Reports Of Your Insurance Plan's Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

There’s something I have to get off my chest.

Human interest stories about people whose insurance costs are "skyrocketing" under the ACA are starting to blossom. These articles are at best misstating what’s going on or--at worst--deliberately misleading consumers about the Obamacare changes. If I may:

1) Most Americans--including me--are insured by their employers who, in turn, get tax incentives to subsidize their employees' insurance. In my case, I pay about 20% of my premium. My employer covers about 80% of my total plan's cost. That's pretty typical. 

My cost is going up by about $20 next January. Is that annoying? Yes. Is it good for me? Yes! To comply with the ACA my insurance has to change to cover pediatric care (including vision & dental); emergency services and hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; lab services; rehabilitative care; preventative care including free screenings and physicals; mental health and substance abuse treatment; and prescription drug coverage. 

Plus! There's no lifetime cap on benefits and they can't terminate or change my plan suddenly if, say, one of us got sick. Or it's possible my son will need treatment for dyspraxia. Before the ACA, there was a lifetime cap on how much treatment my insurance would pay for. Or consider someone with a chronic disease. Now that person can't exhaust their benefits. 

I mention this because it's the insurance most people are familiar with. About 80% of people with insurance have policies subsidized by their employers. So, when they see stories about rising premiums and see their own premiums increase, like mine, they're undoubtedly concerned. 

There's a second type of market, though. Individual plans for the self-employed or for people who don't have an employer-provided plan. 

Importantly, this market hasn't been "in the light," so to speak. A lot of the complications and changes that are getting media attention are simply things on the individual market seeing the light of day.

Which brings me to...

2) The policies being cancelled are mostly limited to the individual market. A lot of them are low premium, high deductible plans with low lifetime caps. For instance, some plans might be $56 a month. But they cover, essentially, nothing. If a person with a catastrophic plan like that gets sick they're shit outta luck. Their insurance might pay, say, $10,000 (being generous) and the rest of the $200,000 falls on the patient's shoulders. 

The policies are being cancelled because they don't meet the minimum requirements under the ACA. Those plans have to actually, you know, provide benefits. These junk plans are grandfathered if they existed before March, 2010 and haven't changed since. 

So, I understand the sticker shock and I get the frustration when people see premiums go from $70 a month to maybe $300 or more. 

On the other hand, the ACA offers a federally funded expansion of Medicaid for low income families, children, and the elderly. Almost all Democratic state legislatures have expanded the coverage and are accepting the additional funds. Some Republican-controlled states like Ohio have expanded Medicaid and are accepting the funds. Most Republican states have not. So their residents are going to be stuck between getting Medicaid and getting help paying for a private plan. 

Which is another major point. Depending on someone's income, the sticker price of a private plan isn't what someone would actually pay. Someone getting a $400 a month plan might qualify for subsidies that lower their monthly total to $80 a month. Much easier to handle. 

Still an extra cost? Yes. But, much cheaper than betting against getting sick, having a child, needing medication, or having an accident. Statistically speaking it's like betting red on a roulette table with only four red spots.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the concerns. And even the idea that you should be "free" not to buy insurance and take that bet. But, if you do, you're only making everyone else's bills higher.

It's frustrating that the headlines are *technically* correct but extremely misleading. They don't mention those expanded benefits. They don't point out that insurers canceling plans or raising costs exponentially are private insurers padding their bottom lines. Or, in some cases, trying to defraud their customers (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insurance-companies-misleading-letters-obamacare).

End rant.

Put Down The Scissors

Everyone should be talking about the House Progressives' budget proposal. Not everyone agrees that we need to cut, cut, cut to reduce America’s deficit.

America doesn't have a spending problem. We have an investment problem. Despite the popular trope, a government budget is not the same as a household budget. We need to stop thinking of it as grocery list and think of it as a form of mutual fund.

We as taxpayers pay the government and, in turn, the government invests money to produce a return for the taxpayers. The discussion should not be, “what to cut.” The discussion we need to have is, “what to invest in.”

"We have been here before." Graphic CC Sean Thornton

It's not a waste of money to invest in bridges, roads, and schools. Programs like WIC, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid contribute to the general welfare of the country. Bridge and road projects create jobs, contribute to public safety, and help spur business development in new areas. Schools can create the next generation of software programmers or engineers that can help America compete in a crowded global market.

Our investment in defense is wasteful. We invest more in defense than the next 13 countries combined. What return are we seeing on that? It’s wasteful to invest almost $4 trillion in a decade long war in a country that posed no threat. It’s wasteful to continue spending $1.5 trillion on an over-budget fighter jet that can’t fly without knocking out its pilots.

We need jobs. We need well-paying jobs that provide people a living wage. We need to make sure people can afford health care. We live in the richest nation in the world. There is no excuse for children to go hungry or die from preventable diseases here.

People are a good investment. People are the smartest investment America can make. But it’s a responsible investment that the "party of fiscal responsibility" doesn't believe in.

