Barack Obama and MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Traffic in “Fishy” Rumors
Many folks are now aware that we have a civic duty to report “fishy” rumors and unfounded gossip about health reform. This is an important duty. Through the miracle of the Internet, all kinds of nonsense can get through. If you make the mistake of actually reading the text of HR 3200 online, you might be disturbed by what you find there. But why waste your valuable time reading a bill that none of the politicians who vote for it will. To save you the trouble, the White House has posted some short, snappy, interviews with some of the Administration’s operatives to dispel any crazy ideas you might have from wading through all that legal mumbo-jumbo.
In the meantime, I took the opportunity to inform the White House of a couple of “fishy” statements made by President Barack Obama in a speech to a New Hampshire rally. Among them is the president’s claim that the U.S. government will force health insurers to cover preventive screenings for breast and prostate cancer – which all the major plans already do. And he’s going to prevent insurers from dropping you after you’ve become sick – which has been illegal under federal law since 1997, and also under state law.
Despite the president’s claim that “no one holds these companies accountable for these practices,” that’s what state insurance commissioners do for a living: Enforce good-faith execution of insurance contracts. One would think that the president would know this, since his Secretary of Health & Human Services was the Kansas Insurance Commissioner.
So, I thought I’d let the White House know that the President is investing a lot of political capital in an effort to bring about things that already exist. But there are some new rules that the president does want to impose nationwide: guaranteed issue, community rating, and forbidding exclusion of pre-existing conditions from health insurance. So, I’ve just let them know about a very fishy interview that MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer conducted with an unemployed ad executive.
Mr. Bentley, the advertising executive, lost his job in San Francisco and went to New York two years ago to strike out on his own. He bought COBRA continuation coverage until he could no longer afford it. That’s when Ms. Brewer made her first error, asserting that COBRA is expensive because the employer is no longer picking up most of the cost. Not true: employees pay all the costs of their health coverage, either directly or through foregone wages. The real reason COBRA is expensive is adverse selection: If you lose your job, your employer has up 30 days to tell the plan administrator, which has 14 days to mail an election notice to the individual, who has 60 days to elect coverage, and another 45 days to pay the first premium. That’s up to 149 days for you to opt for coverage! Although the law only allows health insurers to charge COBRA beneficiaries 2% more than they charge their former employers’ for group coverage, COBRA beneficiaries incur medical costs 45% greater than those of the remaining employees, resulting in cost shift from departed workers to current ones.
But then the story got really fishy. Mr. Bentley noted that after he lost COBRA, he couldn’t buy a policy in the individual market because someone in his family has pre-existing conditions, and said that it was crazy for insurers to be able to exclude coverage. Whether it’s “crazy” or not, it’s already illegal under federal and New York law. If he had COBRA coverage he has 63 days to buy individual coverage and the insurer cannot exclude any pre-existing condition. If he’s had a lapse of 63 days, the insurer can exclude coverage for up to 12 months, but only for a condition for which he received medical advice or treatment within six months before applying for the new coverage. (This information is readily accessible in the New York Consumer Guide to Health Insurers, available online. I found it within about two minutes of searching, which I guess is too much effort for MSNBC’s “research” staff.) Even worse, New York is one of the few states that already impose guaranteed issue and community rating in all segments of the health-insurance market, which has destroyed the individual market in the Empire State.
The president has re-branded his health “reform” as “fixing” health insurance, but his “fixes” either already exist or have been proven harmful in states that have adopted them. One can only conclude that his massive effort to pass legislation is not designed to “fix” health insurance, but impose the federal government’s control over Americans’ access to medical services.
Good post, John. I don’t have the URL handy but Keith Hennessey has discovered 20 fishy Obama statements and has hthem posted at his blog.
OOps, I see that you guys already have the link to Hennessey under Hits and Misses below.
John, you obviously do not understand. The White House is only interested in correcting other people’s fishy stories. It is very happpy with its own fish stories.
Thank goodness you addressed this!!! I saw the interview and was writing an email to this sham who’s rich enough to live in NY and start his own business, but not rich enough to cover his family’s basic needs. But my computer froze up, and I couldn’t remember his name. Too good to get a real job, apparently. Read jobs are for suckers.
The lies just kept rolling. Everyone in NY pays the same for the same coverage whether they’re healthy and young, or a 64 yrs diabetic with emphysema. Which, unfortunately makes it quite expensive, but everyone has equal access. There are NO CRACKS in NY. If you really are poor, there’s Medicaid, which, unlike my insurance, covers even accupuncture. If you’re not really poor there’s Child Health Plus and Family Health Plus. They provide better coverage with lower copays than my employer coverage. In fact, my sister once opted out of her health insurance at work to buy into these plans instead.
Every possible option is already in place in NY, and we pay the most by far. Why our representatives would feel the need to change is beyond me, unless they are promoting a social change.
While speaking to a group in Grand Junction, Colorado on Saturday, President Obama repeated some common fallacies… “Insurance companies will no longer be able to place an arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive or charge outrageous out-of-pocket expenses on top of your premiums.”
Of course, one fallacy is that lifetime caps are arbitrary (actuaries would say otherwise). In addition, it is not insurers who place these coverage limits on insurance plans, rather it is consumers themselves. We do it by selecting the insurance plan that features the monthly premium we are willing to pay in return for the benefits insurers are willing to provide at that premium. Workers place limits on their benefit packages by being unwilling to forgo cash-wages beyond a certain point.
It’s interesting that when TennCare replaced its more generous insurance with limited benefit plans, 98% of enrollees never exceeded their $25,000 cap. Yet the president wants to save us all from the dangers of a $2 million dollar lifetime cap. The plan Obama discussed in his speech would boost premiums to levels few of us can afford.
Your article is a carefully crafted collection of partial truths. Among them:
1. You said, “COBRA is expensive… Not true:
employees pay all the costs…through foregone wages” Response: Fact, the employee now pays $1100/mo vs $200/mo previously. The difference was the “foregone wages” which are now zero after a job loss.
2.You said, “”no one holds these companies accountable for these practices,” that’s what state insurance commissioners do for a living”. Response: Yet the abuses are numerous and real. According to your logic there have been no abuses on Wall Street either because the SEC enforces the rules. Get real!
3 You said, “If he had COBRA coverage he has 63 days to buy individual coverage”. Response: At what price? I was quoted $2922/mo by the “insurer of last resort” in my state. Although I had no lapse in coverage, several other carriers refused coverage or required a waiver for a pre-existing condition.
4. You said, “among them is the president’s claim that the U.S. government will force health insurers to cover preventive screenings for breast and prostate cancer – which all the major plans already do”. Response: The key word is “major”. Group policies generally cover preventive screenings, but those transitioning from COBRA often purchase individual policies. Due to the cost, many can only buy catastrophic coverage that does not cover preventive screenings.
The health care crisis is real. Millions are uninsured or under-insured. However, those who are covered by group policies don’t experience the abuses that are common in the individual policy market. That will change as job losses continue and COBRA benefits expire. A rude awakening is coming.
Bravo Rich K.