NobleTeam360 said:
lol... I missed that but I do still believe there is truth behind this as I've seen several senators say the same thing on CSPAN. |
I'll admit i was attempting to deflect there, though it brings up a valid point as the article definitely reads biased. The problem that we have to examine is about more than costs, but about levels of coverage. There are a few metrics that need to be considered before we say "premiums are increasing," and condemn that. One, is the amount of your coverage increasing at least proportionally to the increase in premiums? A lot of these substandard plans that are being canceled were very bad plans that would really leave you in the lurch if you got a bad disease. Are the plans on the exchanges more expensive compared to the coverage that you're getting vs the coverage you received before? What level of federal subsidies do you qualify for? Has your state participated in the medicaid expansion and do you, in fact, now qualify for medicaid?
There's going to be a lot of FUD floating around because the nature of the law makes it easy to spread FUD about it, but the degree of people who are really going to be worse off under the law is not nearly as large as some would have us believe.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
