So Much For Being Able to Keep My Health Insurance

Blue Cross just wrote me that our current health insurance policy will not be renewable for next year.  Unfortunately, I have actual health insurance rather than pre-paid medical care (meaning that it has a high deductible and pays for catastrophic things rather than aromatherapy visits).  Kathleen Sebelius does not think what I have is "real insurance" so she and Obama have banned it, despite promising that if I like my health insurance I would be able to keep it.


  1. mesocyclone:

    I watched some Democrat drone tonight explaining how ACA was protecting gullible consumers from those evil fraudulent insurance companies who wanted to sell them high deductible policies.

    The progressive disdain for the intelligence of the rest of us was painfully obvious. Republicans should run that guy's speech as a campaign commercial.

  2. ganganelli:

    Wait. Aren't you the same guys going around telling everybody that "low information" voters are ruining the country? I'm sorry but the average American does really stupid things and buying crap "insurance" is one of them.

  3. oneteam:

    So the answer is to have government force us to make the choices THEY think are best?

  4. ganganelli:

    Why not? The government forces us to not drive drunk, put our kids in car seats, etc. etc.

  5. jon:

    I keep hearing that we will lose our high deductible. We haven't gotten the news yet though (unless we missed it). We try to be responsible and take care of ourselves. Man, this makes me so angry. How many people will this hurt and kill? They already have enough blood on their hands can't they just leave us alone?

  6. Brian Dunbar:

    When he said 'You can keep your health insurance' there must have been footnotes in the text he was reading from.

  7. CMJDad:

    Yeah, that's a strong argument. Please, try again.

  8. MNHawk:

    From what I've seen of the plans, the deductibles are just as high as the old high deductible plans. It's just that you'll now get the best of both worlds. The high monthly cost of a full priced plan, PLUS high deductibles and co-pays.

  9. johnson85:

    Because it's idiotic to expect the same people that you claim are too ignorant to pick appropriate insurance will somehow magically become wise and intelligent when selecting politicians to look out for their interests. What really happens is that politicians pander to the low information voters, make themselves rich, while screwing the people that would like to be responsible for their own decisions without making low information voters any better off.

  10. ganganelli:

    Why don't you shop the exchange? I found a plan that was 30 percent cheaper and had the same deductible.

  11. Russ R.:

    Wouldn't that be "the worst of both worlds"?

  12. MNHawk:

    "Why don't you shop the exchange?"

    That's a funny, right?

    I did check out what was out there pre-exchange. Higher deductibles, higher co-pays, and a higher costs overall. I'm far from alone.

    Russ, I'm trying to put myself into the shoes of a true believer cultist. You mean I don't come across as well as gangenelli, at typing out a line of pure bullcrap?

  13. Cardin Drake:

    One lie after another. I wonder how funding it with the savings from reducing medicare waste is coming along? I'm sure that is working out well. The sad thing is the GOP doesn't really want to repeal Obamacare. They want to run against it for the next ten years. They love it.

  14. ganganelli:

    No it's not funny. I understand you may live in the right wing bubblesphere that was sure Romney was going to Win! All the polls were skewed!

    But yes, I found a policy 30 percent cheaper than our current policy simply by shopping The website sucks, but you can still navigate it.

  15. MNHawk:

    Um, yes. If you mention Mitt Romney, you really can convince us that an unworkable website, does in fact work. And not only work, but deliver magical cost savings!

    Speaking of bubbles, does that line work, outside your bubble of Poli Sci types at the DNC, disseminating talking points to a gullible Democrat voter base?

  16. LoneSnark:

    My health insurance company has apparently figured out a loophole. They're going to let us sign up for an annual policy identical to my current PPO policy at $82 a month, up from $66 a month, that starts December 1st rather than January 1st, there-by apparently letting them get around the law through December 2014. If I don't sign up for this offer, then it will be $160 a month for a higher deductible HMO.

  17. ganganelli:

    Wrong guy dude. My voting pattern goes like this: Bush, Dole, Bush, Kerry, Obama, Obama. Half Republicans and half Democrats. I started voting for Dems once I realized how full of crap the Republicans were about the competence of government. I just got out of the shower. You know what I didn't worry about? That the water would actually come out and be clean. I also will roll out my recycle bin on Thursday. Know what I'm not worried about? That it will be picked up.

  18. MNHawk:

    Keep working that whole "competence of government" a thread about Obamacare. You're this close to convincing us, no doubt!

