So Where Were These People Before the HCR Vote?

Posted on by

Margaret Talev writes for McClatchy Newspapers:

Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors’ offices, human resources departments and business groups.

“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’ ” said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com.

I read somewhere that con artists were going door to door, telling people they were being registered for “Obamacare” and asking for a signup fee. I don’t know how successful the con is. But the McClatchy story tells me that lots of people thought the fought-over health care reform bill was supposed to create a taxpayer-funded program to pay for their health care. Sorta like Medicare for all, a.k.a. “single payer.” And, apparently, that’s what many people wanted.

Many people should have said something about what they wanted several months ago.

Of course, it’s entirely possible some of the callers seeking “free Obama Care” were former town hall-storming tea partiers who figured, well, as long as its free, I might as well take advantage. Imagine their surprise to learn that, not only is there no program called “Obama Care,” there is no new federal program providing taxpayer-paid-for health insurance upon which one might hang the name “Obama Care.”

The closest the law comes to providing such a thing are the funds designated for state-administered high-risk pools. This is supposed to be a stopgap measure to help people with pre-existing conditions until 2014, when insurers will lose the ability to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. But some states already had high-risk pools, so that program isn’t entirely new, either. It’s just better subsidized to make it more affordable.

One of the weirder talking points coming from the Right over the past several months is the demand that the President and federal lawmakers who created “Obamacare” be required to enroll in it. But the state insurance exchanges that the HCR bill will eventually establish are more or less modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, in which most federal employees are enrolled.

Further, nobody will be required to enroll in the insurance exchanges. Indeed, the HCR bill got so hacked down that most people will not be able to enroll in them even if they want to. And the exchanges are not providing taxpayer-subsidized insurance. They are just a means to make more affordable private insurance available to some people who are not insured through employment. The public option would not have been subsidized, either, other than administrative costs.

So to all the “patriots” screaming about “socialized medicine”: you wish.

16 thoughts on “So Where Were These People Before the HCR Vote?”

  1. I remember that last spring, in a TV interview, the CEO of an insurance company said (and I can only paraphrase): If all insurance companies had to accept everyone who applied for insurance, then, yes, we could cover everyone. The problem right now is that no single company can afford to do this because they would be swamped with high-risk people, while other companies skimmed off the cream.

    Seems to me that the HCR bill is an attempt to spread the risk for insurance companies while providing tax credits for small business and subsidies for those who cannot afford to pay out of pocket for insurance. All of which would seem to be a lovely gift to insurance companies. But at the same time, it does enable millions more Americans to receive adequate medical care.

    So my question is (no snark intended): Aside from the profit to insurance companies, how would this differ from a public option? Processing insurance claims for 35 million additional people is a huge undertaking. As 60 Minutes pointed out not long ago, with Medicare the opportunies for fraud are enormous and currently cost taxpayers billions each year. So which is less expensive in the long run — to create a new and probably quite huge bureacracy or to leave the monitoring to insurance companies, who are rather good at that kind of thing?

    Just asking because I haven’t a clue.

    • Aside from the profit to insurance companies, how would this differ from a public option?

      It’s the profit thing that’s the sticking point for a lot of people. The argument is that it’s wrong to issue a mandate that everyone buy insurance when the only insurance you can buy is from for-profit insurance corporations. On principle, I agree with this. This has led to some hysterical paranoia on the Left that the Evil Dastardly Obama Plan all along was to sucker everyone to make insurance company CEOs even richer. And if you try to explain that the mandate is necessary to making the plan work to keep insurance affordable, they stick their fingers in their ears and say LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU. So it’s the mandate plus no public option put together that’s got people riled up.

  3. I think felicity’s right. These are the people who heard there was some sort of battle regarding health care going on, but have no sense of the details, nor are they all that emotionally (let alone intellectually) involved. All they know is that “it”, whatever “it” is, passed, and in the mass of noise surrounding it, they picked up the name “Obamacare” (a convenient handle actually). So where can I get some?

  5. There will be subsidies starting in 2014, up to 400% of Federal Poverty Level will get some assistance.

    I believe the small business tax credits will phase in sooner.

  6. But the McClatchy story tells me that lots of people thought the fought-over health care reform bill was supposed to create a taxpayer-funded program to pay for their health care. Sorta like Medicare for all, a.k.a. “single payer.” And, apparently, that’s what many people wanted.

    Many people should have said something about what they wanted several months ago.

    Of course, it’s entirely possible some of the callers seeking “free Obama Care” were former town hall-storming tea partiers who figured, well, as long as its free, I might as well take advantage. Imagine their surprise to learn that, not only is there no program called “Obama Care,” there is no new federal program providing taxpayer-paid-for health insurance upon which one might hang the name “Obama Care.”

    They watched Fox and the Republicans call it a government takeover of health care. And they figured that was a good thing.

  7. A traditional definition of the function of a government is a body in place to protect us from each other AND FROM OURSELVES. The former is obvious, but it’s the latter we fail to recognize at our risk – especially in an under-educated, uninformed, misinformed electorate living under the illusion that they live in a democracy.

  8. Aside from the profit to insurance companies, how would this differ from a public option? Processing insurance claims for 35 million additional people is a huge undertaking.

    That’s the interesting thing. Had we gone to single payer, someone would still have to process claims, handle records, etc. Either the government would have contracted that out (probably to experienced former insurance companys turned government contractors), or they would bring it in-house by hiring people, maybe experienced insurance people and middle management.

    Functionally, except for senior management and the investors, it’s the same game. And if the contracts were outsourced, there would be no real difference to anyone. Instead of profiting from insurance, they’d profit (at a lower level) from the service income.

  9. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Mahablog » So Where Were These People Before the HCR Vote? -- Topsy.com

  10. SERIOUSLY, I want a poll done under these controls. Thiss wold be a major poll done by a reputable company of at least a couple of thousand – a good sample. Imbedded in the poll would be 3 questions about the bill that passed – easy ones – with mutiple choice answers.

    Now segreagate the answers by how informed the respondents are. Then let’s see how the true popularity of the HCR stacks up with the informed vs the fools.

  11. Many people should have said something about what they wanted several months ago

    I trust you ARE being snarky here,

    Because I fear it’s not merely Tea Party loons who “thought” they were getting something real.

    Maybe you and I watched and swallowed our hearts when the “real” reform was thrown overboard…but a lot of Obama voters out there have yet to get the bad news, and are just now biting down on that shit sandwich. The backlash could be fierce…unless of course “our” people have already learned to lower their expectations.

  12. “but a lot of Obama voters out there have yet to get the bad news, and are just now biting down on that shit sandwich. ”

    Sounds like you are from FDL. Any of us who DID follow the debate could suggest something beter and more progresive. And there it would sit – a better idea- a stack of paper. GOING NOWHERE. What we BARELY got passed is a great first step.It beats the hell out of nothing, particularly for tens of thousands evey year who won’t die for lack of access to medical services.

    I will listen to anyone who has a constructive idea ho to implement faster, how to move the legislation along to create a public option. If you think HCR is a ‘shit sandwich’ I have nothing but contempt for you.

  13. Dave S and Muldoon, YOu asked where the savings would come with a single payer system since claims would still have to be processed. First, there are many kinds of forms and so many different benefits. Rules are different for each company and for each client. So, right out of the gate you have to find out what coverage this person is entitled to. The doctor’s office tries to do this before the client (not a patient yet or ever to the insurance company) shows up at the office. THIS TAKES TIME=MONEY. Then after the visit there is the application for coverage that was promised. (carefully chosen words) 1st application is often denied or there is a request for back up documentation either from the doctor or patient. Current case for my family, ‘please provide a list of all the doctors who have treated you for anything in the last 5 years.’ This person has lived in 6 places in those 5 years including a foreign country. Can you imagine the time it is going to take me and the insurance company to verify all this?
    Now in a single payer system, there is one form! You only have to prove yourself HUMAN. All claims are paid but OUTLIERS BEWARE. Cheating, overuse, and non standard care would have to be identified and dealt with. A single system makes this easier to accomplish, a dysfunctional government makes it harder and in the case of Medicare- impossible. Tough decisions have to be made and rational usage of medical treatment has to be required.
    And so on. The issue is not only that insurance companies are inefficient. In fact they are very efficient doing what they are obligated to do, i.e. make a profit. The real issue is PROFIT MAKES THEM UNJUST.

  14. The physician who put a sign on his door requiring that his patients be republican was interviewed. His stated that Hospice care was going to be cut. He had several other easily corrected erroneous ideas. He looked like a fool to anyone who knew anything. The problem is, he has much company in the medical field. I appreciate a doctor knowing a great deal about his medical field, but it is scary to see how narrow their intellectual curiosity is. I think his specialty was urology. It is so hard not to make a comment about where his head is.

Comments are closed.