Some insurance companies are sending cancellation notices or other "misleading" letters to customers in an attempt to push them into pricier alternatives, according to new reports.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/insurance-companies-obamacare_n_4212552.html On Nov 5, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Glenn moyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks Rick. I value discussing these extremely important issues with you. > > Rather than allow pessimism or optimism, I know that you and I can talk about > real policies and verifiable facts. As I mentioned once before to you, our > peace and well being comes from our meditation and the strengths of our > connections to all creatures and the universe. Ignoring reality and the > positive thinking, we are brainwashed to believe in, leads to a false sense > of optimism sometimes called delusion. None of us needs that, despite the > intense marketing. They tell us to do the good addictions and stay > distracted, and we will be happy happy until reality stands outside our door! > > > High deductibles. I will tell you that for the individual and for the goals > of public health; the absolutely most important health care dollars spent per > year are the first $5000! I can't stress that enough! > > It's an appropriate time to discuss this part of "out of pocket expenses" > since today's news reveals that median incomes for Americans is 27,000 per > year. Let me emphasize, half of all Americans make 27,000 a year or much > less. > > Over the past few years, millions of new people, including me, have been > forced into high deductible insurance. Built into the ACA, as well as known > industry/Wall St. goals, is to force all Americans into high deductible > plans. So what are the implications...? Why is this an extremely important > issue, that the media, the astroturf groups, and the democrats have > completely avoided...? > > > Having come from the economic class that I refer to as the "throwaway class," > I can assure you that middle class values and myths dismiss the constant > struggle faced by the lower classes to, rob Peter to pay Paul. Among the > vast majority of the lower third, 100 million Americans, there is a daily > struggle and set of choices around sacrificing some things because there is > not enough money to make ends meet. > > The reason that the barriers of $5000 deductibles for an individual, and > $12,000 for a family, is a taboo area for open discussion, is because these > are immense barriers to care for the vast majority of people, who are > supposedly being helped with the new access to partial health insurance! > What is important for people to consider is that the vast majority of the > working poor, who will be receiving subsidized insurance, will not pass the > massive barrier to accessing health care, until and unless, they have a > catastrophe. Because of these deductibles, preventable deaths will not be > reduced, the emergency room crisis will not be reduced, the stress on safety > net providers will not be reduced (even though they are going to receive > massive funding cuts), and the daily suffering of some of the 100 million not > getting care will continue unabated. > > And since millions and millions of people in the 2nd, 100 million Americans, > have been forced into high deductible plans too, they have already begun > skipping "out of pocket care" and increase many of those problems. > > It has been an industry lie to claim that overall healthcare costs have gone > up because the working poor are always running to the doctor. In fact an > important statistic came out about a year ago. Primary care visits have gone > way down in the past couple of years, about 75% of the previous rate! > > Rick, this directly coincides with the movement of 10s of millions of people > to high deductible plans in the midst of an economic collapse among the 99%. > This is not welfare queens getting boob jobs every other day. This drop in > tx visits are people from the lower income groups skipping the first $5000 of > medical care; the screenings, early detection, or monitoring that is the most > important part of routine care. (The talking points keep stressing that some > preventive care can no longer be uncovered, but they don't stress that > deductibles apply.) (Consider: If the movement of millions of middle class > people to high deductible plans can measure them skipping care, what is the > impact upon those making much less, who already can't make daily normal > requirements?) > > I honestly believe when people consider these issues they can see the > reality. The high deductible plans being sealed with the new ACA will not > change the extreme barriers for the vast majority of working poor! Of > course, some of the upper levels of working poor may gain some temporary > advantages by accessing Obamacare, but a very small minority. Like I said, > if one evaluates access to care separately from access to partially > subsidized insurance, people will understand why high deductibles are the > very important issue, not the catastrophe insurance that comes into play when > a major illness or accident occurs. > > We need to understand Obamacare as a type of partial catastrophe insurance, > while we face the fact that millions more are quietly being moved into the > health insecurity of high deductible policies, in which the most important > medical access is "out of pocket." > > (It has been unfair to lump single payer activists in with the "let them die" > republicans. We aren't saying that it would not be a laudable goal to help > many of the working poor even if the entire system isn't made reasonable. > What we are saying is that this "reform" is simply not going to deliver the > help to these people, as we are being told. We can ignore the idiocy and > ultimate goals of the right wingers screaming about charity and welfare. And > as we ask others to look at the real facts and policies, that nonsense should > not interfere with real discussions and analysis. That's what the cesspool > called corporate cable news is there to do!) > > > > Secondly, and I'll be brief, is the impossibility of reform in complex > legislation written by Wall St. Economists have noted the same reality with > the financial industry. It's just impossible to regulate these