November 21, 2013

The Cancel Button Will work for most customers in December

A chilling PPACA02010HSOTD in the Wall Street Journal. A lifelong hard working dairy farmer finds her coverage cancelled. She uses the (functioning in the foothills of Redmond) Washington State website to evaluate her choices. There is one: Washington Apple Health, the State's rebranded Medicaid (one suspects Microsoft won the naming contest there as well).

Ho Hum, another ObamaCareTaleOfWoe®, really I have to get to work jk...

The website not only presented her options option, it signed her up:

Instead, almost mockingly, her "Eligibility Results" came back: "Congratulations, we received and reviewed your application and determined [you] will receive the health care coverage listed below: Washington Apple Health. You will receive a letter telling you which managed care plan you are enrolled with." Washington Apple Health is the mawkish rebranding of Medicaid in Washington state.

The page lacked a cancel button or any way to opt out of Medicaid. It was done; she was enrolled, and there was nothing to do but click "Next" and then to sign out.


I jumped into a Facebook argument yesterday (Moi?) in which Blog Brother Bryan had posted a superb guest-ed in IBD by Thomas Sowell.
The last thing the political left needs, or can even afford, are self-reliant individuals. If such people became the norm, that would destroy not only the agenda and the careers of those on the left, but even their flattering image of themselves as saviors of the less fortunate.

Victimhood is where it's at. If there are not enough real victims, then fictitious victims must be created[...]


Dr. Sowell, would you say that enrolling web visitors in Medicaid qualifies? Back to Ms. Hopkins's Mom:
It was a deliberate choice on her part to pay that monthly $276 out of her own pocket. Clearly she had judged that she received a personal benefit from not being on Medicaid.

"I just don't expect anything positive out of getting free health care," she said. "I don't see why other people should have to pay for my care, whether it be through taxes or otherwise." In paying for health insurance herself--she won't accept help from her family, either--she was safeguarding her dignity and independence and her sense of being a fully functioning member of society.

Before ObamaCare, Medicaid was one option. Not the option. Before this, she had never been, in effect, ordered to take a handout. Now she has been forced to join the government-reliant poor, though she would prefer to contribute her two mites. The authorities behind "affordable care" had erased her right to calculate what she was willing to spend to preserve her dignity--to determine what she thinks is affordable.

That little contribution can mean the difference between dignity and despair.


Clearly, I wasn't arguing with Brother Bryan on this. A workmate of ours had piped in that "This is outrageously incorrect, and I'm surprised that someone with [Bryan's] keen understanding of people, positions, and complexities would endorse this perspective by sharing it."

Nope, no predilection toward dependency, we're just making this up.

UPDATE: JK unsurprisingly misspells "Bellevue." Worse, the better joke line was "Redmond" (since corrected -- thanks to Evergreen State emigrant dagny).

ACA Horror Story of the Day Posted by John Kranz at November 21, 2013 10:46 AM

I'm suspicious of any article that misspells the location of the action. "Belleview," Washington is Bellevue. Is that the WSJ error? or a JK typo?

Posted by: dagny at November 21, 2013 1:07 PM

Well this sure goes a long way toward explaining why state run exchanges have enrolled "most in Medicaid." It's automatic. All you have to do is be a visitor. No need to click "Yes Please." I wonder if there's even a privacy policy or terms of use agreement to consent to?

I suppose I must at least give credit where it is due - the state exchanges really are doing exactly what the Progressives want them to do, i.e. "working well."

Posted by: johngalt at November 21, 2013 1:15 PM

@dagny: jk typo (since corrected)!

Posted by: jk at November 21, 2013 1:53 PM

I nearly posted that Sowell article yesterday. The main subject, the Progressive "war on achievement" is implicated in most of the left's policy positions, not merely the forcing of victimhood and dependency as witnessed in O-care.

The very word "achievement" has been replaced by the word "privilege" in many writings of our times. (...) If the concept of achievement threatens the prevailing ideology, the reality of achievement despite having obstacles to overcome is a deadly threat.

That is why the achievements of Asians in general — and of people like the young black man with no arms — make those on the left uneasy.

And why the achievements of people who created their own businesses have to be undermined by the president of the United States.

Emphasis mine.

Posted by: johngalt at November 21, 2013 2:04 PM | What do you think? [4]