Jake Novak thinks you're a stupidhead. Frustrated by reality writer Jake Novak treats us to the next shaming and blaming of consumers for Obamacare's failure when he writes, "…people just won't do the right thing for themselves when it comes to their health care," http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/06/obamacare-still-stupid-after-all-these-years-commentary.html.
Before you engage in self-flagellation, or, if you're truly liberal, join Mr. Novak in blaming everyone else (NOT yourself), perhaps a little clarification is warranted and then a question with the obvious answer, who's stupid? It is you, Jake Novak.
Mr. Novak clearly buys into insurance company arguments complaining that they didn't get enough of the young healthies they needed to balance out the risk pool to theoretically keep their policies affordable so premiums are going to have to go up (again) to cover people who dared to actually have medical needs and therefore made claims on the consumer financial product of health insurance they PURCHASED ( premium payments) to cover the uncertainties of life that might create a situation where they actually needed assistance in paying for NEEDED medical services. (Have premiums ever gone down without the sacrifice of coverage? No.)
This is what insurance companies and Mr. Novak are complaining of when he whines "…a major chunk of the people not signing up are the younger and healthier Americans the ACA's architects were foolishly relying on to help absorb the costs from older and sicker enrollees."
So, Mr. Novak, young healthies are not performing their civic duty to support insurance companies by balancing out the risk pools? Or are you asserting that young healthies are merely ignoring the law and paying the fine imposed by Obamacare on any American with even the smallest income who will not purchase such a consumer financial product (the individual mandate)?
Though enrollment is pitifully low in all Obamacare plans, this year reaching a top-estimate of 11.1 million people, and while the insurance companies have been complaining of the lack of charitable enrollment by young people in more expensive plans that provide better than the worst coverage offered, Mr. Novak stupidly (his word applied to him) ignores reality.
After all, turnabout is fair play and if we're going to tell young people that because the odds are they won't need expensive health services they're the tools who will help even things out when other people buying plans do need expensive medical services, why should they buy into more expensive plans? It's an idiotic argument that Obamacare has tried to manipulate, but young people are getting it, they're tools.
In spite of raising prices of silver plans LESS than the amount prices were raised for cheaper bronze plans last year, young people still used their youth while they can to purchase cheaper plans. In spite of making cost-sharing of bills for medical services only available on more expensive silver plans, young people, anticipating they would not need those services, still chose not to pay for the more expensive silver plans. And the government's not done yet. Consider this summer's new CMS rule limiting the availability short-term health plans.
So, Mr. Novak, who's stupid, you the guy who's pushing the insurance company point of view that in order to keep their profits going they need to get more young people to purchase their more expensive products or the young people who know their own budgets and choose to play the same odds that make them a tool for insurance companies to save themselves premium dollars during their fleeting young years? I'd argue it's you, unless you're being paid by insurance companies.
Further, Mr. Novak, have your read the Affordable Care Act? If you have, it's time for some review. You claim that "…a major chunk of the people not signing up are the younger and healthier Americans the ACA's architects were foolishly relying on to help absorb the costs from older and sicker enrollees," which is wrong.
The ACA's new portion, Obamacare exchange plans (not Medicaid) was about a deal struck with insurance companies based on a proposal by insurance companies in 2008 that they wouldn't deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions as long as everyone who earns money is forced to purchase their product, which Obamacare embraced in the individual mandate. Young adults are not immune from the individual mandate if they earn a living meeting Obamacare's pay or be fined threshold.
And, Mr. Novak, you're also ignoring Obamacare options available to young people that are NOT available to older Americans that would also enable them to avoid being price-gouged for more expensive health insurance plans just to get a little more coverage in case they're sick (which, naturally they're less likely to be).
The law provides that young people up to the age of 30 are eligible to purchase catastrophic care health plans (https://www.healthcare.gov/choose-a-plan/plans-categories/), the law provides that young people can have their health insurance paid for by their parents until the age of 26, the law provides for expanded Medicaid, the law provides that NO person who is not earning an income meeting the threshold for Obamacare need purchase health insurance at all, the government could care less if non-paying customers are insured or not. The youth unemployment rate is at 10.8 percent.
None of these options (except Medicaid which will go after their estates if they're over age 55) is available to working adults UNLESS they too are too poor to afford to pay for health insurance, which naturally, in that case, the government could care less about their access health insurance--(https://www.healthcare.gov/health-coverage-exemptions/hardship-exemptions/), like the homeless, those who were evicted, got a shutoff notice from a utility company, can't pay your medical bills.
Again, Mr. Novak, who's stupid, you the guy arguing that young people should trade their one benefit of being young and less likely to become ill during the few years when they can avoid being price-gouged for insurance policies or deciding to charitably pay those higher premiums for one-year elections to make insurance companies happy? Again, unless you're being paid off by an insurance company, it is you who is stupid.
Mr. Novak then indulges in an undirected rant against the low number of insurance companies participating in exchanges, "…31 percent of U.S. counties are likely to have just one insurance company option for health coverage by next year," without noticing that the stupidity of Obamacare and its bending over backwards to satisfy insurance companies included temporary provisions for federal money payments to keep insurance companies on exchanges in the form of risk reinsurance payments and risk corridor payments, (http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2015/12/how-obamacare-shot-itself-in-foot.html) which coincidentally, expire this year under the Affordable Care Act so perhaps that's why prices are going up (because the payoffs are stopping)?
Mr. Novak then goes after the "smokers," "…this summer we learned that one of the biggest reasons people are refusing to sign up for Obamacare is… they want to keep smoking." Again, Mr. Novak, so worried about Obamacare enrollment, like the law singles out the "stupid" "smokers." Yes, there is a surcharge on smokers of tobacco only so, if the surcharge is preventing people from enrolling, why the surcharge?
