Tom Toles for November 01, 2013

Watching the “outrage” was like watching Chihuahuas chasing the same moldy bone.

Ten to 12 million people have policies that don’t meet the new minimum quality standards. In some cases, they are “grandfathered” in to keep their substandard coverage. In many other cases they are being offered new policies that are cheaper; in many case they are being offered new policies that are more expensive. In some cases, they are being offered policies that are way more expensive, and they are going to have to find something else. And if their state has failed to set up a working market place, they are having a real hard time doing that.

Of course rate changes, even drastic ones, and suddenly being dropped by your insurer, are hardly unheard of. So insurance companies aren’t doing anything new. No major change in any policy is harmless. Somebody is going to get hurt, if only those whose livelihood was most connected to the old policy. The questions are, how hurt, and how many? How many will be better off, and how many worse off, when all is said and done? My rates are going up — as they have every year for a long time — and this time a little less than they have other years. My wife’s coverage is about the same as it was, but has become a little more comprehensive, so I guess I should call it cheaper. Some people have a perfect right to be angry and/or worried. But other people have a perfect reason to be delighted and relieved. Democrats hope the second group is much more numerous than the first. Republicans, alas, actually seem to be GLAD that people are being hurt, and rather than desiring to do something for them, they only seem to want to channel their anger for their own political advantage.

Consider these questions. If you are a supporter of the ACA and discover that your health insurance is now going to be more expensive and less tailored to your particular desires, should you now be sorry you supported it? If so, then if you are an opponent of the ACA, and you discover that your health insurance is now going to be less expensive and/or more comprehensive, should you now repent of your opposition? If it is all about you personally, then you should answer yes to both questions. If it is about what is best for all Americans, not just you personally, then you should reserve judgement until the kinks have been worked out, the data collected, and the numbers crunched. Then decide if the ACA is helping or harming, and if it should be improved, fixed, redesigned, or scrapped. That what an intelligent person would do. But I don’t think many of us are that wise. We are too busy seeing what we want to see.

I’m self-employed with a twist; I have a full-time contract with one company. Thus, I don’t get benefits because I’m technically not an employee…so I’m on the individual market. If my current policy hadn’t been grandfathered in (I was on it before the ACA passed), I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t qualify as meeting the minimum ACA standards. I have yet to hear anything from my current insurer about my new rate – which will apply for November and December, no matter what. With that said, I’ve looked at the plans available through the exchange, and I’d really have to work to find a plan that’s MORE expensive than what I’m currently paying. I’ve even found some Platinum plans that are cheaper than my current “junk insurance.” Granted, I’m looking at generic info instead of My Specific Prices, because I’m still waiting for them to verify my identity so I can complete that process…so there is that to keep in mind. However, I don’t expect the specific prices to change much, aside from the possibility of subsidies. (I make under $35K/year.) I’m looking forward to having decent insurance. Yes, I’ll be paying more than the $100/month that gets thrown around a lot…but I’m already used to paying three times that much anyway. Paying the same amount for far better coverage is a GREAT deal.

“Outrage at a failed mandate that you can’t sign up for?”Is that anything like “The food is awful, and the portions are too small”?

…on the other side a Donkey drinking “special” Kool Aid.

Didn’t read RevBob did you? Or you didn’t read what I wrote. Some ARE grandfathered. Not all. And you didn’t pay much attention in math class, as nothing can be more than 100% false.

You know, I really am astounded at the outrage over the so-called mandate. You will pay more income tax if you don’t have any mortgage interest to deduct. This encourages people to buy homes rather than rent. Sometimes a LOT more income tax. Does that mean you are being FORCED to get a mortgage? You’ll pay a penalty if you don’t! And there is not even a provision of rent subsidies if you still can’t afford to buy. So if the ACA mandate is an outrage and unjust, then the mortgage interest deduction is an even greater outrage as it benefits the “haves” who buy much more than it benefits the “have nots” who rent. So where is the outrage at this manipulation of the free market? Everyone who takes a mortgage interest deduction is “feeding at the public trough” and everyone who rents his home his “being penalized for not doing what the politicians want him to do:” buy a home. This is nothing less or more than a Mortgage Mandate, if the tax penalty for going uninsured is an Insurance Mandate. There is also outrage at the new minimum standards health insurance must provide. “If I don’t want all that coverage, I should have to pay for it! This is a government take-over of the heath insurance industry!” If that is so, then there has long since been a government take-over of the construction industry. Buildings must meet certain standards, called building codes. Before such codes were put into place, builders could build as unsafely and shoddily as they wanted to, if they could sell the things. And cost-cutting people were compelled to buy firetraps if they were the only things they could afford. Same thing with the ACA. Now if you don’t like the specific standards set, then yes, you could argue for changing them. But if you want to get rid of them altogether, and the mandate, because you prefer free enterprise and oppose the government setting standards or encouraging the purchase of insurance, etc., then the only logical thing is that you should equally oppose building codes and mortgage tax deductions.

If I keep my current plan, I can still go to the same doctor I’ve been seeing on it; he’s been accepting it for years. If I change to a new insurance provider with a new plan, as I intend to, the same doctor’s in that coverage network…so nothing changes except that I pay less. See, I can actually compare features of various plans ahead of time and shop around like in a real free market. Imagine that!

Research – even Tiggers are allowed to do it. Be a smart consumer and do your homework.

“I’m sure your insurance is just fine, like mine. I just got a rebate from my employer.”I bet you get to pay in 3 dollar bills right?"-Nice non-denial denial.

The fake outrage comes out the other end.

They asked Congress for a modest amount of money earlier in the year — around April, I think it was. And what do you suppose they got for it?

Whoever guessed “they got the door slammed on them so Congress could later whine that they hadn’t done a good enough job” wins a box of Band-Aids.

A petition on Credo says that Sen. Cruz, while complaining about the “costs” etc. of Obamacare, has a solid gold paid for health plan through his wife, an employee of Goldman-Sachs. Maybe he should be cut loose to fend for himself?