fox.

[Dollface]

5. Heads were exploding every which way. Juan went all factual on their asses.

There were a few defenders of the article commenting. I think they were just having fun.

[Roy Rolling]

7. Comments

I read the comments...many were blatantly racist and the rest were blatantly political. It is a sad commentary about what happens when ignorant and bigoted people are given easy access to express their opinions under the cover of anonymity.

[Lancero]

6. Republicans have to believe it now!

Fox News says he's innocent, so he must be!

And wait a couple of days for the announcement about how 'we were mistaken' about the report.

[cosmicone]

8. I just saw two pigs flying.... n/t

[PSPS]

10. Few people were "blaming" Obama

I posted my own experience with this before and, as usual, got slammed by the swooners who thought I was holding Obama personally responsible for this. That's just silly.

As I've pointed out before, this seems to be affecting only those with an individual policy (i.e., self-employed, like me.) Since I'm healthy, make enough money, and have no pre-existing conditions, I was happy with my policy, such as it was. To keep it affordable, I had a high deductible with no dental/vision/prescription coverage.

Under ACA, a policy with the same overall parameters (i.e., high deductible and no dental/vision/prescription) will cost about double the premium. Of course, this is because the old pre-ACA policy wasn't up to ACA standards. The replacement policy has more benefits, although I will never use them. While I'd rather not spend several hundred dollars more every month, I understand how this works and accept it as unavoidable.

The problem is that these individual policies are being priced according to various parameters related to the policy holder, such as age, location, sex, etc. In other words, it is outside the proper health insurance model of pooled risk. When you begin to price a policy based on the individual rather than the pool, you end up with people like me paying far more than we should (and others paying less than they should.)

The reason this isn't happening to employer-provided plans is because those are priced more on pooled risk (of the group.) The company pays a fixed amount per employee regardless of their age, location, sex and even pre-existing condition. The ACA should have extended the benefits of group coverage to the individual market. The "exchanges" would be one way to accomplish this by creating its own pool but it was designed specifically to avoid this. Thus, those in the individual market continue to get screwed.

To hear the media (and the swooners) defend this, we get "oh, that's 'only' a few million people." Well, gee. Thanks!

[libdem4life]

12. It's not long before what we used to call The Hundredth Monkey. The evidence reaches a certain point

at which the situation can no longer be denied, and it very quickly then becomes accepted fact.

I think that Fox News acknowledgment is the beginning of that point. There is too much anecdotal evidence mounting to deny it. The benefits come to aid a family member, a work associate, a friend, someone at church. It soon touches someone you know, and it becomes real. Much different than even Food Stamps or Welfare. The real ACA ... not the silly website debacle ... cuts across race, class, party affiliation, even finances.

[quadrature]

13. who decides what is 'good enough' for someone else?

who decides if men need maternity coverage?

Fox News?
somebody else?

[quadrature]

14. ICs rejoice, get rid of your sick! ...

attn : insurance companies

the ACA lets you can get rid of undesireables
by making meaningless changes in their policy.

everybody wins.