  19. ganganelli:

    You know what's best? A year from now, when millions have enrolled, Republicans will be all "The exchanges were our idea, competition at it's best, It's really Romneycare, yada yada yada". I'm going to have so much fun resurrecting this thread then.

  20. MNHawk:

    I'm quaking in my boots, knowing I'll get pwned when the Low Information American Community really does prove we can all get free crap for free, despite thousands of years of history saying otherwise.

  21. ganganelli:

    We shall see my friend. Let's come back here in a year or so.

  22. Brian Dunbar:

    My wife and I shopped the exchange. Exact figures escape me now but 'a lot more' and 'holy schnikes' and 'no f'in way' were heard around the kitchen table.

  23. oneteam:

    Your reply is why I'm losing faith in our nation's ability to recognize that our individual liberties are being stripped away, one by one. Truly sad.

  24. ganganelli:

    That's really weird. Maybe I'm just lucky living in AZ. I recently helped my brother who is 27 and single find a catastrophic plan for 40 bucks a month. He chose this one:

    He's thrilled because he's been rolling the dice the last couple of years.

  25. ganganelli:

    Yes they are. I for one don't mourn the loss of the liberty to drive around with my kid not in his car seat. But that's just me.

  26. Brian Dunbar:

    > That's really weird.

    Anecdotal experience with friends and family in Tennessee and Wisconsin indicates this is not weird, but normal.

    I will allow the plural of data is not anecdote.

  27. ganganelli:

    I'm not an expert in every state. I can only report how much we saved and we're very happy. My brother is thrilled because he was always worried about an accident bankrupting him. He said the 40 bucks a month is great for his peace of mind.

    It will be an interesting experiment. There was a study done recently that said people stubbornly hold on to their pre-conceived political opinions UNLESS there is money involved. So if Obamacare really does save people money, we'll know in less than 6 months.

  28. mesocyclone:

    So because some people make bad choices in health insurance, all people are now forced to buy policies with coverage they don't need? For example, pregnancy coverage for 50 year olds?

    Once again, who's stupid here?

  29. ganganelli:'s called spreading the risk. By the way, guess who pays for maternity care when an uninsured woman shows up at a hospital ready to deliver?

  30. mesocyclone:

    I see - so since your assertion that people making dumb purchasing decisions didn't fly, you've changed the reason?

    Why not spread the risk among those to whom pregnancy is a risk? That's not a tiny pool.

  31. ganganelli:

    Man this insurance 101. The larger the pool, the lower the costs. And you didn't answer my question. When an uninsured woman shows up at a hospital in labor, who pays? You're already being forced to pay for her coverage, you might as well get do it at a lower cost.

  32. sean2829:

    I think the motivation for the ACA was always quite simple, give out goodies left and right and when the cost goes up, blame the insurance companies. Health insurance has become a large regressive transfer payment system. When the cost go up to treat the sick and infirmmed, you try to spread to spread to the most people possible. But by passing the benefit costs for many through work related health insurance premiums, you end up making a regressive tax. So workers earning under $30K per years have 39% of their compensation go to the healthcare system. Households that make average wages likely have 28% of their compensation go toward healthcare and executive making $200K per year, the number goes down to under 10%.
    The "free" services that are mandated create two problems. One is to create consumption that is not justified and the other is what I call the Jiffy Lube affect. Doctors will likely lose money handing out free-bees, just as Jiffy Lube loses money with its oil changes, but if there are things to treat that justifies high payments, you can guarantee they will be looking for these and recommending treatment (just like Jiffy Lube charges a lot to replace air filters, PCV valves or get special high mileage oil). So your free checkup ends up costing you $200 for the problems the free checkup uncovered.

  33. perlhaqr:

    So your solution for a bug in the legal code is... to generate another bug in the legal code?

  34. mesocyclone:

    You failed to address spreading the risk among those to whom pregnancy is a risk, as an alternative to making, say, 60 year old women pay for a policy including pregnancy.

    And, you're still arguing a different point than the one that failed earlier.

  35. oneteam:

    ganganelli... So you're saying that if the government didn't force you to protect the life of your kids, you wouldn't do it? I see. Interesting.

