This is the guy who got lambasted at a town hall in NJ.
This is the guy who got lambasted at a town hall in NJ. I believe him that he was trying to craft a serious and thoughtful compromise to get a republican bill passed. I think he is lacking insight as to why he got yelled at.
I am at a loss to understand how he thinks that someone in his father's position (no insurance while his mom had cancer)++ or his position (a seriously ill child from gestation onwards with insurance)+++ would be better protected under any form of the Republican plan than under the ACA? The odds of him ending up in debt would have been less under the ACA. Unless I am grossly misunderstanding something.
Plus, he and his wife seemingly had choices and they had insurance. Does he not understand that people will end up uninsured under every Republican plan they've put forward? And it will not solve the problem he had, that of ending up in debt even with insurance for intensive, expensive care. It will probably make that problem worse.
If this is what having the insight of an insurance industry insider leads to, they must use a very different kind of logic and math. I'm not sure where his blind spot is, but it's a big one.
++ I am pretty sure this was in an era when a lot of people did not have insurance, nor could they have afforded it if they had gotten it.
+++ This is exactly the kind of person the insurance companies do not want to insure, at all. Rare, always expensive care, always in the medical system from before birth. He must have had gold and platinum plated insurance to only have ended up $1 mil in debt over 11 years for what his insurance didn't cover. Not to mention that his wife would forever be an insurance problem after having such a high-risk first pregnancy.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/personal-tragedy-drives-deal-making-gop-congressman-health-care-n752721
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/personal-tragedy-drives-deal-making-gop-congressman-health-care-n752721
I am at a loss to understand how he thinks that someone in his father's position (no insurance while his mom had cancer)++ or his position (a seriously ill child from gestation onwards with insurance)+++ would be better protected under any form of the Republican plan than under the ACA? The odds of him ending up in debt would have been less under the ACA. Unless I am grossly misunderstanding something.
Plus, he and his wife seemingly had choices and they had insurance. Does he not understand that people will end up uninsured under every Republican plan they've put forward? And it will not solve the problem he had, that of ending up in debt even with insurance for intensive, expensive care. It will probably make that problem worse.
If this is what having the insight of an insurance industry insider leads to, they must use a very different kind of logic and math. I'm not sure where his blind spot is, but it's a big one.
++ I am pretty sure this was in an era when a lot of people did not have insurance, nor could they have afforded it if they had gotten it.
+++ This is exactly the kind of person the insurance companies do not want to insure, at all. Rare, always expensive care, always in the medical system from before birth. He must have had gold and platinum plated insurance to only have ended up $1 mil in debt over 11 years for what his insurance didn't cover. Not to mention that his wife would forever be an insurance problem after having such a high-risk first pregnancy.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/personal-tragedy-drives-deal-making-gop-congressman-health-care-n752721
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/personal-tragedy-drives-deal-making-gop-congressman-health-care-n752721
These are the kind of people that I just want to sit down with and ask, please explain in little words why you think this would help with your situation. What part of bringing back lifetime caps would have prevented your debt?
ReplyDelete