Rash of Lazy, Sensational Reporting is Freaking People Out About Obamacare

  • submit to reddit

Credit: iStock

A rash of sensational, context-free reporting is needlessly alarming the public about what’s happening in America’s health insurance markets as a result of Obamacare. Making matters worse, it’s set against a backdrop of relentless, intentional misinformation from the law’s opponents. It should come as no surprise that many Americans are anxious about a law most know little about other than what they catch on short TV news segments.

Erik Wemple, media critic for the Washington Post, noted that a Florida woman named Wanda Barrette, who claimed that her insurance premiums were increasing ten-fold – from $54 per month to $591 — was interviewed by CBS and three different Fox TV shows (many conservative outlets like The Weekly Standard also picked up the CBS report). Wemple interviewed the woman himself and found that the story didn’t convey that she was losing “a pray-that-you-don’t-really-get-sick ‘plan.’”

Her current health insurance plan, she says, doesn’t cover “extended hospital stays; it’s not designed for that,” says Barrette. Well, does it cover any hospitalization? “Outpatient only,” responds Barrette. Nor does it cover ambulance service and some prenatal care. On the other hand, says Barrette, it does cover “most of my generic drugs that I need” and there’s a $50 co-pay for doctors’ appointments. “It’s all I could afford right now,” says Barrette.

When asked if she ever required hospitalization, Barrette says she did. It happened when she was employed by Raytheon, which provided “excellent benefits.” Ever since she left the company and started working as an independent contractor, “I haven’t been hospitalized since then, thank God.”

It was good reporting. But even Wemple only mentioned in passing that the woman “may be eligible for subsidies.” In doing so, he buried the lede — according to Kaiser’s subsidy calculator, and presuming Barrette doesn’t smoke, she would be eligible for a bronze plan, which guarantees free preventive care and coverage for hospitalizations, for only $97 per month — one-sixth of that headline number that’s making the rounds (a silver plan, with more extensive coverage, would cost her $209 after subsidies).

That story was far from alone in hyping a “trainwreck” narrative without giving equal time to the law’s benefits. Front-and-center today is an NBC “investigation” that’s been getting an enormous amount of attention, especially in conservative circles. It supposedly reveals that the Obama administration knew in advance that millions of insurance plans would be cancelled even as the president repeatedly promised Americans, “if you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan.”

But this purported ‘smoking gun’ only tells us the obvious: that the administration, like every health care expert in the world, knew that within the individual market there were insurance plans that don’t meet minimal standards of coverage – plans that would likely leave their purchasers bankrupt should an accident or serious illness befall them. (Perhaps Obama should have said, “if you have a plan that isn’t a ripoff and doesn’t leave you entirely exposed to risk, you can keep it.”)

And it should come as no surprise that some people will have to pay more for better coverage, but that, too, is a story that requires considerable context that’s been lacking in a lot of recent reporting.

Here’s an excerpt from NBC’s report:

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

And here’s some of what’s missing from this report and many others like it…

Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic points out that there will, indeed, be some people who lose coverage, and some will have to pay higher rates, but many others are going to experience “rate joy” – a story that’s been getting far less attention…

Obamacare is transforming one part of the existing health insurance market, in ways that will force some people to pay more than they do now. But that’s only part of the story. Many other people, quite possibly the majority of people in that market, will pay less than they do now. And even those paying more will be getting more comprehensive, more secure insurance.

Read the whole piece – it’s a good primer on everything that’s happening to our insurance markets as a result of Obamacare.

Kevin Drum at Mother Jones argues that the universe of people who will be adversely affected by cancellations is probably pretty small…

[These stories don’t] describe a huge demographic—people who are just barely above the subsidy threshold and currently have individual coverage and are young enough to see premium increases—but there’s no question they exist…

It’s not clear how many people are genuinely going to get hit by sticker shock. In most of the stories I’ve read… people are simply taking the word of their insurance company about how much a new policy will cost. They may find out that things are better once they actually shop around and check out the subsidies they qualify for. Others may find that the higher premiums pay for themselves in lower out-of-pocket expenses throughout the year…

Right now, even in places like California that have working exchange sites, a lot of people are still guessing about how Obamacare will actually affect them…. Better benefits and federal subsidies are going to have a big impact, and that impact probably won’t be clear until Obamacare has actually been up and running for a while.

