3 ms·

The thing about cheap catastrophic plans is that that is the price point where a lot of lousy plans would hang out. Lousy meaning, you get sick and all of a su

The thing about cheap catastrophic plans is that that is the price point where a lot of lousy plans would hang out. Lousy meaning, you get sick and all of a sudden find out that costs you thought were covered aren't actually covered. Or you get kicked off due to rescission. Or, the first $x is covered and then you're told you're on your own due to some fine print somewhere. A lot of plans relied on that, which is what made them cheap, and customers would regularly get screwed by it, and Obamacare makes all that illegal now. The downside for Obama is that if someone gets sick, and goes to the hospital and actually has their costs covered, they're not exactly going to be amazed that the plan works exactly as they would have expected. So in that sense, the law might never really get the appreciation it deserves.

Jayschwa 13y ago
I've heard this argument before, and I dislike the paternalism of it. I read the fine print and made tradeoffs that I thought were appropriate for my situation at the time.
- andrewvc 13y ago
  I agree that it has the feel of paternalism, but I think there's another way to look at it.I think, that all things considered, obamacare makes society as a whole a better place. Paternalism and consumer protections are two sides of the same coin. The fact is that without some protections, you could wind up signing your life away due to some sleazy fine print. Dealing with insurance companies is asymmetric warfare. There's an entire industry built around maximizing the profits it makes on customers. The surest way to boost profits is to make people think they're buying more protection than they are. Charge more for less. That's one of the many reasons consumer protections exist.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    This. I'm extremely good with legalese, regulations, fine print, etc. More so than 99% of my peers, even some that have law degrees, and I have spent a lot of time explaining all the ways in with a specific contract might be trying to screw them. Most people simply aren't equipped to make those decisions. In fact, I'd go farther to say that the overwhelming majority are ill-equipped. A comprehensive cost-benefits analysis is hard enough for most people without also requiring them to sift through impenetrable legalese to figure out what the costs really are and what benefits they will actually get.
twoodfin 13y ago
Do you have stats on how customers were "regularly" screwed by it? My understanding is that "rescission" was extremely rare.
- tunesmith 13y ago
  Rare doesn't mean acceptable. It happened more than a small handful of times and was deeply unfair, particularly since it tended to happen to people that were deeply in need of coverage at the time - which by itself is a rare event when compared to how many people are living healthy day-to-day lives. Besides, while rescission was rare, annual maximums and lifetime maximums were not. Bumping up against those maximums (now illegal) was rare, but see above - they happened at the worst times, oftentimes to people who weren't expecting it.

Jayschwa 13y ago

I've heard this argument before, and I dislike the paternalism of it. I read the fine print and made tradeoffs that I thought were appropriate for my situation at the time.

andrewvc 13y ago
I agree that it has the feel of paternalism, but I think there's another way to look at it.I think, that all things considered, obamacare makes society as a whole a better place. Paternalism and consumer protections are two sides of the same coin. The fact is that without some protections, you could wind up signing your life away due to some sleazy fine print. Dealing with insurance companies is asymmetric warfare. There's an entire industry built around maximizing the profits it makes on customers. The surest way to boost profits is to make people think they're buying more protection than they are. Charge more for less. That's one of the many reasons consumer protections exist.
- malandrew 13y ago
  This. I'm extremely good with legalese, regulations, fine print, etc. More so than 99% of my peers, even some that have law degrees, and I have spent a lot of time explaining all the ways in with a specific contract might be trying to screw them. Most people simply aren't equipped to make those decisions. In fact, I'd go farther to say that the overwhelming majority are ill-equipped. A comprehensive cost-benefits analysis is hard enough for most people without also requiring them to sift through impenetrable legalese to figure out what the costs really are and what benefits they will actually get.

twoodfin 13y ago

Do you have stats on how customers were "regularly" screwed by it? My understanding is that "rescission" was extremely rare.

tunesmith 13y ago
Rare doesn't mean acceptable. It happened more than a small handful of times and was deeply unfair, particularly since it tended to happen to people that were deeply in need of coverage at the time - which by itself is a rare event when compared to how many people are living healthy day-to-day lives. Besides, while rescission was rare, annual maximums and lifetime maximums were not. Bumping up against those maximums (now illegal) was rare, but see above - they happened at the worst times, oftentimes to people who weren't expecting it.