This happened in the state of Washington, which supposedly has one of the better health-exchange websites and which for some reason has relabeled its Medicaid with the absurd name Washington Apple Health.
IN THE COMMENTS: Freeman Hunt said:
Shouldn't that be illegal? How can you sign up for something without agreeing to sign up for it.I answered her question:
How is it any worse than requiring that you have insurance coverage? Once they've done that and detailed what is required, you're in a mandatory system. The computer is simply telling you what your options are within the system. For this woman, there was only one option. There was no way to back out and say I don't want to do what it's been determined I must do. When she entered the website, she gave up the option of going rogue. The rest was a cranking forward into the machinery.
Posts
61 comments:
Shouldn't that be illegal? How can you sign up for something without agreeing to sign up for it.
Freeman, the Government knows best.
It seems as though they want to overcome the will of people like her who are opposed to taking welfare. Make it involuntary and you won't have to feel that you asked for it.
That's a theme throughout Obamacare. The govt knows what's best for you and what you say you want isn't what you really want. You shouldn't want what you want. What's the matter with Kansas? Etc. etc.
"Shouldn't that be illegal? How can you sign up for something without agreeing to sign up for it."
How is it any worse than requiring that you have insurance coverage? Once they've done that and detailed what is required, you're in a mandatory system. The computer is simply telling you what your options are within the system. For this woman, there was only one option. There was no way to back out and say I don't want to do what it's been determined I must do. When she entered the website, she gave up the option of going rogue. The rest was a cranking forward into the machinery.
In Soviet America, web page cancels you.
"How is it any worse than requiring that you have insurance coverage? ...When she entered the website, she gave up the option of going rogue."
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
There should ALWAYS be a "cancel" option.
How would you like to walk into a government office to do something, be told that you cannot make the choice you wish to make, decide you will go away, expert advice (maybe a lawyer), and be told by the guard that no, you may not leave, you MUST stay, fill in, and sign these forms?
It was a big mistake to push the "Apply for Coverage" button. That does not mitigate the immorality of the coercive nature of the application process.
Individual Americans are learning day by day now what it feels like to lose some freedom.
"The govt knows what's best for you and what you say you want isn't what you really want."
I know what's best for people who think like that, and it involves straitjackets and rubber rooms.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
There should ALWAYS be a "cancel" option.
Dude, Althouse disagrees with you about what the law should be? She's talking about what is the law. Unfortunately, there's too often a large difference between what ought to be and what is.
"How would you like to walk into a government office…"
Who said anything about anybody liking anything?
Freeman's question was how could it be legal.
If not liking something was enough to make it illegal… what a strange world this would be!
This is part and parcel with 'give us your identifying information first, THEN we'll let you see your plan options'.
This hasn't been much discussed, but the mandatory insurance/subsidy aspect of Obamacare will force many previously independent people into dependency against their will, even beyond those who qualify for Medicaid. Obamacare uses the force of law to require people to purchase a private product that many can't afford unless they accept government subsidies. The structure of the law depends on ordering many Americans out of their previous independence and into government-required peonage.
What could be more corrosive to the American spirit? Democrats -- not famous for valuing American independence -- must have imagined this would be a good political outcome. And it may be. They may be right that those who must now depend upon the government to finance their health care will vote to keep the goodie-providers in power in perpetuity. But I wonder how many Americans will, instead, react like this woman, with anger at a government that has stripped her of her dignity by force of law. Maybe others will see this as a matter of pride. But she's from an older generation, and the young may not think the same way. We'll see.
So that's why you have to register before you can see the options!
It's that three month traing program with the Marines at Camp LeJeune that she really objects to. But nothing is free including freedom and also health care.
"It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you."
Elena Kagan, Supreme Court Justice and Obama Worshipper
Shouldn't that be illegal? How can you sign up for something without agreeing to sign up for it.
Hee...just being born in America gets you signed up for a whole buncha shit. Did you agree to sign the Constitution?
"If Americans really wanted Obamacare, you wouldn't need a law to make them buy it."
-Ted Cruz
"The govt knows what's best for you and what you say you want isn't what you really want."
I know what's best for people that think like that, and it involves a concrete wall and half a dozen rifles.
The Mangler: Escape is not an option.
We've been inching in this direction for 50 years. With control of the WH and Congress for a couple of years, the Dem's shot us forward 6" at once.
Once a great country.
How is it any worse than requiring that you have insurance coverage? Once they've done that and detailed what is required, you're in a mandatory system. The computer is simply telling you what your options are within the system. For this woman, there was only one option.
