If I offered a policy for $5/month but put in writing that I can and will deny all payouts of any kind, and they still take it, that's their decision. The government is only supposed to insure the fair arbitration of the market. At most I think the government should make a requirement that the health insurance contract be more legally clear so that people can make informed decisions.
"If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." ~ Martin Heidegger
http://www.healthbenefitexchange.ny....Estimator.xlsm) provides is based on one's paying the total cost of one's coverage.
If employers eliminated or reduced the share of coverage they finance, then out-of-pocket costs for insured persons could rise, even if the total net price (price after subsidy) of the given policy fell. It should be noted that the subsidy rapidly falls as one moves through the middle income range. How employers respond will be an important factor in determining the ACA's impact on overall coverage, individual costs to policyholders, etc.
For me--and maybe I'm too cautious to speculate--it's too soon to assess the full impact, for example, its impact on middle income earners whose employers currently fund most of their health coverage costs. In other words, even as the ACA should increase coverage for low-income persons courtesy of large subsidies (an appreciable share of whom don't have coverage), one does not know if this will lead to a significant trade-off in terms of out-of-pocket costs and/or reductions in coverage when it comes to middle- or even higher-income earner. The CBO expects about a 4% reduction in employer-based coverage than would otherwise have been the case within 10 years. Estimating the potential effects of the ACA is highly complex, so there is probably a larger degree of uncertainty than for most policy-related changes.
It is very likely that most of the denials of coverage in a given year are by Medicare who denies the lions share of healthcare claims every year. Medicare denies more coverage than all major insurers combined, and at a higher percentage rate. In fact, of all denials studied, Medicare accounted for a whopping 74% of all coverage denials.
... but don't touch Medicare!
Your liberal source relies on anecdotes and leaves it to you to fill in the blanks as if this is a rampant problem, and people who read Media Matters have a lot of blanks...
So no, your biased source is biased. They refused to tell you that the source of most coverage denials is Medicare, not private sector, and they fool you with the anecdotes that mask the real truth of it.
Last edited by jmotivator; 10-25-13 at 11:49 AM.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
Nothing gives me more pleasure than reading the thoughts of people, who don't know their butt from a hole in the ground, whine about Obamacare.
I bet the same type of "intellectuals," made similar comments when Social Security came out or Medicare. Go try to take their Social Security or Medicare away from them now and see what they say.
Carry on with the whining. I'm very pleased to see how discontent and disgruntled you have become. The ways of the world are going in the directions you regressive people hate. And there is NOTHING you can do about it. Payback's a bitch.
It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.