    It's one thing to give people good information such as if you wear a helmet when driving a motorcycle, you're much more likely to not crack your head open. Of if you are restrained in your vehicle during an accident, you have a much higher likelihood of surviving a crash. But it's quite another thing to FORCE people to the will of the government, for their own safety. That is called loss of individual liberty. Now, making it illegal to drink and drive is a public safety issue and most would agree, that we can give up on our liberty when the exercise of that liberty will likely result in death and destruction to others. That's a societal given.

  36. ganganelli:'s to fix the bug in the legal code. Unless you think Americans will stand for repealing the law that requires hospitals to treat women who show up at their emergency rooms in labor.

  37. ganganelli:

    That's like saying we should spread the risk of treating Alzheimer's to those whom Alzheimer's is a risk rather than say making a 25 year old pay for a policy including Alzheimer's.

    And I apologize, I'm not sure which argument failed earlier. I've been responding to a lot of comments.

  38. ganganelli:

    Brother, I'm almost 41. Neither myself nor my friends were in car seats back in the 70's. It didn't mean my mom didn't love me. At least I think it didn't:)

  39. Nehemiah:

    No conservatives I see. Not surprising. You'll just love Hillary I bet.

  40. ganganelli:

    Ehhh....she's not populist enough for me. Plus, she's for open borders so that's a knock against her.

  41. mesocyclone:

    Actually, it's not. You need to understand where it makes sense to segregate risk pools and where it doesn't.

    But to the main point: government forcing people to buy coverage that's "good for them" - you wrote and then failed to defend ' I'm sorry but the average American does really stupid things and buying crap "insurance" is one of them."'

    That's a pretty poor, and quite elitist excuse for forcing everyone to have their choices dictated by the government. If 10% are going to buy crap insurance, you would take away choice from the other 90% too.

  42. ganganelli:

    And this is where these combox debates end up. I simply believe in a more activist government than you. Maybe because I live in Phoenix which wouldn't exist if not for the government damming up rivers making water cheap and plentiful.

    But maybe we can end this with an agreement. “Big Government” is constantly redistributing wealth from the poor to give to the rich and we don’t hear a peep from the Republicans about it. Take Optometrists for example. How much money has been redistributed from the poor to them because of ridiculous licensing requirements. I mean really, do we need 8 years of schooling so that an eye “doctor” can have you read a chart and say you need glasses? And then, of course, you need a prescription to get the darn glasses. Let’s see the Republicans take on those big government issues.

  43. marque2:

    Hah, you haven't looked at the Bronze plan have you? $10,000 deductable for a family before they start coverage. And it is expensive anyway because of all the extra mandates. I now have to pay for mental health, birth control, birthing (something my wife and I can no longer do), free doctors visits etc.

  44. mesocyclone:

    You seem to imagine that those who object believe in no government whatsoever, which is simply wrong.

    There's a huge difference between a single giant infrastructure project and controlling every persons choice in health insurance and requires government access to private health information.

    BTW, are you aware of how that government supported water project works? The dams are owned by Salt River Project. Salt River Project is legally a municipality. But, unlike ordinary municipalities, you have to own at least one acre to be able to vote, and you get one vote per acre. In other words, SRP is set up to benefit agriculture at the cost of city residents. Your great government project seems to have a rather large wart on its forehead. It's just like the optometrists... using government to its advantage.

    And now you change the subject again, to guilds. Sorry, we aren't talking about them. But if you know about the general stance of Coyoteblog and most commenters, you'd know that we're on your side on that anyway.

  45. ganganelli:

    I'm changing subjects because we've come to the end of the road with a fundamental disagreement over how much government is good.

    My dad pays something like 30 bucks a year for flood irrigation in Arcadia. I think he'd say the wart is rather small...maybe more like a pimple.

    Glad you agree on the blatant rent-seeking of optometrists and the like.

  46. Jess1:

    FWIW, by the late 70's, "car seats" of a rather wide variety were fairly common and inexpensive. I know, as we had them. But hey, choice is bad or something.

  47. mesocyclone:

    Check out how much the farmers pay for SRP electricity vs what your dad pays. Ask your father if he gets a vote on SRP rates or policy. He doesn't, a farmer does. In other words, farmers are rent-seekers using SRP the same way that optometrists use licensing boards.

  48. ganganelli:

    Republicans....bringing you the freedom to NOT use child seats since 1977.

  49. ganganelli:

    I'm sure you are right. I think I remember him saying they could form some kind of water district but I don't know what benefits that would bring.

  50. Jess1:

    That makes no sense in conversational English. Nor do most of your other posts, BTW...