Prickly City by Scott Stantis for April 23, 2014

Not true. The way premiums went up was that people previously bought “catastrophic coverage” policies that, in fact, wouldn’t cover them in the case of catastrophic illness (often due to caps that made them worthless). Bogus, deceptive ripoff policies were supposed to be outlawed by the ACA but then everyone got upset by “if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage” so that ripoffs were grandfathered in and the insurance companies could continue to steal from people under the guise of providing them with coverage. So the “premium going up” argument is largely the result of conservative pressure to retain corporate thievery.

Wow, Remnant, what a brilliant argument. Did you study logic in college or something?

If you live in Massachusetts,vote for Don Berwick for Governor. He supports single payer. Peace.

Not meaning to pile on, I do object to the characterization of “bogus, deceptive” policies in reference to catastrophic policies that have caps. It’s like the mortgage issue…as a customer / borrower it’s your responsibility to read the terms of the contract you’re entering into. With catastrophic policies it’s not the limits that make it bogus but a refusal to pay according to the terms. You take a cat policy as the best you can get / afford and pray necessity doesn’t take you beyond that. With mortgages, if you don’t read the terms or if you sign without understanding the terms of rate increase, caps, foreclosure, etc., that does not make the contract illegal or unethical. Too many people grabbed mortgages greedily and got sucked in by people greedier and just a little more savvy than they. It doesn’t make it right or good or any better, but to characterize as bogus and deceptive that which needs to carefully understood is to shift responsibility. Now…go ahead and snark.

For the first time in our (the US) history, the Government has the right, approved by the Supreme Court, to force citizens to buy something against their will, for their own “good”. “Good” defined by the Government. This is not the same as car insurance. Those who don’t drive don’t have to buy. The next few decades will be interesting. While you still have a choice, wear the clothing you prefer.

Seriously, Carmen?! So you’re “young,” huh?

I can’t believe Stantis is actually taking that position.

So, when was the first?

As someone who was forced by my company to accept the ‘low cost’ catastrophic health insurance, it was the only one they offered, I can personally attest that it was a massive total life threatening ripoff. And just to be clear, I don’t like the premiums now being charged either.I don’t prefer any system that isn’t transparent. And atm our insurance paid system is totally opaque and horribly, criminally, over priced. Now, how about.. Instead of screaming how badly you hate the president’s health reform, insulting everyone for their supposed lack of intelligence for not agreeing with wonderful you and using ad hoc arguments because it was introduced by a black democratic president, shut up and find and put forward an honestly better set up.And no, the one we had before before doesn’t qualify.American health care is sub standard by any rating in the industrialized world. We ranked about 37th last time I looked, behind Costa Rica for pities sake.We should all hang our heads in shame for allowing this.

You made a statement that this was not the first time US citizens were required by the Federal Government to buy a product. I asked when was the first time.

You’re comparing apples and donuts. Car insurance is not required if I don’t drive a car. Fire & liability insurance for real estate/ home, protect both buyer and lender. If there is no lien on the property, there is no legal requirement .