Associated Press
A moment that produced lasting, beneficial changes to the health care system.
The past few Monday mornings, at 10 a.m., those of us who obsess over such things wait with bated breath to see if the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act has been issued. Obviously, it hasn't happened yet.
But there's still plenty of "Obamacare" news, and some of it's rather encouraging. We've seen, for example, a growing number of Republicans who've fought to kill the law grudgingly concede they intend to keep many of its most popular provisions around. This week, we also learned that some of the nation's largest insurers will leave in place many key Obamacare benefits, even if the Supreme Court destroys the work that's already been done.
United Healthcare, which covers about 26 million people in plans that could be affected by the regulations, was the first to make the move. The company said it would allow young adults to stay on their parents' policies up to age 26, wouldn't reinstate lifetime limits on coverage and would continue to offer cancer screenings and other preventive services without co-payments. It also would maintain a third-party appeals process for treatment denials and wouldn't cancel policies retroactively.
Later Monday, Humana said it would continue those same provisions. Aetna, too, said it would retain the young adult provision, the preventive care benefits and a third-party appeals program. Aetna's announcement didn't include a reference to lifetime limits on coverage or retroactive cancellation.
The continuation of these policies will bring peace of mind to millions of Americans. Even if the Republicans on the Supreme Court kill every letter of the law, and bring the entire health care system back to the dysfunctional mess we had before March 2010, key elements of the Affordable Care Act will remain in place -- with the GOP's and insurers' blessing -- leaving the country in a better place than we were before.
Indeed, it's not just the insurance companies. Obamacare also brought reforms to hospitals that have changed the way they do business, and these measures will also remain intact no matter what Republicans do.
As it turns out, GOP lawmakers, many of whom are worried about a public backlash if millions of Americans start losing benefits they've come to want and expect, see these developments and take comfort. "See?" Republicans are effectively arguing, "we don't need the reform law after all."
That's where they're wrong.
Jonathan Cohn had a smart piece on this today, explaining that the recent steps from insurers and GOP policymakers don't negate the need for the law.
[T]he insurers and their Washington representatives have been very clear about one provision they will not be preserving on their own: Coverage for children with pre-existing conditions.
The insurers also won't be putting in place the much larger reforms to come in 2014: Federal subsidies, so that people buying insurance on their own get assistance as long as they are making less than four times the poverty line; guaranteed coverage, at uniform rates, for adults regardless of pre-existing conditions or medical risk; expanded eligibility for Medicaid, so that anybody making less than 133 percent of the poverty line can get coverage directly from the government; minimum benefit standards, so that nobody discovers their policy doesn't cover basic treatments; and many others.
They aren't doing any of these things because, as a practical matter, they can't. All of them require fundamental, structural changes to the insurance market, along with government subsidies (with the cuts and revenue to finance them). Only comprehensive health care reform, like the kind the Affordable Care Act delivers, can do that.
It comes as something of a relief that some key elements of Obamacare will endure, but that doesn't make the other elements disposable. The country still needs the Affordable Care Act, and if it's killed -- either by Republicans on the Supreme Court this year, of Republicans in Congress next year -- the setback for the American system will be enormous.
Postscript: In the Politico piece linked above, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) was quoted saying, "There is plenty of room for solutions in the private market, and a primary objection to the ACA remains the heavy-handed, bureaucratic approach, which necessarily compels millions of employers and beneficiaries to leave private insurance in favor of a public option."
Emerson was in Congress for the entire debate over health care, she was a member of one of the principal committees that wrote the House bill, and she still hasn't bothered to learn what the reform law says or does. There is, for the record, no public option, though I wish there were.
Leave a Comment:
Uh, huh. Sure. Those health care companies truly, really, really, really will keep those provisions. Why, they promise.
C'mon, who's dumb enough to believe that? How many months will it be before they tell us they are astonished to discover that their actuarial studies just won't permit it and still be profitable (while wasting society's resources on what is essentially health care overhead)?
Most likely, Lose.
Wendall Potter believes that the insurance companies statements are only PR. I think that it was Lawrence O'Donnell who contacted Potter yesterday to get his reaction. Potter hasn't written anything on this yet but I will be interested to see what he believes the motive behind the insurance statement is. One thing I know is that the insurance companies don't do anything that doesn't affect their bottom line in a BIG way while providing the least amount of services they can get away with.
The purpose of the insurance statement is to give faux comfort and help prepare a soft landing for Republicans when the ACA is overturned. People will just be lead to believe that, no problem, nothing will be changed to coverage even if the ACA is overturned. This is so Republicans won't suffer at the polls over this little issue should that even be a possibility.
Then the elections will come. And then the insurance companies will drop the provisions.
Is Emerson stupid, or lying or both? I can no longer remember when a published article would include the facts alongside such an outright lie - this is what passes for "journalism" today. That's why Emerson feels so comfortable playing the public-at-large for fools.
This has, in essence, become the eternal question for me...
;-)
http://www.blackstarnews.com/news/135/ARTICLE/5932/2009-08-11.html
5 Big Republican Lies About Healthcare :
[Health Care Reform Debate]
The health care fight has turned ugly, fast.
Right-wing mobs are crashing congressional town halls; lies are spreading via anonymous email chains, and Sarah Palin bizarrely said that President Obama was going to set up a "death panel," whatever that is.
