REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Fox NewsTalks To Woman Who Is Losing Her Cheap Insurance Policy, And The Truth Comes Out

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, November 1, 2013 12:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 684
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, November 1, 2013 9:53 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Go FauxNews, for once they got it right!

In the short period of time since the new health insurance exchanges opened on October 1, opponents of the law have presented a series of Americans who claim that the law is not doing what the president promised. However, the claims of most of these anti-Obamacare “poster children” have been debunked. Thanks to the shoddy reporting of CBS News, the latest poster child is a 56 year old Floridian named Dianne Barrette.

Dianne Barrette was the centerpiece of a thinly disguised Obamacare hit piece that ran on CBS This Morning. In the piece Barrette claimed that she had an insurance policy that she was happy with — one that only cost her $54 a month. Barrette’s story did not hold up to scrutiny.
Quote:

First of all, the plan that Barrette paid $54 a month for is barely health insurance at all. It’s part of a subset of insurance that Consumer Reports calls “junk health insurance” (and which even the company that sells it recommends that customers not rely solely upon) and it pays only $50 towards most of the services it covers. That’s it. If Dianne went to the doctor every week for a year, her plan would pay, at most, $2,600. Meanwhile, based on average office visit charges, Diane would pay about $5,600. She probably doesn’t go to the doctor every week, of course, which means her plan pays a lot less, while her premium buys her a lot less. If she goes to the doctor, say, six times in a year, she’s paid a $648 premium for the privilege of spending another $600 on office visits. The plan also pays up to $15 per prescription, which will get you a few milligrams of most prescription drugs. The one decent deal on her plan is that it covers 100% of in-network lab services.

Barrette appeared on Greta Van Susteren’s show “On the Record” on October 28. In an amazing display of journalism that was lacking from CBS, Van Susteren makes the following observation: “If you are walking across the street and someone runs a red light, you are in deep trouble under your existing policy.” Barrette replies “That is true.”

Van Susteren refers to Dianne Barrette’s existing policy as “bare bones,” and “stripped down.” She asks why Barrette would want to keep that policy. Barrette admits that the policy doesn’t cover hospital stays. At one point Van Susteren suggests that there may be options other than the replacement policy recommended by Blue Cross. Barrette admits that she has received email directing her to other policies. She says that she is interested in looking at them.

Like CBS, Van Susteren omitted to mention that if Dianne Barrette’s policy had been available before the ACA was signed into law on March 23, 2010, she could keep it. The only exception to that rule is if the benefits under the policy are changed. So the cancellation of her policy is the fault of Blue Cross, not Obamacare.

The interview shows that many Americans have no idea of what their health insurance actually covers. A good number of people pay more attention to the cost than to the coverage. What is or isn’t covered only becomes a concern when they get sick. Barrette calls the policy “totally confusing.” Van Susteren, who is a lawyer, agrees. But the brochure about the plan is quite plain: the plan only pays up to $50 for most covered services. Lab services are 100% paid for. There is no coverage for hospital stays.

We opted not to get dental/vision coverage because it was exactly the same situation. Our premiums would have been $100 a month together; it covered, after deductible, $1,800 a year in dental/vision, but ONLY if we had charges of at least $2,000...so unless we did, we were paying $1,200 a year just for the privilege of being insured, and even if we DID have over $2,000 in dental/health needs, we would only eot $600 a year in benefits after cost of premium. I can't believe some of the things people will buy just because it says it's "insurance". One of the things the ACA did was make it harder for insurance companies to rip people off like this; they have to actually provide insurance coverage for what they charge you, and they have to be at least SOMEWHAT responsible for what our premiums go to.

