If you get a cancellation letter, don't be duped by your insurer

[pnwmom]

into accepting the offered policy without checking out other options -- both on the exchange and off of it (the latter especially if you don't qualify for subsidies).

There's some shady stuff going on out there.



http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-healthplans-20131030,0,5590179.story#axzz2jF4pkJQB

“Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. (We mentioned the Barrette case on Tuesday.)

“CR's Metcalf examined Barrette's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette's $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she's on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services -- and then only if her treatment is for "complications of pregnancy." Nothing for outpatient services.

SNIP

“As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. (Or she will once the federal system gets running.) Metcalf estimated that she'll be eligible for "real insurance that covers all essential health benefits" for as little as $165 a month -- a higher premium than she's paying now, sure, but one that won't cost her her home.

“That raises the question of whether the insurers sending out these cancellation notices are trying to cheat their customers, a point made by Paul Waldman at the American Prospect and echoed by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. Expecting insurance companies to play fair with their customers is as pointless as expecting dogs not to drink from the toilet, but what's the excuse of the reporters who retail these yarns without fully checking them out?"

[kestrel91316]

1. bad link

[pnwmom]

2. fixed -- thanks!

[leftstreet]

3. Good advice. Athough that's still a steep premium climb

for most working class people - $54 a month to $165

But certainly not as shocking as the laughable $591

[pnwmom]

4. But the other policy was worthless -- people with these junk policies

are spending good money to get practically nothing back.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-healthplans-20131030,0,5590179.story#axzz2jF4pkJQB


Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. (We mentioned the Barrette case on Tuesday.)

CR's Metcalf examined Barrette's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette's $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she's on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services -- and then only if her treatment is for "complications of pregnancy." Nothing for outpatient services.

"She's paying $650 a year to be uninsured," said an insurance expert Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, "she would have lost the house she's sitting in."

[Squinch]

5. Well then she can opt for the$95 penalty for non-insurance, keep her $54 per month that

she is paying now for nothing, and be more than $500 ahead of the game at the end of the year. Unless of course she has a complicated pregnancy, and then she'll only be $450 ahead of the game.

[pnwmom]

6. Except if she has a complicated pregnancy she would actually

be tens of thousands of dollars behind the game, since the costs over $50 would be entirely born by her.

[Squinch]

7. Yeah, but according to the reasoning behind, "I like my current insurance that Obamacare

is making me give up," she would get back that $50 benefit in return for her $600 in premiums for that year (while she bears the rest of the costs herself.) And apparently she thinks that's a good thing.

Honestly. What goes through these people's minds?

[pnwmom]

8. These people have very tiny minds that can't hold many facts,

or connect them together very well.

[Squinch]

9. How much you want to bet that that woman who is so staunchly defending

that con job she calls an insurance policy thought that the benefits she receives were actually her copays? Like the $15 per prescription and the $50 per hospitalization?

[pnwmom]

10. I bet you're right.

[leftstreet]

12. Well, if her insurance is junk anyway...

I don't think the Democrats are thinking the response to this through

Telling people who complain about a huge jump in premium that their insurance was shyte anyway and they were essentially uninsured...then yeah, some will just pay the fine and remain uninsured

[pnwmom]

13. Percentage wise, going from 50 to 160 is a huge jump.

But I think most people who had already expressed an interest in having insurance (as she had, by having purchased the junk policy) would compare the benefits and then choose to spend the additional $3 dollars a day.

[Squinch]

16. But the fact is that she has nothing now. If she is OK with that, she can have nothing for

one sixth of the price.

As I write that, I can see that it sounds glib, but I'm not trying to be. It is a fact. At the very worst, she saves $500 a year and is no worse off.

[fadedrose]

11. I smell a bunch of rats

and insurance companies rank just a bit higher than Congress, probably because they are sneaky and never get caught

[Incitatus]

14. Chris Hayes is doing a good report on this right now. nt

[pnwmom]

15. Thanks!