Who the HELL is Jay Carney to Tell Me My Health Insurance Policy is "Sub-Standard"?
The health-care law eliminates “substandard policies that don’t provide minimum services,” said Jay Carney, a White House spokesman, in response to the cancellations. The “80-plus percent” of Americans with employer plans or covered by government programs are unaffected.
I chose my policy very carefully, and don't think it is "sub-standard" because it does not include pediatric dental care for two people in their fifties. This is the worst consumer dis-empowerment that I can remember in my lifetime.
Now an effective levy of several thousand dollars on the small fraction of middle class Americans who buy on the individual market is not history’s great injustice. But neither does it seem like the soundest or most politically stable public policy arrangement. And to dig back into the position where I do strong disagree with Cohn’s perspective, what makes this setup potentially more perverse is that it raises rates most sharply on precisely those Americans who up until now were doing roughly what we should want more health insurance purchasers to do: Economizing, comparison shopping, avoiding paying for coverage they don’t need, and buying a level of insurance that covers them in the event of a true disaster while giving them a reason not to overspend on everyday health expenses.
If we want health inflation to stay low and health care costs to be less of an anchor on advancement, we should want more Americans making $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 to spend less upfront on health insurance, rather than using regulatory pressure to induce them to spend more. And seen in that light, the potential problem with Obamacare’s regulation-driven “rate shock” isn’t that it doesn’t let everyone keep their pre-existing plans. It’s that it cancels plans, and raises rates, for people who were doing their part to keep all of our costs low.
With my high deductibles, I am actually out shopping every day on health care prices and I can tell you from my experience that if everyone did so, we would see a reversal of health care inflation. More here
ErikTheRed:
If any other group - corporations, conservatives, libertarians, etc. - forced two people in their fifties to purchase pediatric dental care, could you even begin to imagine the incandescent outrage from progressives?
October 29, 2013, 11:49 amalanstorm:
Who the HELL is Jay Carney to Tell Me My Health Insurance Policy is "Sub-Standard"?
Oh, shut up. It's for your own good, dammit, you ungrateful wretch!
Where's the feminist outrage over this paternalism?
October 29, 2013, 12:48 pmCathy:
If your prior policy was what the wise policy-makers consider substandard, there is no way you could have liked it, even if you thought you did. Therefore Obama did not mis-speak when he said that if you like your insurance policy, you can keep it.
October 29, 2013, 1:06 pmHenryBowman419:
You really have to ask this, Coyote? Jay Carney is a Very Important Person, the official press secretary of Emperor Obama. You, on the other hand, are a mere serf. You should be happy that Emperor Obama has deigned to let you live: he could easily have "droned" you. He does know where you live after all: that's what the NSA is for.
October 29, 2013, 1:52 pmIncunabulum:
Who the HELL is Jay Carney to Tell Me My Health Insurance Policy is "Sub-Standard"?
October 29, 2013, 3:31 pmWhy, he's one of the TOP MEN who know better than you what you really need.
mesaeconoguy:
Carney needs a good street beating, with Sebelius.
The arrogance of these assholes is astounding.
October 29, 2013, 4:38 pmc_andrew:
mesaeconoguy wrote;
Carney needs a good street beating, with Sebelius.
October 29, 2013, 11:12 pmNow I'd pay good money to see that! Question is, do you swing Sebelius by her feet or her hands?
nehemiah:
Who the HELL is Jay Carney to Tell Me My Health Insurance Policy is "Sub-Standard"?
He is a Mayor Bloomberg want-a-be. They know what is best for you. What you think you like, you really don't like. You are just being stubborn. Sit back, relax and turn it all over to Barrack.
October 30, 2013, 5:59 amZachriel:
Coyote: Who the HELL is Jay Carney to Tell Me My Health Insurance Policy is "Sub-Standard"?
Who the hell are they to tell me when to stop and go!?
http://www.urbanvillagechurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/stop_light.jpg
Who the hell are they to tell me how to wire my house!?
http://www.osha.gov/doc/outreachtraining/htmlfiles/elecstd.html
Who the hell are they to tell me to pay a tax on whiskey!?
October 30, 2013, 6:09 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
marque2:
"Now an effective levy of several thousand dollars on the small fraction of middle class Americans who buy on the individual market is not history’s great injustice."
October 30, 2013, 6:21 amThis is false - the mandates for extra "free" coverage are suppose to apply to businesses as well. If our exchange costs are doubling, you can be sure costs for businesses are doubling as well, and this is a tragegedy.
You might not notice it this year, but you will next when your raise is only 1% instead instead of 3% and you will notice it during the next slowdown when your company lays off 1000 people instead of six hundred.
