What does insurance mean to you? This is really the crux of it, because Obamacare moved us dangerously away from INSURANCE coverage to a service contract, the coverage of a bunch of finite-cost checkups, screenings that were used by insurance companies as yet another justification to RAISE premium prices. No thank you. Finite costs of an inspection, a checkup, a screening are not INSURANCE. We pay the increased cost of a premium to insurance companies for the financial risk of UNKNOWN expenses that might arise as a result of illness or injury.
This decade's dem plans continue and worsens the financial barriers to obtaining needed medical care and services for consumers through the SERVICE CONTRACT MODEL of Obamacare. The Obamacare model INCREASED cost barriers to NEEDED medical care because they first, allowed insurers to raise PREMIUM prices for the coverage of finite one-off costs of checkups and second, because Obamacare also allowed insurers to decrease coverage of needed medical services in the form of USING our health insurance for illness or injury through higher deductibles, higher copays, higher coinsurance, and increased numbers of exclusions.
The candidates on stage promise to continue and worsen this dangerous service contract trend by calling service contract provisions "Insurance" items. So, what's covered? The answer is, "Less than what we need as consumers."
How do we know? The question wasn't even addressed, but what we do know is that we can read the candidates' plans. Bernie Sanders' plan is actually a bill, S.1129, not merely a "plan," so that's the one to watch, for now.
Joe Biden and Tom Steyer are still supporting Obamacare, the service plan versus insurance coverage model.
Most noteworthy on this issue is Bernie Sanders' Medicare For All Bill that Senator Elizabeth Warren also supports.
Under the Sanders bill the problem of service contract coverage for more money at the expense of coverage of the RISK of needed medical services gets worse, because Medicare for All simply says nothing will be covered except for those items chosen by the Secretary. Everything else, every other needed medical service will have to be covered by PURCHASING an insurance contract with an insurance company offering such coverage, such as the supplemental plans under Medicare today, or the consumer will have to pay whatever a provider charges, using another contract, without limits as to what the provider charges.
So, what should consumers demand, in addition to demanding that we be charged insurance premiums for the RISK of needed healthcare services instead of being charged premiums for the one-off costs of an annual inspection in the form of screenings and checkups?
We should be demanding that public employees, like Congresspeople be forced to live with the laws they're advocating for the rest of us as the basic test of determining whether we're being conned. Had we done this with Obamacare, we would have realized how bad the law was.
Obamacare's untruths were immediately apparent as its public employee and lawmaker advocates made very sure that they wouldn't have to suffer under the Obamacare plan.
How did they do it under Obamacare? They effectively provided an exemption to the very people making the law. That exemption was using their status as public employees, therefore making the federal government their employer, and thereby enabling the federal government to make provisions for their healthcare that were far superior to ours in terms of special health plan options for them and special payment provisions whereby taxpayers pay for the bulk of their premiums.
As consumers who have EXPERIENCED Obamacare, we do or should know that the word OPTION should jump out at us as a RED FLAG that public employees and Congress aren't joining us in this new decade's "experiment," but rather will make sure their "employer," the federal government, continues their superior benefits with OUR money.
We can dismiss BIDEN'S plans for positive consumer reform in terms of closing up the public employee loophole as he intends to continue the Affordable Care Act and "provide a public option, Medicare for those folks who want it." In other words, he's not bound by the law he's touting for us.
Tom STEYER agrees "…with Biden," Affordable Care Act with public OPTION. OK, so public employee, Congresspeople continue their superior benefits off our backs.
Mayor BUTTIGIEG also fails consumers with his plan, "Medicare For All who want it." Yep, an option, and you bet as a Veteran and public employee that he's sticking with his health insurance over what's good enough for the rest of us.
Senator Elizabeth Warren is with Bernie Sanders and they also fail consumers. Medicare For All, seemingly brings public employees under Medicare For All. BUT, not true. Sanders also provides for superior employer plans (there's that federal government as employer lingo)where employers can provide additional coverage, in the form of paying for insurance contracts for Medicare style supplemental policies to cover all the stuff that won't be covered. This is the Sanders Insurance Contract.
This means that in addition to the crappy Medicare For All Coverage, anyone can pay for additional insurance coverage plans OR employers could choose to provide them as a benefit…Whoops. Not OK, been there done that, no doubt Congress will make sure they have those cushy benefits.
Senator KLOBUCHAR pretty much confirms the cushy status of public employees, including Congress, when she stated to Bernie Sanders: "Over two thirds of the Senate are not on the bill that you and Senator Warren are on," (which makes sense, they're not voting away their superior benefits) and instead proposed "a nonprofit public option." Whoops, there it is again, OPTION.
Unfortunately, Congress will "represent" us the same way it did for Obamacare, deciding what's good enough for the rest of us AFTER making sure their self-interests are preserved, that their superior benefits, paid for by taxpayers are protected.
This means that without calling the candidates out and demanding change, this practice continues to our detriment. Public employees must be bound by whatever "new reform" they come up with, without the escape hatch of increased wages to cover increased costs, or superior benefits created by their "employer" the federal government, once again keeping public employee Congress out of living the nightmare imposed on us.
