I know a lot of people waiting for help with health care. I have a son who is only insured because the Affordable Care Act (ACA) lets us keep him on our family policy to age 26. I have a brother-in-law, friends and acquaintances with individual policies who want cheaper, more comprehensive coverage. I have many friends with pre-existing conditions who will now be able to get insurance.
But you’d never know it from the daily news. One month into ACA’s initial six-month enrollment period and crisis ensues. Frankly, I’m crisis’d out.
First, did we really think a web site designed to interface with multiple other government AND private organizations’ sites would work seamlessly? How often do Facebook changes gum up its operation, and people threaten to abandon it forever? It hasn’t happened yet.
And, have you ever called your health insurer to get approval for a procedure or medication? How many menus and people did you go through to get an answer? Did we really expect this to be simple?
Second, the web site is not the only way to enroll. People can call to enroll, or print forms off the web site and mail them in. They can also locate a navigator in their area and sit down with a person to go through the process.
But I don’t hear about these options in major media reporting. Instead, they report on the problems with the web site and on individuals whose current policies are being replaced with more expensive (and more comprehensive) plans. Unfortunately, they often leave out the rest of the story . . .
As Joan McCarter writes on Daily Kos: “They're not telling people they can shop around for a better deal. Which is precisely the point of the health insurance exchanges. These insurers are betting that people will go the route of least resistance, and just fork up the money for the plan they're being pushed toward. . . . They're going to squeeze whatever extra money they can get out of people because that's what they do.”
This week’s case in point comes from CBS News. They reported about a woman in Florida, Dianne Barrette, whose $50 a month health “insurance” was replaced with a $591 plan.
Erik Wemple described Barrette’s current policy as a “pray-that-you-don’t-really-get-sick plan” and writes on his blog: “More coverage [reporting] may provide a deeper understanding of the ins and outs of Barrette’s situation: Her current health insurance plan, she says, doesn’t cover ‘extended hospital stays; it’s not designed for that,’ says Barrette. Well, does it cover any hospitalization? ‘Outpatient only,’ responds Barrette. Nor does it cover ambulance service and some prenatal care.”
Yet Barrette, who earns about $30,000 annually, could get better coverage and subsidies to pay for it via the health care exchanges.
Like my friends and neighbors frustrated by the letters they’re getting from their insurers, I’m frustrated by the lack of constructive information coming from media and our politicians. At a time when real people need help, they are rooting for failure. We don’t need shoddy news reports and hearings designed to point fingers. We need information about how to sign up for better, more affordable coverage.
The Affordable Care Act is law like Social Security and Medicare. It is regulation enacted to prevent consumers from being bankrupted by health care emergencies and profit-seeking insurers. Either help or get out of the way.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Senator Grassley's no vote: Who drank the tea?
So I wondered when I awoke Thursday morning to news Congress had narrowly avoided crashing the economy by passing a temporary measure to fund our government and raise the debt ceiling. With this news, local TV stations were reporting Senator Charles Grassley had voted against the measure. (Steve King, unsurprisingly, did too.)
What’s up with that, Senator Grassley?
In a search for answers, I checked the Senator’s web site for a statement about his vote. Here’s a portion: “Government spending has exploded since 2008, increasing the national debt by $6 trillion. Obamacare is a drag on the economy and hurting workers' ability to find full-time jobs.”
This is false, or at best, misleading. Let me count the ways.
1. Government spending: A March 2013 article from the Economic Policy Institute titled, “Forget Spending Cuts, the U.S. Economy Really Needs a $2 Trillion Stimulus,” states:
“This economic forecast [CBO 2013-2023] showcases the results of the misguided framing and resolution of the ‘fiscal cliff’ debate and the more recent sequestration fight. Near-term deficit reduction intrinsically works against restoring full employment, and obsessing with medium- to long-term deficit reduction diverts policymakers’ focus from the jobs crisis at hand.”
2. National debt: In an April 2013 post entitled “Policy Basics: Deficits, Debt & Interest,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted: “Raising the debt limit does not directly alter the amount of federal borrowing or spending going forward. Rather, it allows the government to pay for spending on programs and services that Congress has already approved. Nor is the need to raise the debt limit a reliable indicator of the soundness of budget policy.”