If an action would be blatantly illegal for a private entity to do, I don't think it should be legal for the government, either.
The fact that you are required to buy insurance but you have to go through that process to even work with the law, there is a problem.
When people called for overthrow of the gov't, I thought they were loons. I'm becoming more receptive to that idea every day.
Man, did this country ever utterly screw up by picking the wrong guy last year. Romney, rest assured, would have not responded in this inept a manner.
Forget "nudge": We're at "shove" now.
I live in Washington and the same thing happened to me. The Regence policy I've been using is terminating at the end of the year, being replaced with a pricier ACA compliant version. My income isn't high, so I thought I might be eligible for some subsidy. Suprise! Do not pass go, straight into Medicaid. This is NOT likely to make me want to support these type of political policies in the future.
"Man, did this country ever utterly screw up by picking the wrong guy last year."
Not my fault.
Allow me to second and amplify Mrs What sit's comment.
We are told by Obama supporters to not look at the premiums charged, but rather at the final cost after subsidy. They have a point, but the subsidy itself is insidious.
If your insurance is now affordable, it will remain affordable only so long as the subsidy remains in place. And unlike a rebate where both price and rebate are determined by the same company, insurers may come and go, but regardless you must look to the federal government for that subsidy.
Obamacare effectively transforms an economic transaction into a political one. You've lost some freedom directly through the law's dictation of what you must purchase. But you've lost some freedom indirectly as well to the extent your future votes are constrained to those who will continue the subsidy.
Surely the same might be said for other federal programs like say food stamps. But this time the costs are more direct, more people are affected, and the vote buying seems more blatant.
I keep thinking of retail jewelry stores where the products are marked up so they can offer 50% off to make them affordable. Only here you need to provide your vote to get the discount rather than a coupon.
"Ann Althouse said...
"Shouldn't that be illegal? How can you sign up for something without agreeing to sign up for it."
How is it any worse than requiring that you have insurance coverage?"
There is no requirement to have health insurance. You can legally forego insurance and pay a fine...er tax.
But the Supremes said it's not mandatory. Your choice. Buy or pay. And if your income is low enough for expanded Medicaid, you don't have to buy or pay.
kamco said...
I live in Washington and the same thing happened to me. ... Suprise! Do not pass go, straight into Medicaid. This is NOT likely to make me want to support these type of political policies in the future.
Ahh- But did you vote for Obama and any of the Democrats who voted for Obamacare to begin with? If you did- you're one of the rubes. The rest of us knew this or something worse, was going to happen. If you didn't, you should be angry with all the rubes that did vote for this.
Roach motel: you roaches get in, you can't get out.
Hallooooween: caught in a black widow spider web, struggle is futile.
Thanksgiving: you wake up and realize you are the turkey Big Govt. is sharpening the knife to carve.
Chritsmas: you celebrate with your friends and families for signing up Obamacare: you can have as many abortions as you want, and Sandra Fluke gets her free condoms, your college grad son will stay in your basement for the foreseeable future, your dad's oncologist is dropped from his Obamacare plan, you'll work 29 hrs a week. Merry Christmas.
I think the "cancel" button hasn't been developed and integrated into the website yet. It is a work in progress, but I hear the icon design has been firmed up - it is going to look like a blue pill.
...When she entered the website, she gave up the option of going rogue...
Folks.
When she voted for Obama she gave up the option of going rogue.
When her daughter voted for Obama she gave up the option of going rogue.
When Althouse voted for Obama in 2007, she gave up the option or going rogue
Do we need to point out these things to you folks with a clue bat hovering over your dyed hair doos?
A vast number of American freedoms died the day Obama was elected US President. And you people who voted for him are the ones responsible.
Take some freakin' personal responsibility for once in your pathetic, useless, weak-kneed lives.
Women. The first to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree and the last to leave the sinking ship.
Harold,
The rubes need Medicaid, their brains have atrophied. They look like us but they don't use their brains, they want someone else to take care of their well beings, someone else to pay... they need Big Govt. to coerce someone else to pay. Too bad for them, they are the someone else.
Supposedly, as a WA state Medicaid enrollee you are automatically enrolled in the SNAP food stamp program. Thanks to Obamacare, this woman is now solidly on the dole...
..and she may have also automatically voted for Hillary! in 2016.
What is so bad about getting snatched into Medicaid? Taxpayers foot the medical bills.
The site is working as intended. Next improvement is to automatically sign up those who click the site. When everyone is signed up for Medicaid, we would have a single payer plan.
