We have a major philosophical disagreement concerning the ACA. I have tried to watch both MSNBC and Fox News. I read both “liberal” and “conservative” columnists. Unlike too many Americans, I have not just read and watched those who reinforce their own opinions.
As one reads the NY Times editorial page and watches MSNBC, one finds some consistent themes. Today’s NY Times editorial makes that point. Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping.
Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that. By law, insurers cannot continue to sell policies that don’t provide the minimum benefits and consumer protections required as of next year. So they’ve sent cancellation notices to hundreds of thousands of people who hold these substandard policies. (At issue here are not the 149 million people covered by employer plans, but the 10 million to 12 million people who buy policies directly on the individual market.)
But insurers are not allowed to abandon enrollees. They must offer consumers options that do comply with the law, and they are scrambling to retain as many of their customers as possible with new policies that are almost certain to be more comprehensive than their old ones.
Indeed, in all the furor, people forget how terrible many of the soon-to-be-abandoned policies were. Some had deductibles as high as $10,000 or $25,000 and required large co-pays after that, and some didn’t cover hospital care.
This editorial, and the law in general, take a paternalistic view of health insurance. This is the philosophical position that defines the problem. The response to policy cancellations and marked increased insurance costs is typified in the final paragraph above. This represents the current talking point – bad insurance. But who should determine what defines bad insurance?
When reading the opposition press, comments, and watching Fox News this criticism defines their concerns. Charles Krauthammer wrote recently – Obamacare laid bare
Beyond mendacity, there is liberal paternalism, of which these forced cancellations are a classic case. We canceled your plan, explained presidential spokesman Jay Carney, because it was substandard. We have a better idea.
Translation: Sure, you freely chose the policy, paid for the policy, renewed the policy, liked the policy. But you’re too primitive to know what you need. We do. Your policy is hereby canceled.
Because what you really need is what our experts have determined must be in every plan. So a couple in their 60s must buy maternity care. A teetotaler must buy substance abuse treatment. And a healthy 28-year-old with perfectly appropriate catastrophic insurance must pay for bells and whistles for which he has no use.
It’s Halloween. There is a knock at your door. You hear: “We’re the government and we’re here to help.”
You hide.
Those who argue opposite sides of this issue do not understand each other. The administration and their supporters believe that government’s job is to protect citizens from their bad choices. They want to decide what the people need and thus impose regulations. The opposition wants the right to make their own decisions about what defines good insurance.
Our painter has a family of 5. He had private insurance that he found acceptable. Now his insurance fees are increasing $700 per month. He cannot work harder – he works very hard and cannot work any harder. So this law markedly decreases his effective income. He is angry.
Krauthammer and his philosophical allies find this hard-working man a symbol of government excess. Apparently the NY Times, without knowing any details of his expired insurance, opines “Indeed, in all the furor, people forget how terrible many of the soon-to-be-abandoned policies were”
The philosophical divide remains wide. Our current system has losers. We all understand that. Most citizens did not understand that this new law would create different losers. What is fair? Our collective answer may well define upcoming elections.