3. As I’ve outlined in recent columns, the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is funded mostly by cost savings and new revenue outside the appropriations process. Again, see Sarah Kliff’s post at Wonkblog on Aug. 30, 2012. Additionally, rather than creating a drag on the economy, the regulations under ACA will help control health care costs and thus help the economy grow long term.
4. Obamacare does not limit workers’ ability to find full-time jobs. Again, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities debunks this claim in a report posted earlier this month, stating in one subhead: “Data Don’t Support Claim of Big Shift to Part-Time Work. Instead the report points out: “The fact is, it’s too early to know how health reform will ultimately affect the amount of part-time work. But there’s every reason to expect the impact to be small as a share of total employment.”
Daily Kos diarist Mets102 wrote about voting for default in a post entitled, “162 Republicans to America and World: Drop Dead.” The post explained: “The global economic system is based upon the premise that the debt of the United States Government is, for all intents and purposes, a riskless investment. To call that premise into question is upend the global economy. Overnight, stock markets across the globe would crash. The retirement savings of tens of millions of Americans would begin to disappear, whether those savings are from 401k's and like vehicles or from defined pension plans. . . . The results that would flow from default would be catastrophic.”
Catastrophe – that’s what Senator Charles Grassley and Representative Steve King voted for. Not to stabilize the economy, protect the nation or help their constituents. They voted for the Tea Party.
Time to quit drinking the tea.
What’s up with that, Senator Grassley?
In a search for answers, I checked the Senator’s web site for a statement about his vote. Here’s a portion: “Government spending has exploded since 2008, increasing the national debt by $6 trillion. Obamacare is a drag on the economy and hurting workers' ability to find full-time jobs.”
This is false, or at best, misleading. Let me count the ways.
1. Government spending: A March 2013 article from the Economic Policy Institute titled, “Forget Spending Cuts, the U.S. Economy Really Needs a $2 Trillion Stimulus,” states:
“This economic forecast [CBO 2013-2023] showcases the results of the misguided framing and resolution of the ‘fiscal cliff’ debate and the more recent sequestration fight. Near-term deficit reduction intrinsically works against restoring full employment, and obsessing with medium- to long-term deficit reduction diverts policymakers’ focus from the jobs crisis at hand.”
2. National debt: In an April 2013 post entitled “Policy Basics: Deficits, Debt & Interest,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted: “Raising the debt limit does not directly alter the amount of federal borrowing or spending going forward. Rather, it allows the government to pay for spending on programs and services that Congress has already approved. Nor is the need to raise the debt limit a reliable indicator of the soundness of budget policy.”
3. As I’ve outlined in recent columns, the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is funded mostly by cost savings and new revenue outside the appropriations process. Again, see Sarah Kliff’s post at Wonkblog on Aug. 30, 2012. Additionally, rather than creating a drag on the economy, the regulations under ACA will help control health care costs and thus help the economy grow long term.
4. Obamacare does not limit workers’ ability to find full-time jobs. Again, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities debunks this claim in a report posted earlier this month, stating in one subhead: “Data Don’t Support Claim of Big Shift to Part-Time Work. Instead the report points out: “The fact is, it’s too early to know how health reform will ultimately affect the amount of part-time work. But there’s every reason to expect the impact to be small as a share of total employment.”
Daily Kos diarist Mets102 wrote about voting for default in a post entitled, “162 Republicans to America and World: Drop Dead.” The post explained: “The global economic system is based upon the premise that the debt of the United States Government is, for all intents and purposes, a riskless investment. To call that premise into question is upend the global economy. Overnight, stock markets across the globe would crash. The retirement savings of tens of millions of Americans would begin to disappear, whether those savings are from 401k's and like vehicles or from defined pension plans. . . . The results that would flow from default would be catastrophic.”
Catastrophe – that’s what Senator Charles Grassley and Representative Steve King voted for. Not to stabilize the economy, protect the nation or help their constituents. They voted for the Tea Party.
Time to quit drinking the tea.
Obamacare vs. ACA: What works for you?
Last week as the government shut down and enrollment for the new health care exchanges began, I was amused to discover a friend’s Facebook post. In it, a correspondent from the Jimmie Kimmel show asked people on the street: “Which is better, Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act?”
It became obvious very quickly that many people don’t know they are one and the same thing. Consequently, they also had little idea what the duly passed and Supreme Court-upheld law does.