Fiscal responsibility isn't about cutting spending and being afraid of taxes. It's about using our money in ways that will do the most good. We can get a solid return on our investments. But only if we choose the right priorities.

Fun With Guns

First, let me say that gun control is a dead topic.

Democrats aren't touching and only the most dedicated progressives are making any noise about it. Well, and dedicate gun nuts.

Personally, I think that gun control is an important part of crime reduction. But, not nearly as important as educational and economic improvements. For everyone.

But the reactionary and downright delusional overreach on gun rights is absurd.

But, seriously, what are people thinking? Allowing guns in bars. "Stand your ground" laws that make it nearly impossible to prosecute shooters. Allowing guns in schools. Absurd.

This article from Mother Jones discusses looser restrictions, here. http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/map-gun-laws-2009-2012

Common sense just tells you that no one needs to be drinking in public with a concealed weapon. People with a history of violent crime should be screened out of gun ownership. Most felons lose their right to vote. Why not the right to bear arms?

There have been absolutely zero attempts to expand gun control over the last decade. What, exactly, are these laws reacting to?

Your Moral Exemption is my Objection

So, how do these "moral exemption" laws work?

So, if my employer has a "moral objection" to birth control, they don't have to cover it with their benefits package, right?

Say I work for a Jehovah's Witness. Can they refuse to cover blood transfusions? How about Christian Scientists? We can just refuse all medical procedures on "moral grounds."

Moreover, isn't this tantamount to telling employees what they can and can't buy with their compensation? Health insurance IS part of any competitive compensation package, after all.

If my employer objects to alcohol, should I take up a paper route to pay for beer?

I'm confused. This all seems very arbitrary to me.

Compassionate Conservatives: We recognize your pain.

I can't wait for "Compassionate Conservatism" to make a comeback.

It's going to be great. The idea that Republicans haven't been failing minorities, gays, workers, the poor, and youth--you know, most of America. They've just been messaging it the wrong way.

It needs repackaged. What the GOP really needs to do is reintroduce the ideologies and policies that have left so many people behind over the last decade. But, friendlier. Explain it in simpler terms.

Show Americans that, despite all evidence to the contrary, low tax rates for the rich really have benefitted minorities. Gutting regulations really has resulted in safer, cleaner air. Global warming is just a myth. The BP Gulf oil spill wasn't a perfect example of companies ignoring regulations, safety, and warnings to maximize profits. It was really a risky business opportunity that didn't pan out.

The lives of the workers that survived were greatly improved. The economic hit on the Gulf coast, the untold amount of dead marine life, and the workers who were killed were just unfortunate situations.

Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

Keeping wages low for Americans really is a way to ensure more opportunities for employment. In fact, when we gut minimum wage requirements, there will be even more opportunities.

And don't worry about food stamps and Medicaid. The programs you rely on because of the opportunities those wages create. They're really just holding you back.

Plus, the free market that's been denying you care for preexisting conditions (such as pregnancy, doanchaknow) will adjust. As long as there's profit to be had.

All in all, you'll be better off with Compassionate Conservatism at the helm. We hear your problems. And we all have friends that have been inconvenienced by your pain.

We're from the free market and we'll continue to help. (For a small fee.)

The Princes and the Paupers. (And the taxes.)

We can’t talk about budgets and deficits without addressing taxes.  That’s the supposed impasse in Washington right now.

The reason to support tax increases over benefit cuts as a way to decrease the deficit is simply this: Corporations and the wealthy benefit the most from entitlements.

That sounds contradictory.  It’s really not.  Articles like this and this explain why.  Wal Mart can make $6 billion in net income as the economy limps along.  Wal Mart’s average wage is around $11.75 an hour.  That’s about $21,000 a year if you assume the workers are full time.  Which, most of Wal Mart workers aren’t.

The problem here is that the Walton family--like CEOs, presidents, and board members across the country--are raking in cash while their workers aren’t.  Setting aside taxes for the moment, these profits are only possible because companies like McDonald’s, Home Depot, and Wal Mart offer paltry benefits if they offer any at all.

The lack of benefits and low incomes hit employees with a double whammy.  Low incomes force employees to seek out SNAP benefits.  14% of food service employees are on food stamps.  Without benefits, employees utilize Medicaid or, if they’re eligible, Medicare.

Meanwhile, Social Security is more important than ever.  Fewer and fewer companies are offering robust retirement packages and pensions.  Because of workers’ lower than average wages, it cuts deeply into their ability to save for retirement.  About 33% of Americans have no savings or retirement accounts.  This isn’t an irresponsibility.  Many Americans just don’t make enough to save.

We have an unfortunate conundrum.  The wealthy whose companies are benefitting from these programs often advocate benefit cuts to preserve their low tax rates.

Something has to give.  The free market is leaving service workers behind.  At the same time, workers are looking at a grim reality as public programs are cut back.  If private companies aren’t willing to provide for retirement, health care, and a living wage; the Government is going to need to pick up the slack.