Ideological positions impact leading to irrational decisions

[colourwheel]

Anyone who watched the Sate of the Union Address this year will know by now there is going to be at least one Response from an oppositional political party. This year was no different where as the Republican party had over 3 responses one of which was spoken in Spanish. The only response I listened to was the "Official" Republican response which was addressed by Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

 

Regardless of the substance-less address given by Rodgers, the one thing that stood out the most was her story about "Bette in Spokane". A story about a woman who was kicked off her old insurance plan due to the new health care law only to find she would have to pay $700 more a month to continue being insured.

 

I personally found this an astonishing claim where as a person being kicked off their old plans only to pay $8,400 more a year due to the ACA law if they wished to continue to insure them self.

 

The description of Bette’s plight, along with the fact that Rodgers used only the woman’s first name in the televised address, sparked speculation....

 

Also Rodgers’ provided no explanation on what steps were taken to verify the figures.

 

So... reporters caught up with Bette, seems the premium that Rodgers cited in Tuesday night’s GOP response to the State of the Union address was based on just one of the pricier options....

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-bette-20140130,0,1703947.story#axzz2sTs2iIlS

 

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/jan/30/bette-in-spokane-cited-in-mcmorris-rodgers-speech/

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/30/1273347/-Where-is-Cathy-McMorris-Rodgers-ObamaCare-victim-Bette-in-Spokane-UPDATE-X3-Bette-SPEAKS#

 

Bette said she had flatly refused to even investigate her options on the exchange. "I wouldn’t go on that Obama website at all,” she said. “We liked our old plan. It worked for us, but they can’t offer it anymore.” Instead, she and her husband "have decided to go without coverage,".....

 

After reading these articles makes one wonder if this is what most Americans would do who are so strongly against the ACA. Ultimately making the conscious decision to purposely not to insure themselves because of ideological reasons despite the rational need to be insured for a couple of their age....

 

Would be interesting to see what others think....

Edited February 5, 2014 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

It isn't ideological reasons. At least, not "only" those. In Bettes case, her old plan worked for her. It provided the coverage she wanted/needed. Now we have the ACA, and in order to make things "fair", everyone has to purchase blanket coverage, even if it is something that they will never, ever, use. Like males paying for materity insurance...... and of course, that costs more.

 

The ACA was a bandaid fix for the wrong problem. We don't need legislation requiring us to purchase a product from a private company, we need JOBS! The place where most folks used to get their insurance.

Edited February 6, 2014 by HeyYou

[colourwheel]

 

It isn't ideological reasons. At least, not "only" those. In Bettes case, her old plan worked for her. It provided the coverage she wanted/needed. Now we have the ACA, and in order to make things "fair", everyone has to purchase blanket coverage, even if it is something that they will never, ever, use.

 

Regardless if her old plan worked for her or not, you really think it's a rational decision for her and her husband to completely go uncovered at their age? More so evading their options under the new law which the "Daily Kos" found better plans which would have saved her and her husband more money with extended coverage for more than just a few visits to a doctor a year which would have been subsidized anyways...

 

To my understanding, this couple is basically consciously choosing to not have health insurance at all if they can't keep their old plan, regardless if they could find a better plan under the new healthcare law.

Edited February 6, 2014 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

I don't believe EITHER side, or their version of the 'story'. At first, it was reported that Bette didn't even exist. Then they came up with her. Guess she wasn't what they hoped she would be, Kinda like Sarah Palin.

[colourwheel]

 

I don't believe EITHER side, or their version of the 'story'. At first, it was reported that Bette didn't even exist. Then they came up with her. Guess she wasn't what they hoped she would be, Kinda like Sarah Palin.

 

I honestly didn't think at 1st she existed either.... Which was quite a shock when I found these articles. I still think it's crazy this women would rather go uncovered than to even explore her option under the new healthcare law.... One can only imagine what will happen to this couple when eventually one of them runs into severe health problem....

Edited February 6, 2014 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

It's a gamble. Simple as that. If they are in good health, then the odds are with them. Quite frankly, I understand her position. I severely dislike obamacare. I think it is the totally wrong way to address the problem, and I still have serious issues with the federal government REQUIREING me to purchase a product from a private company, most of whom, had a hand in writing the legislation....... That smells bad all the way around.

 

What's really funny? Obamacare doesn't even affect me. My health care is taken care of by veterans benefits.