« | »

Losing ‘Bad Apple’ Plans = Paying More For Less

From the Washington Examiner:

For some, losing so-called bad apple health insurance plans will mean paying more for less

By SUSAN FERRECHIO | NOVEMBER 4, 2013

Hadley Heath’s health insurance plan seemed to have it all. A low deductible, low monthly premium, and comprehensive coverage that even included free preventative care.

But Heath’s insurer, CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield just sent her a letter, announcing they will terminate her plan because it lacks "Essential Health Benefits," mandated under the Affordable Care Act…

Like ‘free’ breast pumps. And ‘free’ birth control pills.

In Heath’s case, if she chooses the cheapest policy known as the bronze plan from the newly-created health care exchanges, she will pay a $200 monthly premium, up from the $113 she pays under her soon-to-be-cancelled plan. And her deductible would increase from $2,700 per month to $3,500, according to estimates from her current insurance provider.

Suddenly, ‘free’ birth control pills don’t seem to be so free, after all.

In the words of President Obama, Heath holds a policy issued by a "bad apple" insurer. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called plans like Heath’s "medically underwritten," while Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said last week such plans are being eliminated because they have "flimsy" and "deficient" coverage "that disappears when people actually need it." Waxman added, "Nobody should want that." But Heath was happy with her policy and wanted very much to keep it.

What does she know? Clearly, Obama and Sebelius and Waxman know what is best for her.

"My plan is not a junk plan," said Heath, who is a health care policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum in Washington D.C. "It’s got emergency room care, primary care, immunizations and it has hospitalization coverage." …

So Ms. Heath is a conservative. Why should we care what happens to her?

The Obama administration, meanwhile, has continued to defend the cancellations of individually purchased policies as necessary in order to rid the market of so-called junk plans.

In California, Blue Shield decided not to allow any customers to keep their individual plans. They sent cancellation notices to all 119,000 of their policy holders. "It would have been difficult to find plans that had all ten essential health benefits," Stephan Shivinsky, Blue Shield’s vice president of corporate communications, told the Examiner…

Independent Women’s Voice has launched the website, mycancellation.gov to showcase the cancellations letters people are receiving from health insurance companies.

A Blue Cross Blue Shield letter posted Sunday from a North Carolina policy holder showed a 2013 premium of $456 per month increasing to $1,260 per month.

Another letter, also posted Sunday, showed a policy holder losing a plan that costs $367 per month and being offered a plan for a monthly rate of $641. The deductible on the new plan would increase from $2,200 out-of-pocket maximum for an individual plan to $6,350.

Once again, these are just ‘anecdotes.’ They don’t really matter. Besides, these poor slobs just don’t realize how much better off they will be, paying more for less.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Monday, November 4th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “Losing ‘Bad Apple’ Plans = Paying More For Less”

  1. Petronius

    If the Republican Party were really clever it would start an outlaw health insurance company and call it “Bad Apple Health Insurance.”

    And it would advertise that its plan does not meet ObamaCare standards, but is actually far better in terms of most bang for the buck––basic primary care and hospitalization coverage with lower premiums, deductibles, and copays. But without the Sandra Fluke Special and the rest of the Liberal freebies, bells, and whistles. And a web site that really works.

    Millions of Americans would immediately sign up.

    Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves.

    • captstubby

      the still living at home nerd could design a better working web site,
      cheaper than 668 million dollars.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »