Texas Attempts to Blame and Shame, Yet Again...

[The Mutha]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/texas-bill-label-obamacare-subsidies

Basically, the Texas House approved a measure to force a designation on our health care cards if we purchased our insurance through the exchanges, and if so, are we getting a subsidy... So, more blame and shame on "those people" - the takers, the ne'er do wells, obviously.

I bought my insurance through the exchanges. I pay full price as I don't qualify for any subsidies as I damn well shouldn't given that I paid $40k in taxes last year. Some idiot Congress critter wants to force my insurance company to put a scarlet mark on my insurance card? Will that cause any difference if I was to be in an accident and go to the hospital?

We are not amused!

 

[pgwenthold]

I've said it before and I say it again: it is amazing the steps that some people will go through to keep others from getting health insurance.

 

[theprestige]

From the article:

Neurologist Dr. Sara Austin testified on behalf of the Texas Medical Association in support of the legislation. In her written testimony, Austin said that insurance companies provide individuals with a 90-day grace period when they fall behind on their payments. Insurance companies must offer insurance for the 90 days, but if the individual does not pay at the end of the three months, insurance companies can terminate the insurance and demand a refund from doctors for the final 60 days of the grace period, according to Austin.

Austin said the label "lets the physician office know that the 90-day grace period applies and provides information necessary for the physician to remind the patient about the importance of continuing to pay his or her portion of the premium."​

 

[Horatius]

From the article:

Neurologist Dr. Sara Austin testified on behalf of the Texas Medical Association in support of the legislation. In her written testimony, Austin said that insurance companies provide individuals with a 90-day grace period when they fall behind on their payments. Insurance companies must offer insurance for the 90 days, but if the individual does not pay at the end of the three months, insurance companies can terminate the insurance and demand a refund from doctors for the final 60 days of the grace period, according to Austin.

Austin said the label "lets the physician office know that the 90-day grace period applies and provides information necessary for the physician to remind the patient about the importance of continuing to pay his or her portion of the premium."​

Wouldn't this argument apply to anyone who had health insurance, regardless of their subsidy status? Rich people sometimes don't pay their bills either.

 

[theprestige]

From the article:

Neurologist Dr. Sara Austin testified on behalf of the Texas Medical Association in support of the legislation. In her written testimony, Austin said that insurance companies provide individuals with a 90-day grace period when they fall behind on their payments. Insurance companies must offer insurance for the 90 days, but if the individual does not pay at the end of the three months, insurance companies can terminate the insurance and demand a refund from doctors for the final 60 days of the grace period, according to Austin.

Austin said the label "lets the physician office know that the 90-day grace period applies and provides information necessary for the physician to remind the patient about the importance of continuing to pay his or her portion of the premium."​

I think it's crappy for doctors to be in a situation where they have to provide services to people in good faith, and run the risk of being billed for their costs by insurance companies several months later, after it turns out the patient never paid for those services.

While this bill does give doctors the opportunity up front to see what risks they're taking, and the opportunity to cover those risks by proactively counseling the patient, I'm not sure it's the right solution to the problem.

A better solution might be to make insurance contingent upon the patient already having 90s of payments banked with the insurer. As long as the patient keeps making the monthly payments thereafter, they will always be insured. If they lapse, their insurance lapses as soon as the 90-day reserve is used up. This would let them get their current treatment, while mitigating the risk to the doctor and to the insurer. However, it would mean that the patient would have to start by making a 3x lump sum payment on their monthly premiums. Maybe that would be a good place to put in a subsidy?

 

[The Mutha]

This is just more of the ******** talking point about "oh yeah, well all those folk who signed up? How many of them are actually going to pay their premiums?" <smug face> And then people signed up and they paid their premiums. So now, let's see how much more we can demonize folks...

The 90 day grace period applies to ALL insurance. Suddenly being concerned about it is just ********.

 

[The Mutha]

Wouldn't this argument apply to anyone who had health insurance, regardless of their subsidy status? Rich people sometimes don't pay their bills either.