That is the perniciousness of this program. Costs are going up greatly but people don't see it, but in the end those people will end up paying for it with lower salaries and more joblessness, and just not realize it.
marque2:
Sibelius is being celebrated. She knew she was going to have to take a fall for Obama going in. She is a lefty hero and will be treated as such when she leaves.
October 30, 2013, 6:24 amSame with Nancy Pelosi - normally when you lose the house you dump your former speaker for someone new - but there she is leading the Democrats - why because they recognize she took a hit for the team.
texan99:
Exactly. We've used a high-deductible policy all along and have struggled to be price-conscious in a market made opaque by everyone else's crazy first-dollar coverage. I can't remember ever hitting the deductible, which I deliberately moved higher and higher as we got older and consumed more regular medical services. Suddenly we're the problem?
Ironically, people who were on employer-subsidized first-dollar coverage are being dumped on the exchanges and discovering that their only affordable option is a higher deductible than they're used to. People like me are losing their high-deductible policies ("too risky") and being dumped on the exchanges, where only lower deductibles are available at higher cost. It's incoherent, unless the main idea is "control."
A private health insurance broker tells me that it's still possible to find the old-fashioned coverage in the off-exchange market. We'll see what he comes up with. I don't want coverage for the kind of medical bills we hit year in and year out. I want coverage for a catastrophic illness whose treatment would threaten our live savings and make us face old age in penury.
October 30, 2013, 7:37 ammesaeconoguy:
What an idiotic comparison - regulation of health care goods & services delivery is not analogous to traffic laws, dumbass.
[The more appropriate analogy would have been "Who the hell are they to tell me when to drive my car, and what kind of car I have?"]
October 30, 2013, 8:23 amZachriel:
mesaeconoguy: regulation of health care goods & services delivery is not analogous to traffic laws
Except you didn't say why.
mesaeconoguy: The more appropriate analogy would have been "Who the hell are they to
tell me when to drive my car,
When to drive your car is exactly what a traffic light does.
mesaeconoguy: and what kind of car I have?
Good analogy. Who the hell are they to tell me my passenger car has to not explode on impact!?
October 30, 2013, 8:51 ammesaeconoguy:
I did say why; you failed to understand.
Medical care goods and services are just that, goods and services. Traffic laws are rules. Even you can understand this rudimentary distinction (maybe).
There is a massive difference between requiring nonexplosive cars, and forcing everyone to 1. Own a nonexploding car (or in this case, health insurance), and 2. making available only BMWs and higher-priced cars (the exchange plans).
Logic appears not to be your strong suit.
October 30, 2013, 9:07 amZachriel:
mesaeconoguy: 1. Own a nonexploding car (or in this case, health insurance), and 2. making available only BMWs and higher-priced cars (the exchange plans).
They are both minimum standards. So, for instance, housing codes generally don't allow cardboard construction.
October 30, 2013, 12:53 pmmesaeconoguy:
Shut up, imbecile.
October 30, 2013, 1:18 pmZachriel:
Didn't think you had an argument. Good luck with that!
October 30, 2013, 2:32 pmmesaeconoguy:
Dumbfuck, a BMW is not a “minimum standard.”
Is Rolls Royce a minimum standard? How about a minimum wage of $300/hr? Why not just mandate that?
Jesus, you leftists are fucking stupid.
This whole program is a clusterfuck of epic proportions, and it’s tragically hilarious to watch you apologists contort yourself to defend it with pathetic attempts like “minimum standard” horseshit, while keeping your lips firmly planted on Barry's ass.
Don’t pile dogshit in a bowl and call it cornflakes. People know the difference, asshole.
October 30, 2013, 2:43 pmmesaeconoguy:
Oh, and another thing: if your bullshit “minimum standard” includes a full-spectrum of services which will induce overuse, how the hell is that supposed to lower costs?
It takes an extra level of leftist stupidity to construct something as absolutely decrepit and dysfunctional a program as Obamascare.
Complete piece of shit legislation, written by piece of shit people, supported by despicable pieces of shit like you.
October 30, 2013, 2:51 pmZachriel:
mesaeconoguy: Oh, and another thing: if your bullshit “minimum standard” includes a full-spectrum of services which will induce overuse, how the hell is that supposed to lower costs?
We're not arguing whether the law is a good law. That wasn't the issue we were addressing. This was:
Coyote: Who the HELL is Jay Carney to Tell Me My Health Insurance Policy is "Sub-Standard"?