Many of these claims are just incredible—but if we don't fight back with the truth, the right will continue to poison the health care debate. So as part of our Real Voices for Change campaign this August, we're working to set the
record straight.
The Top Five Health Care Reform Lies—and How to Fight Back.
The First Lie: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandmother.
The truth: These accusations—of "death panels" and forced euthanasia—are, of course, flatly untrue. As an article from the Associated Press puts it: "No 'death panel' in health care bill."
What's the real deal? Reform legislation includes a provision, supported by the AARP, to offer senior citizens access to a professional medical counselor who will provide them with information on preparing a living will and other issues facing older
Americans.
The Second Lie: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan.
The truth: Withreform, choices will increase, not decrease. Obama's reform plans will create a health insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace for affordable, high-quality insurance options. Included in the exchange is the public health insurance option—a nationwide plan with a broad network of providers—that will operate alongside private insurance
companies, injecting competition into the market to drive quality up and costs down.
If you're happy with your coverage and doctors, you can keep them. But the new public plan will expand choices to millions of businesses or individuals who choose to opt into it, including many who simply can't afford health care now.
The Third Lie: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing. The truth: Health care reform will expand access to high-quality health insurance, and give individuals, families, and businesses more choices for coverage. Right now, big corporations decide whether to give you coverage, what doctors you get to see, and whether a particular procedure or medicine
is covered—that is rationed care. And a big part of reform is to stop that.
Health care reform will do away with some of the most nefarious aspects of this rationing: discrimination for pre-existing conditions, insurers that cancel coverage when you get sick, gender discrimination, and lifetime and yearly limits on coverage. And outside of that, as noted above, reform will increase insurance options, not force anyone into a rationed situation.
The Fourth Lie: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare benefits.
The truth: Health care reform plans will not reduce Medicare benefits. Reform includes savings from Medicare that are unrelated to patient care—in fact, the savings comes from cutting billions of dollars in overpayments to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.
The Fifth Lie: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America.
The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy—to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families, small businesses, and the American economy.
Right now, we spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care. The average family premium is projected to rise to over $22,000 in the next decade—and each year, nearly a million people face bankruptcy because of medical expenses.
Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama's reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.
We're closer to real health care reform than we've ever been—and the next few weeks will decide whether it happens. We need to make sure the truth about health care reform is spread far and wide to combat right wing lies.
Please forward this article to your friends today.
Please feel free to post your comments directly online or submit them to milton@blackstarnews.com
"a primary objection to the ACA remains the heavy-handed, bureaucratic approach, which necessarily compels millions of employers and beneficiaries to leave private insurance in favor of a public option."
Ok Steve, I was right with you til I got to that part - did I miss something because that "public option" wasn't even on the table! Are you sure Emerson was even paying attention during the "debates"? Wow, just blindingly ignorant.....
Assume for the sake of argument that the ACA is struck down rather than just the mandate. How long do health insurance companies think they can stave off reform? The insurance companies have had decades to fix the system and it continues to get worse. Inevitably, the public will demand reform and then the insurance companies will find themselves with more draconian measures than the current law. That is the price they will pay in the long term because Congress will be forced to act when enough voters demand action. Insurance companies will be unable to buy influence when Congress acts under threat of the election process. Public opinion will cascade and roll over the insurance companies. This is how other consumer reform legislation like the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and banking laws regarding check process were passed.
Jobs, jobs, jobs.
"How long do health insurance companies think they can stave off reform?"
Til they see the pitchforks and torches at the gates......
The pitchforks and torches may come sooner than they think. With the Boomers starting to move into Medicare and Social Security, the high premiums are going to go even higher. If people are being squeezed on their retirement funds, private and SS, those health insurance premiums are going to become a major issue. And there are going to be a lot of Boomers on Medicare within 10 years.
Even if the inusrance companies keep true to their word -- a big, BIG if -- this brings me no comfort. As a self-employed adult with a pre-existing condition, this would do me no good at all. I'm not asking for a government handout of any kind here, I want the insurance I PAY FOR MYSELF (and out the nose, I might add) to cover my current medical needs, and I want to be able to shop around for a better price and better coverage so I can spend MY OWN money more efficiently, just like everyone else does. The fact that I cannot do so right now is blatantly unfair. At this point in the game, the ACA is the only thing that will help level that playing field.
How are those death panels working for ya Sarah?
The big problem is the administration does not seem to want to make any fuss about the lies that continue to be told about the Affordable Health Care Act and risk offending anyone.
What Hope420 said.
In my world. I would propose that we change the word "mandate" to "public option" and money is withheld every month from SSI and SSD for health care option. If you have another health insurance carrier, it is refunded every year.
People who do not have a health card can go to public health clinic, i.e. restructured ER like Urgent Care with indigent hospital beds covered as they are in some states by a type of BRIDGE program. Paid for by the health care option, and private funds.
Case Closed.
?
Well, maybe. Of course, in my world, we'd have simply have Medicare Part E-for-Everybody...
And yes, the air is very nice here, thank you!
;-)
Dear Rachel, I wouldn't know. I have been denied Health Care Insurance in the state of Arizona. What's a girl to do, die?