First, the law has been taking effect gradually. As the Department of Health and Human Services outlines on its site:
• 2010 – A Patient’s Bill of Rights and cost-free preventative coverage for most Americans went into effect. These features protect consumers from the worst abuses of insurers and eliminate out-of-pocket expenses for preventive practices like physicals. Young people up to age 26 can stay on their parents’ insurance.
• 2011 – People on Medicare began to receive no-cost preventative care and a discount on brand name drugs in the donut hole.
• 2012 – Programs like Accountable Care Organizations began work to help doctors, hospitals and clinics work together to provide better health care.
• 2013 – Health care exchanges opened and the enrollment period began, allowing more Americans access to affordable health insurance.
• 2014 – Health insurance plans via the exchanges go into effect as early as Jan. 1, and tax credits and subsidies will help small businesses and individuals afford coverage that was previously unaffordable.
I recommend you visit the site to view the full list of benefits for each year.
Additionally, Ezra Klein outlined 11 facts about ACA in a June 2012 post on the Washington Post’s Wonkblog. Some highlights include:
• By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the ACA will have extended health coverage to 33 million people who were previously uninsured.
• Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
• Insurance companies are required to spend 80-85 percent of every premium dollar on medical care instead of advertising, administration and marketing.
As Klein notes in his post, much of his information came from the Kaiser Family Foundation and their excellent summary of the law. I also recommend visiting this site, as Kaiser has done much of the earliest, deepest and best research on the law and its effects.
Finally, myths about ACA have been swirling since before it was passed, and as usual, my old standby, Factcheck.org, does some of the best work sifting truth from fiction on its Obamacare Myths page. For example, Factcheck rates the current rumor that Congress is exempt from ACA as “False.”
Factcheck writes: “Congress isn’t exempt from the law. In fact, members and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. Beginning in 2014, they can no longer get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they and other federal employees have done. Instead, they are required to get insurance through the insurance exchanges.”
ACA was designed to help people like us, and though it’s far from perfect, it does. To learn more, attend a community conversation on ACA at 5:30 p.m., Thurs., Oct. 10 at the Red Oak Fire Station. Come hear local people, some you may know, share their own health insurance stories and how ACA will affect them.
It became obvious very quickly that many people don’t know they are one and the same thing. Consequently, they also had little idea what the duly passed and Supreme Court-upheld law does.
First, the law has been taking effect gradually. As the Department of Health and Human Services outlines on its site:
• 2010 – A Patient’s Bill of Rights and cost-free preventative coverage for most Americans went into effect. These features protect consumers from the worst abuses of insurers and eliminate out-of-pocket expenses for preventive practices like physicals. Young people up to age 26 can stay on their parents’ insurance.
• 2011 – People on Medicare began to receive no-cost preventative care and a discount on brand name drugs in the donut hole.
• 2012 – Programs like Accountable Care Organizations began work to help doctors, hospitals and clinics work together to provide better health care.
• 2013 – Health care exchanges opened and the enrollment period began, allowing more Americans access to affordable health insurance.
• 2014 – Health insurance plans via the exchanges go into effect as early as Jan. 1, and tax credits and subsidies will help small businesses and individuals afford coverage that was previously unaffordable.
I recommend you visit the site to view the full list of benefits for each year.
Additionally, Ezra Klein outlined 11 facts about ACA in a June 2012 post on the Washington Post’s Wonkblog. Some highlights include:
• By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the ACA will have extended health coverage to 33 million people who were previously uninsured.
• Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
• Insurance companies are required to spend 80-85 percent of every premium dollar on medical care instead of advertising, administration and marketing.
As Klein notes in his post, much of his information came from the Kaiser Family Foundation and their excellent summary of the law. I also recommend visiting this site, as Kaiser has done much of the earliest, deepest and best research on the law and its effects.
Finally, myths about ACA have been swirling since before it was passed, and as usual, my old standby, Factcheck.org, does some of the best work sifting truth from fiction on its Obamacare Myths page. For example, Factcheck rates the current rumor that Congress is exempt from ACA as “False.”
Factcheck writes: “Congress isn’t exempt from the law. In fact, members and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. Beginning in 2014, they can no longer get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they and other federal employees have done. Instead, they are required to get insurance through the insurance exchanges.”
ACA was designed to help people like us, and though it’s far from perfect, it does. To learn more, attend a community conversation on ACA at 5:30 p.m., Thurs., Oct. 10 at the Red Oak Fire Station. Come hear local people, some you may know, share their own health insurance stories and how ACA will affect them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
