Monday, June 5, 2017

Newspapers Should Have Warning Labels

This Sunday’s paper was full of left-wing propaganda.  I’m beginning to believe we should mandate warning labels on newspapers.  Why not?  Practically all consumer products have warning labels. Some are so absurd it’s laughable.  

Shouldn’t we protect the stupid from progressive media?  I believe we should.  The Charlotte Observer published a number of suspect articles that were easily refuted if one had the curiosity to fact check the reporters assertions.  Here is an excerpt from an article entitled, House health bill might spawn ‘junk insurance’ if made law:

If certain parts of the House Republican health care bill become law, states that opt out of Obamacare protections could see an explosion of “junk insurance” in their individual markets – which could leave millions of people with very little coverage.

Such plans often can be dirt-cheap, but they offer so few benefits that the recent Congressional Budget Office score on the Republicans’ American Health Care Act said such coverage basically amounted to no coverage at all.

Junk insurance can include several types of health care coverage: limited-benefit, specified disease plans that cover only certain diseases; supplemental plans that cover only the expenses another policy doesn’t; and fixed-dollar indemnity plans that provide a specified amount per day toward medical costs.

The CBO considers people with these policies to be uninsured, “because they do not have financial protection from major medical risks.”

Americans have seen these kinds of plans before. Before the Affordable Care Act, consumers buying health coverage outside the workplace faced a minefield of low-quality insurance with gaping coverage exclusions and benefit limits designed to protect insurers against costly medical conditions.

So we’ll see an explosion of ‘junk insurance’ if states opt out of Obamacare?  Junk insurance must have been rampant before big brother stepped in and mandated everyone buy their 10 essentials policies which benefited a narrow constituency.  However that is not the case.  Here is an excerpt from Heritage Foundation disputing this assertion.

Limited-benefit plans are not nearly as prevalent in the individual market as they are portrayed to be. Of the nearly 16 million enrollees in the individual market in 2012, 725,710 individuals were enrolled in plans classified as limited-benefit plans, and slightly more than a million were in student health plans, which also typically have a limited benefit package. Thus, less than 11 percent of the individual market in 2012 had a plan that could reasonably be considered “substandard.”[5]

Limited-benefit plans are mostly offered by employers in the group market. Indeed, of the temporary waivers received by over 4 million plan enrollees from the Obama Administration for Obamacare’s annual limit caps before they were completely phased out, only 3.7 percent were for individual market plans; the rest were given to enrollees in group market plans.[6]

That doesn’t sound like an explosion to me.  I believe this article deserves a  libtard hyperbole warning under the title.


No comments: