However, the law was written to make sure that people could keep their insurance, that is the insurance that they had when the law was passed. The reporters in this story, themselves say “The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. “ And how is a regulation written by the Department of Human Services considered to have “narrowed” the provisions when it says that “if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date — the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example — the policy would not be grandfathered?” How can that be anything but a clarification of the existing intent that what was in effect, without any changes, will be acceptable and if anything changes the policy is not legal?
Then there is the mention in the article of “normal turnover” in the individual market affecting people’s ability to keep their policy (meaning 40 to 67 percent of customers will not be able to keep their policy). What would the Affordable Care Act have to do with “normal turnover” in the individual market?” So let’s get this straight. If the President, in talking about the Affordable Care Act while being under attack from conservatives for orchestrating a government takeover of healthcare, offers assurance about there being no government effort to force people to buy from the government or to give up their junk healthcare plans, he should be held accountable for “normal turnover.” The effects of normal turnover means he lied?
For those who are really concerned about premiums and healthcare cost, the fact is Americans would pay less for healthcare if they had more government involvement and not that provided by overmatched state insurance secretaries like the one in Mississippi who couldn’t even attempt to establish an exchange without Heritage and Cato coming in to stop it with the assistance of a Governor who won’t expand Medicaid to assist the most vulnerable and who has no problem with the indigent care expense being passed along to customers through higher prices, ignoring the available federal aid. The Japanese pay a substantially smaller part of their GDP for health care (8%, about half as much as the US) and a large part of the reason is that they have a government body (the Ministry of Health and Welfare), which acts on behalf of the Japanese healthcare customer. And we, in America, can’t even get a repeal of the McCarran Ferguson Act (antitrust law, something the RepubliCons never propose) to provide that supposedly beloved free-market benefit from competition because the big insurers like the banks run this place.
And then you have a flak, like Robert Laszewski of Health Policy and Strategy Associates (wonder if they get any insurance industry money), pointing a Jan-Brewer-finger-of-outrage at the administration because the insurance industry changed policies so that the policies couldn’t be grandfathered. So the President is to blame because he knew that the scumbags would do exactly what they did.
So when you see people complain about premiums rising and how they were better off before the Affordable Care Act, which makes available insurance which doesn’t discriminate or charge more based on pre-existing conditions, just remember that those premiums are brought to you by companies who have an anti-trust exemption. Remember that the pseudo defenders of free markets never brought you exchanges and never placed healthcare on their agenda the way they did privatization of Social Security(image the damage to seniors from the recent financial debacle) and sending the elderly into the private health care insurance market as an alternative to Medicare or place enough money in a health savings account to cover their care when they’re 75, like the great brain surgeon, Dr. Ben Carson advocates.