Jay Carney is the president's press secretary. Obama was elected president by a majority of the American people—twice. The House passed the PPACA by a majority vote, the Senate by a super-majority, and the president signed the bill into law. So yes, it's a law, just like traffic lights, safety standards on cars, and paying tax on whiskey. That's who the hell Jay Carney is.
October 30, 2013, 3:15 pmmesaeconoguy:
Wrong again dumbfuck, you were attempting to draw a half-assed comparison between rules of the road, minimum standards, and this piece of shit program called Obamascare.
Jay Carney is a lying piece of shit, like you. I don’t give a flying fuck what he says, or tells me to do. Same with his boss. And especially you.
They don’t know what’s best for me and my family, and neither do insipid troglodytes like you. You don’t get to make those decisions, got it?
Fuck off.
October 30, 2013, 3:26 pmc_andrew:
Oh, I agree with you. Just look at her "taking responsibility. You know, just like Janet Reno "took responsibility" for Waco. But what I was getting at is that I'd like to see Sibelius used as the instrument for beating Jay Carney in the street. Kind of like Hulk using Loki but with Carney the target instead just smashing the puny god complex directly on the floor.
October 30, 2013, 4:32 pmZachriel:
mesaeconoguy: you were attempting to draw a half-assed comparison between rules of the road, minimum standards, and ... {Obamacare}.
Yes, they're all laws passed through the democratic process. The president executes the laws.
October 31, 2013, 5:33 amZachriel:
mesaeconoguy: They don’t know what’s best for me and my family ...
Perhaps not, but like traffic lights, it's something you have to deal with until the law is changed.
October 31, 2013, 5:36 ammesaeconoguy:
Perhaps?
Fuck you.
The only part of this law I intend to obey is payment for services of what I get. That’s it.
I will not be submitting information required, nor will I participate in other mandatory disclosures.
And, I am on standby to sue the government if any identity theft occurs as a result of this program.
This is a completely partisan law, passed in an irregular fashion (reconciliation, because it lacked the votes required through normal process) by one party in the dead of night. It barely survived an extremely poorly reasoned judgment by the SC, and other challenges are still pending.
The law has no political or legal legitimacy.
This is what you get when you pull shit like Obama did.
He needs to be very careful here, as do you.
Go to hell, asshole.
October 31, 2013, 1:49 pmmesaeconoguy:
This law was not passed through the democratic process, dimwit.
October 31, 2013, 1:52 pmZachriel:
mesaeconoguy: The only part of this law I intend to obey is payment for services of what I get.
That's one way to deal with it.
mesaeconoguy: The law has no political or legal legitimacy.
Of course it does. It was passed by a majority of the House, a supermajority in the Senate, signed by a president elected with a popular majority, then ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.
mesaeconoguy: This law was not passed through the democratic process
Of course it was.
October 31, 2013, 3:30 pmmesaeconoguy:
It was passed by a majority of the House, a
supermajority in the Senate, signed by a president elected with a popular
majority, then ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Of course it was [passed through the democratic process].
Wrong.
Obamascare was shoved through in the irregular reconciliation process, because it did not have enough support to go to regular vote.
It was passed entirely by a single party – no member of the opposition party voted for this.
http://politicalmathblog.com/?p=424
No other major entitlement or civil rights legislation has been passed in this manner. (No major legislation should be passed in this manner, for reasons we are now seeing.)
It has no political legitimacy.
I’m not going to destroy the bullshit Roberts argument again – enough people have already done that.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/121426
It has no legal legitimacy.
By all means, continue with your stupendous dimwittery, and please do continue going to hell, dickwad.
October 31, 2013, 4:09 pmZachriel:
mesaeconoguy: It has no political legitimacy.
Only if you reject the democratic process. The proper course is to repeal the law through the same process by which it became law. That means having a majority in both chambers, and a presidential signature; or enough votes in Congress to override a veto.
October 31, 2013, 4:21 pmmesaeconoguy:
This process was not the democratic process. I reject it.
You are an idiot. I do not reject that.
October 31, 2013, 4:38 pmZachriel:
mesaeconoguy: This process was not the democratic process. I reject it.
You repeat your claim, but don't support it. A majority in both chambers of Congress voted for the bill, and it was signed by the president into law. How did you think it worked?
October 31, 2013, 4:43 pmmesaeconoguy:
I supported it several times, pillock. That was not the process.
Unfortunately, you seem to have graduated from the Larry Gross School of Ignorance and Stupidity, Cum Laude.
Go to hell, asswipe.
October 31, 2013, 5:04 pmZachriel:
Still confused. Are you saying the bill did not receive a majority in both chambers of Congress, that the president didn't sign the bill, or what?
November 1, 2013, 5:30 am