And companies go out of business regularly or declare bankruptcy as well. What happens there? I've never gotten a refund on my portion of my health care insurance plan when I left a company, or the two times I got laid off from a company.

 

[Spindrift]

And companies go out of business regularly or declare bankruptcy as well. What happens there? I've never gotten a refund on my portion of my health care insurance plan when I left a company, or the two times I got laid off from a company.

Why would you get a refund? You were still covered until the next month.

 

[The Mutha]

Why would you get a refund? You were still covered until the next month.

Pointed taken. Sorry, I'm in a vile mood right now.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

I bought my insurance through the exchanges. I pay full price as I don't qualify for any subsidies as I damn well shouldn't given that I paid $40k in taxes last year. Some idiot Congress critter wants to force my insurance company to put a scarlet mark on my insurance card? Will that cause any difference if I was to be in an accident and go to the hospital?

I believe Ted Cruz falls into this same situation.

 

[Giordano]

It has become more and more difficult to tell "them" from "us." Although some sort of facial branding would be best, at least this is a start.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

I bought my insurance through the exchanges. I pay full price as I don't qualify for any subsidies as I damn well shouldn't given that I paid $40k in taxes last year. Some idiot Congress critter wants to force my insurance company to put a scarlet mark on my insurance card? Will that cause any difference if I was to be in an accident and go to the hospital?
We are not amused!

If you need a pin in your hip you won't get a stainless steel surgical pin, they'll just use an old drywall screw.

 

[Giordano]

If you need a pin in your hip you won't get a stainless steel surgical pin, they'll just use an old drywall screw.

Dry wall screw? Luxury! Why, a bent paper clip (which you have to provide yourself) should be good enough for the people insured through the government-run exchanges (as opposed to the wealthy legislators insured by the government itself).

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

It has become more and more difficult to tell "them" from "us." Although some sort of facial branding would be best, at least this is a start.

maybe make them wear some sort of symbol on their clothing....

 

[Trebuchet]

maybe make them wear some sort of symbol on their clothing....

Nah, brown skin is enough.

 

[Beerina]

Sociologists have spent decades attempting to de-shame acceptance of financial assistance from government.

I am not sure this is a good thing. I find the presumed default stance here seems to be meta-shaming, shaming people who think shaming acceptance of handouts is a societal good.

It's just presumed out of hand shaming is wrong. At the very least, a strong grip on the shoulder, and looking into their eye and pointing out, "You know this comes from the pocket of hard working but kind people..."

The skeptic in me wants to know if it really has dropped off that much, the feeling of shame, that I should really skip it if possible.

Apparently I was a fool for not getting unemployment the two times I was unemployed?

 

[Spindrift]

Sociologists have spent decades attempting to de-shame acceptance of financial assistance from government.

I am not sure this is a good thing. I find the presumed default stance here seems to be meta-shaming, shaming people who think shaming acceptance of handouts is a societal good.

It's just presumed out of hand shaming is wrong. At the very least, a strong grip on the shoulder, and looking into their eye and pointing out, "You know this comes from the pocket of hard working but kind people..."

The skeptic in me wants to know if it really has dropped off that much, the feeling of shame, that I should really skip it if possible.

Apparently I was a fool for not getting unemployment the two times I was unemployed?

If you were eligible, yes you were.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Shameshaming is the real villain here!

The only thing worse would be shameshameshaming.

 

[DavidJames]

Apparently I was a fool for not getting unemployment the two times I was unemployed?

Only you can judge if you were a fool. I've been fortunate to be employed consistently since the early 80's when I worked in a steel mill. I often was layed off for weeks or months at a time.

I had no problems and felt no shame when I cashed my unemployment checks. It's a system put in place to help those in need. It's unfortunate that some feel taking advantage of what society has agreed are important benefits should be considered shameful.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Apparently I was a fool for not getting unemployment the two times I was unemployed?

Yep.

When I have the opportunity to collect insurance, I do it.