So kudos to FauxNews for covering the FACTS, not just using it for a sensationalistic story as CBS did.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 1, 2013 11:44 AM

ELVISCHRIST


Of course once the facts came out, her follow-up appearance on fox was quickly cancelled.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 1, 2013 11:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh, this is very much like that story that zit, or jongssie, or whoever it was posted abut the man who was going to have to pay $2000 a year EXTRA. I think my comment was that he prolly had no insurance at all (or, like this woman, next to nothing). The rightwingers piled on... but how did I KNOW???.... and the answer is... because I know how much insurance costs and what it covers. Yanno, taking a realistic view of things and not just knee-jerk reacting to whatever statements are in the press.

What I find interesting is that the media has been relatively neutral on Obama up until now. (Yep, agree with the right-wingers on this one: the media has been silent, silent, silent on a lot of Obama betrayals. MY definition of screw-ups and betrayals is different than theirs, but I have to go to alternate... and usually non-USA... media to learn about them.)

NOW they've taken a right-hand turn. Yanno how I can tell?

It was how THIS poll was reported...
Poll: Majority think health law needs overhaul or elimination

Quote:

A majority of Americans – 52 percent – believe the health care law needs either a major overhaul or to be completely eliminated, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds.


WOW! BAD NEWS, right!

But when they group categories together .... believe it needs EITHER and major overhaul OR to be completely eliminated... they're spinning, spinning, spinning. When you read the poll directly* ... and fortunately, they were honest enough to provide a link to the actual poll results.... what you find out is that only a small minority- 24%- thinks the ACA should be eliminated. That's the same minority (24%) that still sympathizes with the Tea Party.

It's the same when people are asked whether they're for or against the ACA. Out of whatever percentage is against it, approximately 12-15% of the survey group are against is because it doesn't go far enough. That's enough (on a left-right spectrum) to swing the numbers from roughly 55:42 (opposed:for) to roughly 40:55 (too liberal: not too liberal). What it turns out to be is that only a minority of Americans actually want to dump the plan, just as only a small minority of Americans want to reduce Social Security or Medicare payments.

I never think of the press as anything but orchestrated. However one views different USA outlets (center, center-left, far right) they are always CORPORATE. As such, they will reflect the interests of their parent corporation, in addition to whatever money-making/ pro-advertising bias they demonstrate. So you will hardly ever find honest, even-handed journalism in the media; it's in the corporations' interests to keep everyone mixed up and buying shit.

*Another thing in the poll... there are a lot of general questions that they have asked going back to 2010. Obama's approval rating has wobbled up and down over the years, and while he has hit a "new low" it's not a dramatic new low... he's been here before. There IS, however, a noticeable anti-GOP trend in the polls, which the reporting doesn't say anything about. I suggest you go look at the poll directly.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 1, 2013 12:59 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


How about a few facts and a bit of reality?
Quote:

About 15 million people purchase health insurance policies on the individual market. That's about 5 percent of the population. When they do so, they typically purchase a 12-month contract with an insurance company. And when that contract runs out, both the individual and the insurance plan have an escape hatch. The individual can decide to no longer purchase the plan -- and the insurance company can decide to no longer offer the plan.

There are some restrictions on how insurance companies can terminate products. HIPAA, a health law passed in the 1990s, does require that insurance companies offer subscribers the opportunity to renew their policy, so long as they continue to pay monthly premiums. If they want to discontinue a subscriber's policy, the insurance plan must provide 90 days notice and "the option to purchase any other individual health insurance coverage currently being offered by the issuer for individuals in that market."

Some of these plans have stuck around for a little bit. The health law allowed plans that existed back in March 2010, when it became a law, to keep selling coverage. These are known as "grandfathered plans:" They don't meet the health law's requirements, but as long as they don't change much, insurers can keep offering them.

Insurance companies typically do like to change their insurance plans, making changes to cost-sharing or the benefits they offer. That means that grandfathered plans have disappeared.

These cancellations are, essentially, a lot of grandfathered plans exiting the insurance marketplace. From an insurance company's vantage point, grandfathered plans are a bit of a dead end: They can't enroll new subscribers and are really constrained in their ability to tweak the benefit package or cost-sharing structure. There's not a whole lot of business sense, for a managed care company, in maintaining a health plan that doesn't meet the health law's new requirements.

There are lots of insurance policies, especially on the individual market, that are really bare bones. Some argue they shouldn't even be called insurance coverage, because their coverage is too sparse to insure against financial ruin.

The whole idea of the insurance expansion isn't to get Americans to purchase anything called "insurance." It's to get them to purchase a plan that is relatively comprehensive and helps protect against financial ruin.

Of course, not everyone agrees with this; some contend that shoppers should be able to continue buying less robust insurance policies and have the option of taking on more financial risk.

Individuals with discontinued policies will have the option to purchase through the new insurance marketplaces (well, if they start working a little better) or they can do so outside the new marketplaces, pretty much like they have in years past.

Some people who are buying a bare-bones plan right now will likely see higher premiums under Obamacare. They'd be getting more benefits -- but paying more in premiums.

Some people will get financial help buying that more robust insurance; people who earn less than 400 percent of the federal poverty line (about $45,000 for an individual) can use a tax subsidy to purchase their plan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/29/this-is-why
-obamacare-is-cancelling-some-peoples-insurance-plans/
]


Note that "the option to purchase any other individual health insurance coverage currently being offered by the issuer for individuals in that market" is one of the games being played to scream that people are now "forced" to buy so much more expensive policies. The comparison is being made with what the insurance company they were WITH is offering; there's lots out there, and if you look at other companies, those people could get less expensive policies with someone else. But that's not mentioned, only what the company THEY WERE WITH is offering.

Also, what happens to those people who would prefer "taking on more financial risk" when their medical expenses put them into financial ruin and they have no more money? WE PAY, we taxpayers, we insured, so we've already been subsidizing their "cheap" non-insurance. I guess our righties like that and don't want it to change, as well as enjoying paying for all the people who couldn't afford health insurance or just chose not to get it and for whom WE'VE been paying for their medical care at the E.R.

It's kinda funny, when you think about it. All they want to do is scream "It's Bad! Kill It!", even tho' all along they've been subsidizing people who don't have insurance or who buy cheap insurance that doesn't cover them. That was peachy keen with our righties, but everyone paying their fair share? OMG!

And right on, Sig, virtually every word, thank you. That's how it's working; all the screaming and hollering is about one or two things, usually COST, and neglects all the little details that explain that the headline ain't what it seems to be. That's how "news" works.

My only caveat would be that Obama bounced back from that low approval rating Rap was screaming about (37%) almost immediately...it went back up to 47% earlier in October and just dropped to 42% last week( http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_T
eases/Late_October_NBC_WSJ.pdf
). His DISapproval is at 51%, but it's been there now and again--in fact it was 53% last October and 54% a few times before that, 56% in October of 2011 and 58% in September of 2010( http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administ
ration/obama_approval_index_history
). But yes, the disapproval of the GOP has been plummeting for quite some time. The same poll that's calling Obama's 51% his "all-time low" (for that poll) also has the GOP with a 22% approval rating. When Obama can match THAT, it'll be news, but apparently for the GOP to be that low, eh, no big deal.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, November 4, 2024 22:19 - 4673 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, November 4, 2024 20:37 - 4507 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Mon, November 4, 2024 20:13 - 636 posts
Game Companies are Morons.
Mon, November 4, 2024 18:24 - 175 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 4, 2024 16:54 - 7421 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Mon, November 4, 2024 16:52 - 37 posts
The DEI Hires Thread
Mon, November 4, 2024 15:23 - 4 posts
U.S. Senate Races 2024
Mon, November 4, 2024 15:15 - 11 posts
Election fraud.
Mon, November 4, 2024 15:09 - 37 posts
Unemployment Rate Facts
Mon, November 4, 2024 14:06 - 828 posts
Any Conservative Media Around?
Mon, November 4, 2024 13:58 - 164 posts
The predictions thread
Mon, November 4, 2024 10:48 - 1181 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL