Scripture certainly hints in that direction, though some scholars suggest that it only applied to Phyllis Stein.
Strange that it rarely gets referenced in vampire fiction.
Okay, very well. You have convinced me that there were some crappy health insurance plans on the market. I do trust Consumer Reports. And I won’t even mention that CR has advised people to stay away from healthcare.gov at present.
Now note: the current debate about cancelled health plans concerns only plans in the individual market. All the chaos that’s erupted in the first six weeks of Obamacare has been in the individual market, while the much larger employer-based insurance market got a one year reprieve. The Consumer Reports article that you linked to deals only with plans in the employer-based market, not the individual market, so it’s irrelevant.
To recap the conversation thus far. Four years ago:
Obama: “If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor.”
Skeptics: That’s obviously a lie.
Now:
Skeptics: See. Millions of people are losing their plans. Obama lied.
Those remaining among Obama’s Kool-aid drinkers: Actually it’s good thing that all these people are losing their plans, because the plans were terrible anyway. [Example]
Skeptics: Cite, please?
We skeptics are not looking for a repetition of the excuse. We’re looking for some evidence that the excuse is true. In his OP, Stratocaster asked two questions. (1) What exactly defines a plan as substandard? (2) What percentage of the plans that got eliminated are substandard? None of the Obamacare fans who are making these excuses have been able to provide answers. Are you willing to.
I can understand why people with children might be treated as one large pool, but why charge people without children, as well. My friend has a boat and has to pay insurance on it. Should I, without a boat, be asked to add to the “pool”?
How many ways are there to try to weasel out of social obligations?
If you’re part of society, and I assume you are, then even if you do not have children and will never have children, is it difficult to understand and accept that someone else’s children will be paying for your social security and medicare benefits once you retire and have no income of your own?
Part of the reason for the more homogeneous pools was to virtually eliminate underwriting from the process. This reduces the overall cost to society by eliminating the overhead and preventing the shunting of people into state-paid care, while also creating some winners (generally, the unhealthy) and losers (generally, the healthy).
The other reason to minimize underwriting is to reduce the ability for insurers to use complicated underwriting to avoid payment for big claims. Lots of insurance would pay just fine if you were in 99% of the population that didn’t have some huge illness or accident, but once you had a very large claim they would pay someone to go through your application with a fine-toothed comb to find any excuse to rescind. This–along with limiting rescission to issues material to the actual claim–will hopefully mean that if something terrible happens the coverage you like will actually be there for you. The market was doing a pretty poor job of this. I would guess that very few people know off the top of their heads which health insurers had the highest rates of rescission.
That sounds great and all, but it’s such a generic justification that can be used for any program that might tangentially benefit “children.”
It’s not your “social obligation” to take care of my kid as a matter of law. It might be a moral obligation if I’m down and out financially or health wise, but it is simple theft for me to demand that you pay for my kid, backed up by the power of the state.
You may argue that everyone pays school taxes because education is important to the next generation to pay social security. Now, health care. What next? When we advocate socializing all of these and more and more other costs, why is it shocking when some on the right say that the Democratic party is becoming…socialists?
It’s not shocking at all that some on the right would say that. Some of the right have been saying that for so long and with such minor provocation, it inspires boredom long before shock.
Personally, I see Canada’s single-payer system as an example of enlightened self-interest, even with its flaws.
A. There were school taxes before there was SS, and B. The source of the obligation to pay them is not merely financial anyway.
Why is it “shocking” to think you’re part of a society to which you have obligations, and which in turn has obligations to you? Or that strengthening that net of mutual obligations is good for all of us as individuals as well as for all of us collectively? Why is the idea that sudden medical catastrophe or even basic health is a matter of luck, not preparation or morality, and that limiting the destruction it can cause shocking? Why is “socialist” even considered a negative word for you?
I understand that “socialist” has become the enemy du jour like “communist” during the cold war. I understand it’s a frightening idea, particularly among those who fetishize the word “freedom”.
What does the word “socialism” mean to you?
I get really irritated with people offering products and services and then having ‘holes’ or ‘exceptions’ to that service.
If you, for example, pick up my garbage as your serivice then pick up my frackin garbage! Don’t send me letters that I shouldn’t put this or that in it (and no these aren’t dangerous materials). Thank Og they finally got that straightened out via lawsuit.
If you offer medical insurance than fracking cover sick people! If you don’t wish to cover someone because they might get sick our have a history of sickness then don’t offer frackin medical insurance! Sell burgers or something.
Sorry, just tired of all the crap. If you are going to do something then just do it…don’t not do it to save a buck. If you can’t do it right then leave the field to someone who can.
{As you can tell I look more favorably on ObamaCare and Elucidator than many others in this thread 
}
Yes, but you still haven’t answered the question.
If you like the elucidator you have, you can keep your elucidator. No one is going to make you give him up.
Wobblies. The industrial proletariat. Running dog jackals of the ruling class. Conservatives so busy dancing on the grave of the Soviet Union that they don’t even notice that the world passes them by.
If “socialism” is defined by universal health care it means just about everybody in the world but us.
I might. Early on, I got very comfortable with the idea that my notions were so radical no one would take them seriously. But over time, more and more of them have been downloaded and installed, becoming, well, “normal”.
Kinda creeps me out, truth be known. Shut up, memory…
PS: John, what a perfect opportunity for a rick-roll link! Maybe you didn’t think of it, maybe you have good taste and standards. Either way, kind of a shame…
What are you? Some kind of conservative? 
Next you’ll be telling us that David Cameron has a better handle on health care than Barack Obama :smack:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/18/students-suffer-sticker-shock-from-obamacare/#
In the end, the school decided to drop the policy for all of its 5,500 enrollees. Students were notified of the dropped coverage on the school’s website.
“Bowie State University has suspended offering health insurance for domestic students for the 2013-2014 academic year,” according to the school’s official website. “Due to new requirements of the Affordable Care Act which will go into effect on January 1, 2014, the cost of insurance for domestic students will increase to approximately $1800 per year.”
2014 will be a fun election year.
Googled Bowie State University, for shits and giggles. Front page has three iterations of this story, one from Fox News, one from Red Alert Politics, one from NewsBusters. Red Alert Politics? Who dat dere? Never heard of them. Ah! Turns out, “An online publication written by young conservatives for young conservatives.”. Well, all right then.
So, who’s the source on this? Newsbusters or the Fox? Interestingly, the bulk of the story on Newsbusters is about how awful it is that nobody is talking about it.
The linked story from the Washington TV station, covering the local news in Maryland, is interesting. Brief, but interesting. I can’t criticize for a lack of careful reading of the source material, since it involves digging a whole two levels down, but this part is interesting:
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=282845
And this
.
Wherein expert testimony is offered. And one further wonders just what “bare bones” health insurance means. It is not, perhaps, the most artful wording.
And finally, Terr, how is it you are so strident in condemning alleged “failures” of Obamacare when, to all appearances, failure is precisely what you want?
The exchange offers cheaper care than any of the plans my daughter’s school, Temple University, offers. And, especially at her income level, copays are a lot less.
FoxNews accidentally forget to mention that, because Maryland cooperates with ACA, and unless Bowie students have the world’s most lucrative part-time jobs, they can get most of the new premium refunded at tax time.
This makes junk policies sound good.
My crappy, non-compliant health plan:
100% coverage in network for primary care, $0 copay, $0 deductible
100% coverage in network for hospitalization, $0 copay, $0 deductible
100% coverage of necessary hotel and public transport (airfare, taxi) expenses for approved specialist care not offered locally.
100% coverage emergency room, $0 copay, $0 deductible
100% prescription drug coverage on formulary, $0 copay, $0 deductible
100% routine dental cleanings, x-rays, and fillings, $0 copay, $0 deductible
50% major dental procedures (braces, implants, dentures)
100% vision coverage for corrective lenses (glasses or contacts), $0 copay, $0 deductible (limit 1 set glasses per 2 years - frames not covered at all)
Seems pretty generous, so why would it not be compliant?
My crappy health plan does not meet the following Preventative Care Benefits deemed essential minimal coverage required under PPACA:
[ul]
[li]Aspirin* use to prevent cardiovascular disease for men and women of certain ages[/li]
[li]Folic Acid supplements* for women who may become pregnant[/li]
[li]Contraception***: Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, as prescribed by a health care provider for women with reproductive capacity (not including abortifacient drugs). This does not apply to health plans sponsored by certain exempt “religious employers.” [/li]
[li]Fluoride chemoprevention supplements** for children without fluoride in water.[/li]
[li]Iron supplements* for children ages 6 to 12 months at risk for anemia[/li][/ul]
That’s it.
I’d rather keep my crappy health plan**** just the way it is. I’ll buy the condoms, aspirin and other OTC supplements out of pocket and stick with $0 deductible for those costs I feel I really need to be insured against. Thanks.
- These are deemed non-prescription drugs readily available over the counter and thus not covered by my crappy health plan.
** Public piped water supplies in my health plan area are fluoridated but some homes rely on well water. Fluoride rinses are covered under dental care. Oral supplements are not covered.
*** Medical appointments for contraception counseling are covered. Prescription drugs are covered, including oral contraception pills. Non-prescription contraceptives which are considered a part of the minimal essential coverage under PPACA are not covered under my crappy health plan.
****[spoiler]Gratefully, I get to keep my crappy health plan. I’m not in the United States so the PPACA does not apply here.
I posted this to show that even a health plan with very generous coverage may not comply in some ways with PPACA requirements for minimal essential coverage.
[/spoiler]