Email To Ex-Boss From Former Dem Staffer Who Lost Her Job Due To ObamaCare

[Revmitchell]

“I spent two years defending ObamaCare. I had constituents scream at me, spit at me and call me names that I can’t put in print. The congressman was not reelected in 2010 mainly because of anti-ObamaCare anger. When the congressman was not reelected, I also (along with the rest of our staff) lost my job.

I was upset that because of the healthcare issue, I didn’t have a job anymore but still defended ObamaCare because it would make health care available to everyone at, what I assumed, would be an affordable price. I have now learned that I was wrong. Very wrong.”



“Blue Cross,” she said, “stated my current coverage would expire on Dec. 31, and here are my options: I can have a plan with similar benefits for $647.12 [or] I can have a plan with similar [but higher] pricing for $322.32 but with a $6,500 deductible.”

She went on, “Blue Cross also tells me that if I don’t pick one of the options, they will just assume I want the one for $647. … Someone please tell me why my premium in January will be $356 more than in December?”


http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/90618-read-email-ex-boss-former-dem-staffer-lost-job-due-obamacare/

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

We can tell her why.

It's because the policy will have coverages she does not need, does not want, and cannot afford. Thank you, ACA.

 

[exscentric]

Wonder if she will work as hard getting it repealed as she did getting it instituted.

 

[Don]

The real question is: is this the norm? Are we seeing only a few people here and there who's premiums are rising? Where are the people who are getting lower rates, or even no cost?

I ask because we all know how the media will latch onto bad news and sensationalize it. I also ask because I would really, really like to see the stories of those who are getting better healthcare than they previously were, especially if they're getting it cheaper than they previously were.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I have not looked at the site, but have read the details on several trusted sites. We are two people who will have no-cost premiums, as we haven't made close to the minimums.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The real question is: is this the norm? Are we seeing only a few people here and there who's premiums are rising?

No. We're seeing a huge number who lose their insurance altogether!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=89748&posted=1#post2045452

Where are the people who are getting lower rates, or even no cost?

Oh, that no longer matters! Before, during, and after passage, Americans were promised that the ACA ...

• ... was going to lower premiums for "everyone" -- the goal of merely maintaining premiums was apparently far too modest.
• ... was not going to interfere with anybody’s health care or health insurance if they already had it.
• ... was not to going change anybody’s patient-doctor relationship.

The message was unmistakable: All the government wanted to do was extend health insurance to people who didn’t have it. This wouldn’t affect you. No need to worry. Period. Move along.

What was not claimed was that Obamacare was necessary because ...

• ... health care is a "right," as the Great Pretender has recently taken to arguing.
• ... redistribution was critical for "fairness."
• ... some would win and some would lose but that, overall, it would be a solid compromise.

Instead, unmistakable promises, easy enough to check in the age of the Internet, were repeatedly made by the architects and cheerleaders of reform.

I ask because we all know how the media will latch onto bad news and sensationalize it. I also ask because I would really, really like to see the stories of those who are getting better healthcare than they previously were, especially if they're getting it cheaper than they previously were.

What people need to begin worrying about is a potential "death spiral" for the ACA, and what effect it will have on the economy. There is a very real possibility that will happen.

A death spiral happens when only the sickest beneficiaries get into an insurance pool, causing the cost of medical claims to rise, and in turn raising future premiums.

These higher premiums, in turn, dissuade healthier beneficiaries from buying coverage. This exacerbates the strains and makes sure the pool continues to attract only the sickest consumers who are most in need of the medical coverage, and willing to pay the rising premiums. This is how the downward spiral ensues.

Commentators have rightly noted that Obamacare contains some provisions to guard against this sort of outcome. Chief among them are “risk corridors” that limit the losses insurers would face from higher-than-expected medical claims, as well as a pool of money (collected off a tax that is imposed on all non-exchange insurance products) to offset some of the rising costs and provisions that fix premiums as a percentage of peoples’ income (at least until 2018, when some of the ACA’s reinsurance programs sunset, although the risk adjustment provisions continue).

But these provisions don’t eliminate the possibility of adverse selection against the Obamacare exchanges, and a downward spiral for these health plans, if younger and healthier consumers don’t enroll this year. Such adverse selection is already evident: 14 million visits to www.healthcare.gov, but only 36,000 enrollees. In many states, new applications for Medicaid far exceed the number of enrollees in the state's exchange for ACA insurance coverage.

The whole system may crash on its own.