“We don’t believe that individuals will lose coverage at all so long as they are able [to] select the kind of plan that they want for themselves and their family,”
We mock Palin for her word salad, but this has no more meaning than do her worst manglings of English.
However, it is likely to be effective. He leads with the claim he wants you to believe (individuals will not lose coverage), then follows with what sounds like a justification, but really is a meaningless phrase that contains key words he wants to connect with the plan (“select” and “want”).
You can’t parse it in real time, so you don’t notice that his move from “coverage” to “select the kind of plan” completely sidesteps the issue of affordability.
Its not just that a lot of people will end worse off, a lot of people would DIE. What the GOP plans on doing would end up killing people, and sadly that is not hyperbolic.
Remember the Republicans going ballistic over people “losing” crappy plans that they “liked” during the ACA rollout. The fact that they got better plans as replacements didn’t seem to matter.
“They may be moved from a plan that they currently have to a plan that is much more desirable for them to have,” Price responded
Anyone remember the movie Rabbit Proof Fence, the Australian film based on the Australian government’s program to force Aborigines into settlements and separate children from their parents?
Price’s statement sounds very much like the mouthings of Australian administrators…“We’re just doing what is best for you, but we may have to ‘move you.’”
Ok…what he is doing here is laying the groundwork to say that “not being insured” is a choice that people willingly and freely make. This will be a call out to Reagan’s comments about the homeless…that they are really just campers.
They aren’t uninsured, they are Free Choice Makers!!
My understanding was that pre-ACA lack of regulation did result in some cheaper “less comprehensive” plans. The problem was that those “less comprehensive” plans were so “less comprehensive” they didn’t actually cover anything when the time came where one wanted to use the insurance one had been paying for.
When presented with considerable facts and analysis by people steeped in the mechanics of the workings of the Health care industry…they will throw in the squishy "we don’the believe"cannard…code for go Fuck yourself…
What they want are things like Hospital Only policies so individuals can deal directly with providers and have no insurance company involvement. No preventive care. Low cost, but a huge gap in coverage.
I saw a Price Waterhouse Report that said that in the current system 49% of all cost are Hospital Inpatient and Outpatient Services, 17% were for prescriptions (primary brands) and 30% were for providers.
They want people to have no financial incentive to get annual physicals which may ultimately lead to inexpensive generic medications. They instead want people to pay out of pocket for those services, not use insurance at all.
If you get sick and need hospitalization or expensive brands (generics are no longer effective because your condition has deteriorated), then your hospitalization kicks in. If you need expensive brands you can either plead poverty (and get it for free) or choose between your medication or eating/clothing/shelter.
The fact of the matter is that these types of policies were available prior to Obamacare. No one bought them because they were crap.
“If you like your plan, you are the very kind of person we’re trying to fuck over! Because freedom!”
Once upon a time, a real president said of his healthcare plan, “if you like your coverage, you can keep it.” Down in the fine print, there was a provision that said “cheap plans purchased on the individual market that cover almost nothing are grandfathered in for as long as insurers want to keep offering them.” After the healthcare law went into effect, it turned out that a bunch of insurers discontinued some of these cheap no-coverage plans and were not allowed to offer new plans that covered nothing because the law required plans to actually cover some stuff. Although it was the insurers who discontinued them, a tiny handful of perineal industry shills pretending to be ordinary consumers raised a stink saying “I LIKED MY PLAN AND OBAMA WOULDN’T LET ME KEEP IT!”
The MSM, of course, played along because Gotcha! Zing! Har har har! was what they thought news was back in the carefree days before the shadow of the dark side fell and they suddenly rediscovered why it was their jobs were enshrined in the Constitution.
Another grifter. “We don’t believe that individuals will lose coverage at all so long as they are able select the kind of plan that they want for themselves and their family,” So long as they are able to select the kind of plan they want…” Aye, there’s the rub. Millions of Americans will NOT be able to select the kind of plan they want, because it will be too expensive, or won’t be offered once the requirements of ACA are weakened. What a bunch of low-lifes.
totally off topic and non constructive snark, but does anyone else think Price uses Just For Men on his eyebrows? What a weird look. Makes him look untrustworthy. DJT should call central casting and get a more appropriate looking guy for this gig.
This is one of the reason that doctors and hospitals are opposed to this no good, very bad bill. As a nation, we don’t want people selecting the plans they think they want from a menu that includes really crappy plans that have a low visible price tag. Because exactly who is going to pick up the tab for the ER and hospital care that is predictably not covered by those crappy plans? (And becomes more necessary because the plans don’t cover preventive care either.)
This is very much like arguing that consumers should be allowed to buy “much less expensive” cars without seatbelts or airbags or crumple zones.
