FINALLY, something not Bush's fault...
Posted on 10/29/2013 5:19:27 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The attention of the peripatetic political world has lurched suddenly from the dysfunctional rollout of the Obamacare website to the discovery — or, more accurately, rediscovery — that its functioning will roil the individual-health-care market. President Obama repeatedly promised that people would not lose their existing coverage as a result of his health-care plan. This lay somewhere between an oversimplification and a falsehood, as millions of Americans are facing exactly that prospect right now as the individual-insurance market complies with the law’s new regulations. Reports in Politico, the Los Angeles Times, and NBC News have added a tinge of revelatory shock to a development that experts on both sides long expected to happen.
The coverage architecture of the Affordable Care Act was designed to redress the plight of Americans lacking health security — either because they lacked any health insurance, or because the only insurance they could obtain was so skimpy it failed to make access to necessary medical care remotely affordable. Three quarters of medical bankruptcies, one of the main social disasters Obamacare was designed to prevent, happen to people who have insurance. But the insurance plans they have can not only exclude people with preexisting conditions, they can also impose caps on coverage — so people who incur a costly injury or disease can face sudden ruin — or block or delay promised benefits.
It’s significant that left-of-center-health care reformers lump together people who lack any health insurance with those who have the sorts of minimal plans that leave them exposed to enormous financial and medical risk. The pre-Obamacare individual insurance market does not function as an “insurance” market the way Medicare or employer-based insurance does. There’s little spreading of risk. Insurers pluck out people who are (and expect to remain) healthy, and avoid having to pay the freight for people with a higher chance of needing medical care.
Obamacare left the relatively well-functioning employer health-insurance market in place while turning the individual market into something more like employer-based insurance, where risk is spread. Obama’s promise that people could keep their insurance was intended to convey that those who already had insurance through their job or through Medicare would not be forced into the new health-care exchanges.
On the one hand, this failed to convey the blunt reality that people in the individual insurance market who had skimpy coverage and wanted to keep it could not. On the other hand, the administration never denied this fact. The designers of Obamacare straightforwardly believed that the regulation of the individual-health-insurance market was fully consistent with its promise, even though people already in that market were bound to face changes. Here, for instance, is a passage from a 2010 New York Times story:
In some respects, the rules appear to fall short of the sweeping commitments President Obama made while trying to reassure the public in the fight over health legislation. In issuing the rules, the administration said this was just one goal of the legislation, allowing people to “keep their current coverage if they like it.” It acknowledged that some people, especially those who work at smaller businesses, might face significant changes in the terms of their coverage, and it said they should be able to “reap the benefits of additional consumer protections.”
The 14 million people in the individual-insurance market may be a tiny percentage of the population, but it’s still a lot of people. As the start date for the new regulations looms at January 1, most of them are receiving cancellation notices. That is a terrifying experience in a country where the cancellation of health insurance has been a disastrous life event roughly on par with losing a job. They are receiving those notices because the regulations Obama promised, and which were the most popular parts of his plan — ending the lifetime caps, the preexisting condition discriminations, and other risk winnowing — ended the individual-insurance market as we know it.
Now, everybody in that market can obtain insurance that does protect them against catastrophe. But the promise of availability of more secure insurance — which remains logistically difficult or impossible to shop for in many places, and which does not begin for two more months anywhere — is hardly a consolation.
Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett last night offered up a spin on the wave of policy-cancellation stories that goes well beyond the original, ambiguous promise into sheer absurdity:
Of course Obamacare is the reason so many insurance companies are changing existing plans. When it was originally contemplated, several years away from implementation, the process of imposing regulations on the individual-health-insurance market did not feel like taking people’s health insurance away from them. In the current moment, with cancellation notices going out and alternatives not yet available, it feels exactly like that. Which is to say, a promise that felt like a mere oversimplification at the time, and may eventually feel like one in retrospect, currently feels like a lie.
the tea party forced O to lie?
since when does he need forcing, for goodness’ sakes!?
if there’s anything he does both instinctively and exceedingly well, its lying
Pathological ?
Does anyone recall an honest statement from this administration ?
just one. he did say he wanted to “transform Amerika”
Ooooooooo! Those evil TEA partiers!
Isn’t it odd that the Progressives who seek social justice, economic equality and who cry tears of blood for the unfortunate victims of exploitation lack the empathy to understand the distress of a working family or individual who cannot squeeze the money out of a very tight budget to pay medical plan premiums that have suddenly doubled or tripled? I guess the middle class is the real target because they show no signs of discomforting Jay Z or Madonna.
Begs the question:
If he had told the truth would the law have been passed?
If he had to lie to people to get it passed then he knew it was a bad law - or am I missing something here?
FINALLY, something not Bush's fault...
While I don't think that this article really goes there, the idea that is spreading (see Juan Williams' excuses last week) are of a disturbing trend.
Restated, what they are really saying is that Democrats are forced to lie by virtue of having to run against others in elections to keep their jobs.
If only Republicans didn't oppose them in elections, Democrat candidates wouldn't have to openly lie about their intentions and their records in response to others who want their jobs, and who offer different opinions, experiences, and skills.
-PJ
I imagine the conversation between the writer and his editor went something like this:
“OK Johnathan, the big guy stuck his foot in it again—he promised people they would be able to keep their health plans and not only said it endlessly but was damned unequivocal.
“I hate to ask it of you again, but we need you to try and square this circle.”
“Damn Ed! You promised me last time .... my credibility, I mean, look at Carney! Now anything else ...” Jonathan Chait
“It’s not a request. Just throw as much as you can up against the wall.”
“Which is to say, a promise that felt like a mere oversimplification at the time, and may eventually feel like one in retrospect, currently feels like a lie.”
—
The last sentence sums this mess up.
.
Tea Partiers are the new Tommyknockers, goblins, and gremlins all rolled into one. Anything that goes wrong is caused by those dang Tea Partiers...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.