#Obama: Uninsured rate at lowest ever. Health care prices rising at slowest rate. No one denied for pre-existing conditions.
— Electa Draper (@ElectaDraper) June 9, 2015
Prices rising slowly? That’s great, because the initial price tags were exorbitant. Just ask ski resort locals who are paying some of the highest rates in the nation. Not to mention, Colorado families have seen their premiums increase by 35 percent.
No one denied for pre-existing conditions?
Uhm, President Obama should probably check his own plan, which does in fact deny coverage for pre-existing conditions for workers who are between jobs, or those who were laid off and forced into the short-term plans.
For example, an employee with cancer is suddenly laid off, fired, or has to quit their job because of their illness. While they are on that one-year plan, those bank-breaking cancer treatments are not covered.
Adding insult to injury, the short-term plans don’t even count as full insurance, so the consumer is still forced to pay the penalty for being uninsured.
Obama’s speech today at the Catholic Health Association lauded his namesake health care disaster for a reason – the Supreme Court is expected to rule later this month on whether insurance subsidies were available to all Americans, which of course, it is not.
It's unfortunate that this article is full of half truths, much like the claims from "the other side" that the uninsured rate has plummeted to 11% and premiums are rising slowly. Let's me explain.
1. The article claims that: "…President Obama should probably check his own plan, which does in fact deny coverage for pre-existing conditions for workers who are between jobs, or those who were laid off and forced into the short-term plans.
No one is forced onto non-compliant short term plans. End of story.
People who lose jobs (actually lose coverage, the loss of a job with no coverage is NOT a qualifying event) have a qualifying event and can enter the Obamacare matrix. They may also eligible for a subsidy, although that can become complicated due to the sudden change in income and how that is reported to Medicaid (the purveyor or subsidies and Medicaid eligibility in CO). Another option for many newly unemployed is COBRA.
Of course, what the article states about short term plan IS true. They can discriminate based on health and they don't cover pre-existing conditions. I would maintain that is a goodness, as it provides the healthy portion of the population, that is between jobs, an inexpensive option for insurance.
But the paragraph about the employee with cancer is total BS. First of all, that employee will NOT be eligible for short term coverage. However, he/she IS eligible for a Special Enrollment Period under Obamacare and could be eligible for a subsidy. This of course assumes he had coverage from his employer. The dirt under the fingernails is if he has "no income" the employee is in danger of being accepted into Medicaid. Some people consider this a good thing, I don't happen to be one of them. Assuming the company he works for has more than 20 employees, COBRA will be an option as well.
Of these options, the most attractive is probably COBRA if he has already met his deductible. If he signs up for an ACA plan, the deductible would start over. That said, there are too many moving parts to make a blanket statement about what the best option would be for any particular person.
2. "Adding insult to injury, the short-term plans don’t even count as full insurance, so the consumer is still forced to pay the penalty for being uninsured."
Well, short term plans are NOT Obamacare compliant because they don't cover the 10 essential health benefits and discriminate based on health. So yes, they are subject to the penalty.
I'm all for pointing out the weaknesses in Obamacare as it is an overly complicated and flawed piece of legislation. That said, articles such as this one simply mislead and provide little of any useful information.