As for the “rate shock” some will experience, Josh Barro offered some much-needed perspective at Business Insider

Once Obamacare is implemented, America’s health insurance system will be a thicket of subsidies and transfers that benefit some people and harm others….

But here’s the thing: Before Obamacare, our health insurance system was already a thicket of subsidies and transfers. The law doesn’t simplify the system, but it does make the thicket of subsidies and transfers more sensible: directed more at people who have low incomes or high health needs, and greatly shrinking the share of the population that doesn’t have health coverage at all. Making the thicket more sensible will mean that some people’s costs go up, producing “rate shock”…

The Los Angeles Times looked at how many Californians who currently get health insurance through the individual market are facing higher premiums. But here’s the most important part of the article:

A number of factors are driving up rates. In a report this year, consultants hired by the state said the influx of sicker patients as a result of guaranteed coverage was the biggest single reason for higher premiums. Bob Cosway, a principal and consulting actuary at Milliman Inc. in San Diego, estimated that the average individual premium in 2014 will rise 27% because of that difference alone.

It’s a lot cheaper to provide health insurance coverage if you exclude a lot of the people who need it most. Making insurance available to people with pre-existing health conditions costs money. Obamacare funds this transfer to the chronically ill in part by raising premiums on healthy people.

And Igor Volsky, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, notes that people in the individual insurance market were seeing their plans changed frequently prior to the existence of Obamacare…

The cancellations are a result of so-called grandfather rules promulgated by President Obama’s Health and Human Services. The rule exempts health insurance plans in existence before March 23, 2010 — the day the Affordable Care Act became law — from many of the new regulations, benefits standards and consumer protections that new plans now have to abide by, but says that policies could lose their designation if they make major changes…

The naturally high turnover rate associated with the individual market means that it’s highly unlikely that individuals would still be enrolled in plans from 2010 in 2014. In fact, the Obama administration publicly admitted this when it issued the regulations in 2010, leading Republicans like Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) to seize on the story in order to push for repeal of the grandfather regulations.

In the end, lazy stories of “sticker shock” and cancellations by reporters uninterested in the details of public policy only offer the sensational half of a complicated story, and that’s providing a big assist to opponents of the law. As Greg Sargent noted in The Washington Post after the government shutdown proved disastrous for their cause, Republicans “are now hoping to put that behind them by launching a series of coordinated, seemingly serious House investigations into what has gone wrong with Obamacare.” In the House, they’re introducing the ‘Keep Your Health Plan Act,’ which would guarantee that insurers could continue to rip off consumers.

And CBS, after breathlessly offering the meaningless factoid that three times as many people are receiving cancellation notices than have signed up for Obamacare so far (never mind that a grand total of 123 people signed up for “Romneycare” during its first month in Massachusetts), tells us that “the White House is on the defensive trying to explain it.” They could use a little help from a responsible Fourth Estate.

Joshua Holland is a senior digital producer for BillMoyers.com. He’s the author of The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy (and Everything Else the Right Doesn’t Want You to Know about Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America) (Wiley: 2010), and host of Politics and Reality Radio. Follow him on Twitter or drop him an email at hollandj [at] moyersmedia [dot] com.
  • submit to reddit
  • Becca

    “They could use a little help from a responsible Fourth Estate.”

    Unfortunately, that’s an oxymoron these days. Real reporting doesn’t sell – it’s an expensive venture that doesn’t work well with cost center accounting.

  • Anonymous

    We were unsuccessful in getting them to stop their “false-equivalency” reporting. It seems reasonable that they will, also, not stop their “fear-mongering” reporting.

  • ajb1953

    No, what’s “freaking people out” about Obamacare is that they are just now realizing every single thing he said about it as he was selling it is a LIE. He is an inveterate liar. It’s all LIES. And the mainstream media is more than happy to repeat those lies without ever engaging their brains or doing ANY research whatsoever. The liberal media LOVE Obama and will report everything he says as “true.”

    The media is just as culpable in this fiasco because they have FAILED miserably to serve their function for the people of this country.

  • http://aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com aconservativeteacher

    I clicked on the link to verify that all the opposition to Obamacare is ” relentless, intentional misinformation from the law’s opponents” and it took me to a left-wing website that nibbled at one argument against Obamacare. I think that link needs to be fixed… or else more links need to be added… or else perhaps the statement and implication that all opposition to Obamacare is a lie needs to be removed. Although if you like the line, I guess you can keep it… until the President order the HHS to write regulations making you lose it, and then I suppose you’ll still suggest that all opposition to it is a lie, and that’s why you’re liberal instead of living in reality.