Naturally, Mr. Novak would argue that because smoking's stupid and causes disease therefore smokers should pay more. I'd agree it's stupid but I don't agree that smokers should pay more under Obamacare because the Act like the morally confused Mr. Novak singles out ONLY tobacco smokers for the surcharge. Those individuals (along with age) who are "smokers" pay more in premiums.
By illegalizing any other reason increased premiums under the Affordable Care Act, you've got to ask yourself, what's your rationale for making others who choose expensive activities that create higher insurance costs for all of us because of their choices?
After all, obese people cost more in coverage, those who choose to have children cost more in coverage, those who are alcoholics cost more in coverage, those who smoke crack or marijuana or any other number of illegal drugs cost us more in coverage (but it's not tobacco so they can't be charged more), those who are drug addicts cost us more, those who have preexisting conditions, whether or not they arose from any of these other "choice" behaviors cost us more in coverage, so what Mr. Novak is really saying is that he's anti-smoking, which is fine, but a surcharge for the activity? Not fine unless every other choice behavior is treated to the same surcharge.
When it comes to politics, Mr. Novak also likes calling people stupidhead rather than reading. Novak asserts that "…Trump keeps promising to repeal Obamacare, but he offers no further specifics…" That would be wrong https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform and then asserting "Hillary Clinton is barely talking about Obamacare at all," https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/.
But Mr. Novak can't resist returning to his hatred of the stupidhead Americans (excluding himself) as he whines and points his stupid finger: "They won't eat right, they won't stop smoking, they won't exercise, they won't visit a doctor regularly, and they sure as heck aren't going to sign up for health insurance coverage unless they need it right away." So who's stupid Mr. Novak? The person who goes through all the checkups and referrals KNOWING that medical error is the third leading cause of death in our country?
Who's stupid Mr. Novak, the person who scolds others for not eating "right" or the person like you who thinks he knows what eating right is? Is it the people who religiously believed the government guidelines about the food pyramid in 1974 until they were changed in 1992 and again in 2011? Is it the people who follow the junk science of vitamin supplements (or is it good science)? Is it the people who embrace gluten-free diets in spite of no meaningful evidence that anyone except those suffering from Celiac disease benefit from it? Is it people who only eat raw food? Is it people who are vegetarian?
And then, back to stupid, "…they sure as heck aren't going to sign up for health insurance coverage unless they need it right away." How would that be happening under the law, Mr. Novak, do you know? Are they getting married, or losing a job, or having some other life-changing event for the sheer purpose of "delaying" signup or changing coverage? Or are you referring to the short coverage gap in the Act itself that permits a less than three months period of non-insured status? Who's stupid? The stupid guy (that would be you) who believes every person who legally delays signup has some nefarious motivation, or the people who examine their own situations and decide to legally choose their best option?
Then Mr. Novak tries to show his liberalism in asserting, "But let's pretend we all agree that health care is a human right. If that is the case, then why should Americans who want their health care rights be held hostage by those who don't?"
Where's the hostage situation that you assert, Mr. Novak? Are you stupid enough to be blaming Americans who have needed health services for the relentless increase in health insurance prices? Do you imagine in your fantasy world that you would be paying less if people followed your exercise regimen, your diet, your habits? It's a nonsense statement asserting that consumers are holding other consumers hostage, ignoring the ultimatum of our healthcare system, the government's ultimatum to wage earners, "Purchase this consumer financial product or pay a penalty," the insurer ultimatum to consumers, "If you're sick and actually need to use your policy you'll be punished," the providers ultimatum to consumers, "Help me keep my medical malpractice risk down by exposing yourself to every diagnostic referral and test technology offers or else I won't treat you."
So who's stupid Mr. Novak, the guy who believes that if he eats right, exercises and visits his doctor for checkups he'll never get sick and need health insurance coverage or the people who are fighting for meaningful and effective coverage for those who are ill and choose instead to advocate against the wellness cottage industry that is the preference of providers and insurers alike?
But the "stupid" Mr. Novak, is not yet done. He then righteously defends the scam of Obamacare, wondering, "What about all those poor and middle class people who couldn't get health insurance before Obamacare? Was it "stupid" to try to help them too? Of course not." Oh, I believe you're lying Mr. Novak unless you're merely "stupid."
After all, Obamacare, the exchange portion is about insurance purchase from paying customers and as you should know, even millionaires who can finagle their incomes to fall within income guidelines can play the system for some government money in the form of premium assistance.
As you should also know, Obamacare exchanges offer NOTHING to the poor, that would be Medicaid.
As you also should know, Obamacare actually makes being poor a greater challenge to obtain health services having reduced hospital DSH payments (Disproportionate Share Hospital) from the federal government where hospitals treat a large number of poor PRESUMING that expanded Medicaid could be forced on the states (which was unconstitutional). More directly, Obamacare's solutions to the poor include one avenue, YOU WON'T BE FINED FOR NOT HAVING HEALTH INSURANCE--the poorest and most at risk are omitted.
This is an article that represents some of the best IGNORANCE in the liberal commentator community, blame and shame consumers for the healthcare crisis because they're not living up to their civic duty to not only enroll in an insurance plan or pay a fine, but to enroll in the plan Mr. Novak would like to see them enroll in if they're young and healthy in order to even out those risk pools of other consumers who had the stupidity to become sick because they don't eat "right", exercise "right", or see a doctor "right" according to Mr. Novak's standards.
Poor Mr. Novak having to live with so many stupid people. But here, it's our turn and it's clear that Mr. Novak may have a mental defect that goes beyond stupidity and crosses the boundaries of reality as he separates himself from flawed human beings and assumes he'll be rewarded by the heatlhcare industry with cheaper health insurance as long as he never makes a claim, which he seems to believe he's mastered.
