Actually, Some 'Substandard' Health Insurance Plans Were Pretty Good

Actually, Some 'Substandard' Health Insurance Plans Were Pretty Good

The refrain repeated by the Obama administration and Democrats defending Obamacare is that the millions of individual health insurance plans that the law cancels are “substandard” plans, forced upon consumers in a “Wild West” environment that allowed for “abusive” behavior by insurance companies. The truth, however, is otherwise: not only were most consumers happy with their plans, but some were high-quality plans after all.

C. Steven Tucker, an Illinois-based insurance broker (and Tea Party activist), took to his blog Saturday to document just how “substandard” his clients’ plans were. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he wrote. Not only did the plans offer 100% coverage after a “common family” deductible (less than Obamacare’s deductibles), but they already covered 9 out of 10 “essential health benefits” required by Obamacare.

“Please also note that in every case, the PPACA [Obamacare] compliant ‘replacement plans’ offered to these clients are priced higher and in most cases much higher than what they are paying now,” Tucker added. “However, they’re not just priced higher, they expose these clients to a much higher out of pocket risk each year. Up to $12,700 for a couple and a family.” He noted that the market had already been highly regulated.

On Fox News Sunday, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the “architect” of Obamacare, defended the cancellations by asserting that the government knew better than patients what their health insurance needed to cover, because of the risk of “cost-shifting” to the rest of society in case individual plans did not provide adequate coverage. That included maternity coverage for women past childbearing age–in case their adult sons fathered children.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.