  • Raeann Thomas

    Sigh, yes, yes, you’re conservative, therefore only you know the truth of the matter, no one else who’s politics differs from yours can possibly be living in reality, can they? I think we all see who is actually not living in reality.

    The article doesn’t say that ALL opposition to the law is a lie, by the way (I would think since you’re so grounded in reality, you’d have realized that) but that lazy, half assed reporting is passing on partial truths about the law which is feeding house republican’s obsession with demonizing anything that has anything to do with Obama.

  • Robert Schiele

    I’ve always found Mr. Moyers’ observations to be worth reading/hearing, and I would say the same is true in this case. Hopefully, when fully implemented, the ACA will work as planned. If it does, via a reduction in unnecessary ER visits or by any other means, lower healthcare costs for all, it will be seen as an enormous achievement. What I find troubling is the way it was “sold” to the public. Mr. Obama declared again and again that “If you want to keep your existing healthcare plan, you can keep it.” One can argue or admit that he might have used some kind of qualifier in that kind of statement, but he didn’t. Not even once. And we now know that his blanket assertion simply wasn’t true. If the President knew his repeated assertions weren’t true, then whether he made them in a good cause or not, he lied. If he didn’t know, he should have troubled himself to find out. Call me old fashioned, but I do not appreciate being lied to by elected officials, even in the best of causes.

    It is true that our democratic system of government cannot function as intended if we, as Americans, cannot simply agree to disagree on certain issues. Nor, in my opinion, can it work when racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry are permitted to exist in our public discourse. But it also cannot function as intended when, for whatever reasons, our elected officials lie to us, or for whatever reasons fail to inform themselves fully before explaining proposed policies to us. For in the final analysis, it is supposed to be the voters who make the ultimate decisions, and they cannot do that in an informed way when they are provided with false or misleading information in the first place.

  • ajb1953

    Can you quote one thing Obama has said about Obamacare that is true? Just one thing?

  • http://www.movies-suck.com/ Wastrel Way

    Amazing. Instead of going up 10x, Wanda Barette’s insurance will only go up 4x if she wants a Silver Plan. And this is good?

  • Bob Muenchausen

    It is about time that those who claim to have the news to report, actually KNOW that they have the news, and are not just joining the ranks of all the stupid and lazy copy-cats who parrot someone else’s work so easily lifted from Google.

  • Anonymous

    No, the Bronze plan would be far superior to what she has now — much better coverage — and would cost $40 more per month.

  • Ben McKelway

    I probably would have shared this article on Facebook if the author had not undercut his credibility by writing “buried the lede” (instead of “lead”). Don’t underestimate the importance of proofreading.

  • Anonymous

    Will you post it on Facebook now?


    “Lede” is the correct, if antiquated, spelling of the opening paragraph of a news piece. Call me old fashioned, but it’s not a typo 😉

  • Anonymous

    It’s worse than the zombie apocalypse.

    It will be interesting to see how long it takes after the website is fixed for that fact to sink in.

  • Anonymous

    Are you stating the fact that you will accept the penalty of not wanting health insurance?

  • Anonymous

    Healthcare insurance companies do change and/or drop plans all the time. What’s the big fuss?

  • Anonymous

    He should be covered by Medicaid.

  • Lee Church

    re: lede

    Since you were lamenting the sorry state of modern journalism, it’s even more appropriate to use “lede” in lieu of “lead”.

    As so often the case, you were penalized because you made sense. :)

    re: sad state of journalism

    On purely dollar for dollar basis, writing agenda based ‘news’ pays more than what you do. You are, and i’ll coin a phrase here “the antiquated journalist” (I’m teasing you here.. it’s a very good article). We either have false equivalence, or we have toggled attack pieces. Both intended by media to generate revenue and maximize sensationalism.

    re: the GOP/TP wish for the good ol’ days that never were

    An underlying theme from the GOP/TPers that we should just go back to the temporary ways of the 1950s, which seemed like a sort of Nash Equilibrium for those that thought it permanent (due to ignoring a multitude of unsustainable factors) apparently doesn’t apply to journalism. :) The same can be said of pre-Obamacare healthcare.. pre-Obamacare insurance was not working and unless folks go back to the one job for life world (among other issues) wasn’t going to start working either.

    re: how folks accept and reject information
    All of this isn’t to be critical of Ben above, but the dunning/kruger effect in fitting evidence does seem to be in vogue. Your article was discounted because you said a trigger word, not on the merits, but a trigger word (reminds me of Steve martin in “Dead men don’t wear plaid”.. “cleaning woman!?”).

    Thanks for your efforts Joshua. Though we can’t always tell at the time, efforts like yours do make the world a better place.

    note: I put the various perspectives in one comment because I didn’t want to lose the lead lede. :)


  • Anonymous

    Thanks for the comment.

    Re: people yearning to go back to the 1950s: Jon Stewart did what I thought was a truly brilliant bit on that narrative… http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-5-2010/even-better-than-the-real-thing


  • Lee Church

    Because pre-Obamacare, a majority of Americans created their own medical savings accounts?

    You cite a great example of how free market action is was lacking in healthcare. Folks didn’t save money, in fact they racked up debt over the last 40 years or so, in what’s called ‘credit expansion’. Companies racked up debt (leverage buyouts, increased leverage in general idle cash had to be ‘put to work’), pensions racked up debt (forcing them to seek higher yields and buy stuff like mortgage backed securities instead of holding treasuries), and individuals racked up debt (buying housing because ‘it always goes up’, credit cards, loans for cars, and even loans for household items). And governments racked up debt, at all levels.

    Most of what was done was living well beyond what was sustainable. There was very little savings going on for medical expenses.. and of that, it was often just debt increased in another area so one could say they had ‘savings’ somewhere else.

    It’s great that Obamacare has gotten folks like yourself to take some personal responsibility because that certainly didn’t exist pre-Obamacare, so we will take that as a “I endorse Obamacare” post from you (especially if you hate it).

    and why on earth should a terrorist be allowed to buy health insurance whether private, public, or any other kind? Your complaint suggests that terrorists are entitled to it.. which is odd, because one of the GOP/TPer lies that Obamacare provided healthcare ONLY to illegal immigrants (one of the more bizarre claims, but one that is still repeated by the TPers).

    To NOT have folks buying insurance be checked for such things as being a terrorist would be an outrage.. surely you would complain that a terrorist got medicare, or gasp.. left the emergency room with an unpaid bill (that is paid by folks with insurance).

    I doubt you have any idea of how silly your post is.

    I do love the “goodies that might not benefit you at all” part though.. um.. if one has insurance and doesn’t get sick, it is no benefit at all. If one has a hernia operation, then the cancer coverage no ‘benefit’? If one screens you for breast cancer, and you don’t have it, it’s a net negative and ‘no benefit’? So I love it.. you took a partisan agenda and crafted it into a beautiful piece of dung (well you copied what you were fed, to be fair you didn’t think of that on your own).

    I get the sense that you have no idea how insurance works, on any level.

  • Lee Church

    at risk of answering the rhetorical question

    a rough outline (arbitrary steps but you will get the concept :)

    1) start with agenda
    2) select facts that support conclusion
    3) ignore facts that contradict conclusion

    so of course it had to be selected.. it fits the President Obama is satan meme.. see? aha.. so there! (and on and on it goes).

    and it sure does get away from the problem of the GOP/TPers holding the country hostage bad PR.

    mission accomplished even if they fail.. and onto the next attack(s).

  • Lee Church

    Correct, article selection, and headline creation are deliberately misleading folks.

    then they just shake the ol etch a sketch and onto another sensationalized fake story.

    It’s not as though this is the first time we have seen this. We see it so often that it’s gotten boring… so often we know there will be a recycling of it after it’s debunked.. and there will be two other stories to replace it when folks start to figure out it was all a bunch of hooey..

    As they say on the 24/7 365 news channels “and we have to leave it there, as we are out of time.. when we come back (fill in next baseless junk attack)”.

  • Lee Church

    Can you? go ahead, can you not find one thing? If you can’t, then you might want to reassess just how partisan you are.

    We get it.. everything from President Obama is bad.. that’s your line and you are sticking to it.

    And you want someone to take you seriously? really?

    Do you have any idea of how insane your post is? any at all?

  • Lee Church

    that’s more than ‘one thing’.. so technically they are right, the President has not said “one thing true”.. he has said many things true.. which is not the same as ‘one thing’.

    (pretty sad state of national dialogue.. yes? )

    (i think the poster was simply saying talking points be advised all evidence that doesn’t fit their ideology is thrown out.. that leaves nothing the President ever said, says, or will say as possibly being true in their eyes).

  • Lee Church

    that’s not ‘one thing’ either. :)

    To the GOP/TP everything is a weapon. There is no objective to further understanding, it’s simply a game to them.. and President Obama is the ‘enemy’.

    Nothing else matters to these folks.. created by the media, these folks, now actually believe their fantasy world.

    reason does not apply.

  • Lee Church

    most folks don’t intend to get cancer or incur other long term healthcare costs either.

    Sounds like you have a plan, a bad plan, but a plan nonetheless.

    I’m guessing you are all for ‘personal responsibility’ as well.. that’s a major platform thing with the TPers. What it means for a TPer is that you intend that others take responsibility for what you do personally, the “TP personal responsibility” badge.

    You have it all figured out though.. must be nice to live in a nation where everyone is a multi-millionaire and self-insured. Are you from the US? or are you really from another country, because in the US, most folks either have insurance or get wiped out for life if they get sick. You may not know that from whatever country you are from, but that’s what happens in the US. You might be thinking of the UK, canada, or other industrialized nations that provide healthcare to their citizens.

    But i do like your plan. If i were choosing a plan for disaster, your plan would be a perfect plan to choose.

  • Anonymous

    According to the minimum coverae requirements that include, for example, hospitalization. In the interview, Barrett said she was scared that she’d need hospitalization becaus eher plan didn’t cover it. Having a plan that doesn’t leave you anxious about getting sick is objectively better than one that does.

    There’s quite a bit of disinformation out there. I’d just add that catastrophic plans are fine for those under 30.

  • Anonymous

    LEDE IS CORRECT. Sorry but you are incorrect.

  • Sergio Lopez-Luna

    Are a Fox employee?

  • Sergio Lopez-Luna


  • Kelli Martinelli

    As completely exhausted as I am over this whole conversation, this has me revived. A bit. I don’t yet know how the Affordable Healthcare Act will personally impact me. I’m nervous, sure. I’m a stupidly broke American living paycheck to credit card to paycheck. But being nervous is one thing. Being freaked out by sensationalism and partial sound bytes will only hinder legitimate change. No one ever learned to swim by standing on the shoreline. We’ve got to jump in. Sure, there’s a (tiny) chance we’ll drown. But there’s a much greater chance that we’ll doggie paddle, flounder a bit, and then find our stride and swim to the other side.

  • Sergio Lopez-Luna


  • Sergio Lopez-Luna

    She is one of those Fox people who invade other sites with lies

  • Sergio Lopez-Luna

    The teabaggers are out lying through their teeth

  • Frank Luke

    What’s heartening is that several news sources with investigative interests are springing up (i.e. EBay’s Omidyar’s for one).

  • Lee Church

    The awful state of insurance actually having to cover someone when they get sick.. it’s well, un-american I tell ya. I mean, really, let’s long for the days when you get sick, lose your job, and then lose your insurance. I can well see why those insurance folks that are used to the entitlement of premiums for ‘peace of mind’ (but no actual insurance coverage) are outraged, heck if I had the ol’ gravy bowl pulled away like that I would be upset too!

    Of course, since premiums were skyrocketing, as you put it, or outpacing inflation for many years, pre-Obamacare was unsustainable. It’s unfortunate that the GOP/TP took an ‘oppose everything and anything’ position, as they could have contributed to shaping Obamacare more. As it stands, the President governed sensibly in the GOP/TP’s absence. He took many GOP ideas and incorporated them into Obamacare. Such as the mandate, and the exchange to name two that the GOP seem to dislike since “that man” is President (heck the GOP/TPers even ran a guy who signed Romneycare into law).

    Yes, we get it already. Anything the President says, does or doesn’t do the GOP/TP is against. Given that has been the stated tactic (see dear ol’ mitch McConnell for details at a GOP propaganda store near you), folks in the GOP/TP can’t be surprised that we actually understand that it’s opposition for opposition sake. Of course rank and file GOP/TPers don’t have a clue, but hey, they are the cannon fodder of the financial backers of the GOP/TP.

    anyway, did you mean nominal dollars or real dollar amounts? and did you mean as opposed to the previous projected costs, or some other curve (which could make the numbers dance any way you wish)? You know in all the excitement I kinda lost count of how many failed approaches we have had.. we had employer based insurance, then to attempt to contain costs we had HMOs, then we went to PPOs, and on and on. But other than the initial hoopla, they each returned to the same incremental cost projections, which are completely unsustainable. What we had pre-Obamacare was not working. The only folks who think it was were in a ‘peace of mind’ bubble; they had insurance, and thought they were ‘ok’, but didn’t know they only had insurance when they were not sick, and didn’t change jobs. But they were ‘happy’.

    That saying about something something.. with ignorance and something to do with ‘bliss’ comes to mind.

    It’s great to know that you can do math though.. are you the one that worked on the “the top 50% pay 97% of taxes” thingy? That was a masterpiece of dancing figures made to dance to the GOP/TP’s puppet master’s will. So if you worked on that, congrats, it will go down as masterpiece of statistical lies.

    I can almost feel the excitement building as we wait for the GOP/TP healthcare math. One particular item I look forward to is how the GOP/TP wipe out the need for health care for the poor.. they just don’t need it.. they go to the emergency room.. for free.. and then we move that cost over here, and then divide it by GDP of norway, multiply by the total IQ of the GOP/TP (a very very small number less than 1), and we have successfully made the problem go away. Of course everyone that has a car accident will need to say whether they get health care or not (the small problem of reviving them first to ask is time shifted backwards, a nifty trick in it’s own right), and everyone stays healthy forever.

    After all, in the GOP/TP world, everyone is rich, healthy and smart. And if they aren’t that’s their problem.. right? I mean really, they ought to take some personal responsibility for buying that defective glass that had lead in it.. it’s their fault they didn’t test it for lead anyway.. buyer beware and all that.

    You do have your own lead testing kit, right? (if not, i can sell one to you, but I do have to charge you a surcharge as you seem to need it).

    but sure.. premiums go up, and so does the price of eggs.

  • Anonymous

    Subsidized might mean that it “costs less” to you…it DOES NOT mean that it “costs less”.

  • Anonymous

    I’m 59 and self-employed. I had a catastrophic plan that cost me $220 a month with a high deductible, which I am willing to accept as I’m very healthy with no “bad habits” as far as diet and exercise. My new bronze plan will cost $499 a month. Of course, the coverage is better, and the deductible is $6350 instead of $10K, so the price is fair for what the new plan provides. but I have completely lost my choice. I live in a rural area and according to my state’s exchange website I have only two companies to choose from; the one I currently have and which I’ll remain with, and one other. To really control health costs we needed a single-payer plan.

  • Sue Barnhart

    Excaliburr, but you are forgetting w/o ObamaCare on your cheaper plan your insurance company had the right to kick you off that plan at any time and refuse to insure you at all, now they cannot deny you coverage. So you actually do not know what they would have done if you got sick and needed to use it.

  • Sue Barnhart

    of course it was cheaper under your old plan they had the right to drop you and refuse to cover if you got too expensive.

  • John Carter

    I don’t disagree over all but there is a serious spin here. Certainly, there are some massively underinsured people who would do well to have more adequate insurance even if it costs nominally more. However, when NO existing policy in the USA meets the minimum qualifications (1. perscription coverage; 2. pediatric dental coverage; 3. maternity) then you have to ask how exactly is it the case that you can keep your existing insurance? The answer is, if it is a grandfathered plan you’ve had since before 3-23-2010. The question then is will it be in the interest of any for-profit insurance carrier to continue to sell the grandfathered policies? Blue Cross Blue Shield has already announced their conclusion: no.

  • Anonymous


  • Anonymous

    “As someone who has gone into the Colorado exchange and priced bronze plans,”


  • Anonymous

    so you are gonna be a Free Rider drain on the rest of us.

    Great, Lady.
    thanks alot.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    He said that the wall street controlled Net Negative Value middleman skim operation has been take out of the doctor/ patient relationship and has their skim cut in half..

    Thank god for President Obama.

  • Anonymous

    They shouldn’t with the New marketplaces for comparison shopping and competition on rates for the first time EVER in America.

    why wouldn’t the so called fiscal conservatives ever advocate for a marketplace like this?

  • hazmat456

    insurance company had the right to kick you off that plan at any time and refuse to insure you at all this is not true at all

  • hazmat456

    of course it was cheaper under your old plan they had the right to drop you and refuse to cover if you got too expensive.
    again NOT TRUE

  • hazmat456

    of course it’s better it COSTS MORE!

  • American taxpayer

    You are an idiot