complexities, > and the complex regulations are always pre-designed with a strategy to > eventually gut their benefit or impact. Whether the politicians will be > directed to de-fund enforcement or if methods to circumvent a consumer > protection are buried in the complexity or secret interpretation, it has been > the same for corporate written legislation for decades. > > This includes the prohibition on pre-existing conditions. We don't know how, > until it happens, but I suspect that the yearly cancellations and forced > product choices will help them transfer the new severely ill to the > government quickly. Maybe it will be the priority of bill payments; If > deductibles and the insured's portion of hospital bills are not paid > promptly, can the insurance company refuse further payments or drop the > person? I'm sure that some form of that is part of the ultimate scheme, even > if it takes a couple of years. > > Instead of "curbing the worst abuses of the industry" as we've been told, we > have some shifting and hiding of abuses, and we will not stop the inherent > goal of the industry. The goal of the industry is profit and abuse, not the > public good or the well being of customers or society. Just like the banks, > we are taking a for profit system that is fundamentally flawed and trying to > put a band aid on it. Eventually, the same wound becomes open again for all > to see. If we hope that these corporate goals will be different this time > and the outcomes will be different than other complex industry contracts, I > believe we are engaging delusional or wishful thinking. > > Thanks for the important discussion, > Glenn > PS: Again, I wish I were wrong about all of this. Unfortunately, I'm not. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Richard D. Conrad" > Sent: Nov 4, 2013 5:21 PM > To: Glenn moyer > Cc: "William H. Magill" , "Mr. Craig Melidosian" , "[email protected]" > Subject: Re: [UC] Best coverage... more... > > > Your thinking is honest, noble, basically fair, and extremely cogent Glenn - > but I think spun in a pessimistic way - which while not fully unjustifiable, > could be ignoring the ONLY known current way to get millions of people at > least SOME better help - which I believe has most strongly influenced Pres. > Obama and his supporters, including myself. > > On Nov 4, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Glenn moyer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Rick, >> >> Ask yourself, who would the American people have supported if the >> well-intentioned democrats had allowed and championed a real health care >> policy debate? The people gave them a landslide victory and control of the >> house, senate, and executive branches. The idiocy of the Sarah Palins would >> have been laughed at in the midst of an honest debate treating the majority >> of Americans like mature adults. >> >> Real health care experts will always win against advocates of a profit >> based system, whenever a real and honest data driven policy debate takes >> place. The evidence is not even close. The blue dogs would have put their >> tails between their legs, but of course, that is not what happened. >> >> >> >> That is why I point to the very "health care reform committee" that the >> well-intentioned democrats controlled and steadfastly defended. They >> controlled the debate and they would not allow real health reform experts a >> seat at the table nor a forum to advocate for universal healthcare. That is >> crucially important. It simply has nothing to do with Republicans, because >> the democrats completely controlled that corporate committee that unveiled >> Romneycare as Obamacare. . >> >> It's exactly the same unacceptable anti-democratic coup that we saw piloted >> here a decade ago, when UCD and the civic associations announced a hand >> picked steering committee to redesign Clark Park. They lied about inviting >> all the stakeholders to the table, and offered a list of all the local >> corporations and universities as the entirety of "the community." And when >> confronted about the closed, exclusive, secretive, corporate committee, they >> did not make amends and open the committee or allow transparency. Instead >> they used ad hominem attacks against dissenters, just like Rahm Emanual >> called health reformers, "fucking retards." The fake committee already had >> a pre-conceived plot and could not allow an honest public debate. It's >> identical. >> >> >> The well-intentioned democrats would never have needed to do anything except >> allow a real health reform policy debate to go in front of the American >> people. The people were expecting the democrats to champion health reform. >> They gave the democrats the power and backing to do so, but the democrats >> would not even allow the debate when they had the power. When any entity >> uses deception to hide an antidemocratic exclusive process, and then refuses >> to open the process when caught, they actually lose their credibility at >> that point. Expecting "good" results from such an unfair process is >> referred to in addiction literature as "wishful thinking." >> >> These fundamental concepts and processes of democracy aren't window >> dressing. They are absolutely required to allow for open and honest debate. >> (By the way, I read a report about a year ago, documenting how many of the >> power brokers around the Bacchus committee had been rewarded with lucrative >> jobs in the health care industrial complex.) >> >> If we support unfair processes and deceptions, we turn our backs on >> principles and descend into a culture no different than a street gang. >> Loyalty to the leadership rather than to principles is the difference >> between gang processes and acceptable democratic processes. All we need do >> is watch the idiocy of Fox News and MSNBC to see gangland posturing! >> >> Please don't get me wrong, I and other single payer activists, really want >> Obamacare to live up to the promises of the democrats and benefit the >> American people!!! I sincerely hope you are right to support this plan of >> the Republican think tanks. But when I go over the data in front of me, >> with all sincerity, I am quite certain it will not. >> >> Sincerely, >> Glenn > > ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named > "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .
