NY Times: The ACA Losers Will Be Happy They’re Paying More When They Lose Their Jobs

Over at the NY Post, Michael Goodwin argues that the NY Times’ cheerleading for Obamacare harms the nation, noting that watchdogs became lapdogs. The NY Times continues its lapdog status as the Editorial Board comes out with yet another absurd piece

The debate over the effect the Affordable Care Act will have on individuals and families who buy their own policies has mostly been waged in anecdotes. Supporters of the law point to grateful individuals who were previously unable to get insurance or paid exorbitant premiums but found affordable coverage on the new health insurance exchanges. Critics counter with frustrated people who liked their old policies but will now be forced to buy a more comprehensive policy and pay a higher premium for it.

As it turns out, there are estimates of how many people might fall into one category or the other. Up to seven million people may be able to get health policies without paying any premium at all. Some four million people may have to pay more for new (and better) policies, not all of whom will necessarily be upset at getting better coverage at a competitive rate.

Of course, the problem there is that the administrations own mid-range estimate is that 93 million Americans will lose their insurance plans. A goodly chunk of them are folks working for companies that will replace the plans with more expensive ones. Others will say “forget it” and simply pay the fine when the employer mandate starts in 2015, which the Obama admin cynically pushed off past the 2014 mid-terms. Anyhow, 4 million people having to pay much more for (better) policies that they do not need isn’t exactly a vote of confidence, but, hey, the NY Times bigwigs who do not have to suffer under the same costs are cool with it.

Individuals facing higher premiums are understandably distressed. But there is no getting around the fact that health reform changes the status quo – including requiring insurance companies to provide essential health benefits that were not previously covered and to take on people who were rejected before because of their health.

Except, many people do not need maternity care. Men do not need gynecological coverage, and women do not need (generally) prostate coverage. Men do not need breast exam coverage. Not everyone needs substance abuse coverage. I don’t do drugs. I rarely drink. I’m not concerned about nor do I want to pay for it. But, all that extra coverage which people do not need pays for everyone else who does, and who are sicker. Oh, and to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients, a mandate which was created by Team Obama through rules, as it was never part of the mandates in the ACA.

Those who will pay more should take comfort in the knowledge that should they lose their jobs or face financial hardships or a medical crisis their previous policies would not have adequately covered, they would benefit from a health care safety net that offers federal subsidies and comprehensive coverage.

If you lose your job or have financial hardships, how are you going to pay your premiums? If you’re not paying your premiums, is the NY Times Editorial Board suggesting that you cannot be dropped? As far as “adequate coverage”, that’s a meme popping up within not just the Times, but far left Obamanuts. Why is it their job to decide what is considered “adequate”? Maybe that should be left up to the consumer.

Furthermore, why should there be any losers with this type of law? Shouldn’t the idea be to help everyone, not punish people?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!