Democrats have faith in intelligent design. Why would individual choice be a consideration?
Kafka says, "Goodbye, writer's block!"
"...which for some reason has relabeled its Medicaid with the absurd name Washington Apple Health."
Oh, dear -- does nobody remember Alar??? Please, for the children!!!11!!
"Surely the same might be said for other federal programs like say food stamps. But this time the costs are more direct, more people are affected, and the vote buying seems more blatant." -- and, as far as I know, the government doesn't force anyone to accept food stamps.
There was no way to back out and say I don't want to do what it's been determined I must do
Close your web browser.
"Close your web browser."
Might have been too late at that point but, yes, it would have been worth a try.
Welcome to Medicaid!
Abort?
Retry?
Ignore?
"Women. The first to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree and the last to leave the sinking ship."
I think this needs a little work. Aren't women (and children) the first to leave a skinging ship?
Maybe that's why we see Obama's poll numbers falling so fast.
Women took a bite of the forbidden fruit and now they have a bad taste in their mouth.
Oh bah. Spellcheck where are you?
Sinking ship.
That's a theme throughout Obamacare. The govt knows what's best for you and what you say you want isn't what you really want. You shouldn't want what you want. What's the matter with Kansas? Etc. etc.
I think it's more than Obamacare. When I was traveling in Florida reading the local papers there were bizarre stories of recruiting candidates for food stamps.
These were "navigators" whose responsibility was to find people that would qualify for food stamps and sign them up. They had quotas to maintain employment. I was awestruck. The state had created a program to find people that qualify for food stamps and convince them to sign up to accept them.
What I thought as something that could written off as "meh, Florida" was not limited to Florida. It's a nationwide effort.
It recasts the social safety net as a magnet. It's no longer something you may fall into for safety, but instead is something that finds you.
Obamacare made her an offer. She never accepted the offer. How is there a contract?
"'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."
I can respect her not wishing to apply for Medicaid, and to her objection to finding she is now enrolled in it against her intentions or wishes, but the idea that "other people" will pay for her Medicaid coverage is not quite accurate, insofar as it is an incomplete picture of the facts: she will also pay for her Medicaid--assuming she pays taxes. It is a program paid for out of a common fund into which we all contribute--as is true with roads and highways and schools and the military and firehouses and dams and reservoirs, etc. She pays to help fund a program which will provide services to her.
Like it or hate it, these programs are not simply "Me paying for thee," but all paying for all. Everyone may not make use of the service if they have other providers, (as not all of us have children in school and most of us will be fortunate enough to never need a fire department), but it is available for our use when there is no alternative.
I wonder: once she reaches retirement age and qualifies for Medicare, will she similarly object to that and prefer to refuse it in favor of health insurance that she will pay for entirely herself?
"Obamacare made her an offer. She never accepted the offer."
ObamaCare made her an offer she couldn't refuse.
"Like it or hate it, these programs are not simply "Me paying for thee," but all paying for all."
Except, of course, half of all people don't, anymore.
rehajm:
Supposedly, as a WA state Medicaid enrollee you are automatically enrolled in the SNAP food stamp program. Thanks to Obamacare, this woman is now solidly on the dole...
**************
No, not quite. I am a WA state resident in similar shoes: unemployed/marginally employed (after 25 years in workforce) but purchasing a catastrophic plan. Well, I WAS purchasing my own plan. Went through the WA website...right into Medicaid.
SNAP is run by the same agency as Medicaid, uses some of the same forms to determine eligibility. But SNAP looks at resources on hand (cash, assets) in addition to income. Thus, I don't qualify for SNAP due to my resources on hand (which I was using to pay for my catastrophic plan). And I had been wondering the same as the subject of this article: I don't seem to have the CHOICE to continue using my own resources to pay for my own insurance.
One thing that struck me about the woman profiled here: why is she so uptight she won't take help from her own family? Family should be the first line of defense in hard times - assuming, of course, said family is ABLE to help. If we can't take assistance from our own parents, children, etc...where CAN we? That deflated the impact of the story for me: she's more about being stubborn, making the "I am an island unto myself even to my own FAMILY" than making a statement about Obamacare.
"Except, of course, half of all people don't, anymore."
And among those are children or students too young to be able to begin paying taxes and retirees, the disabled, and the unemployed who were formerly employed who paid into the system when they were in the workforce. Thus, it is more accurate to say "half of all people don't (pay federal income taxes) at this time", as many of them will in future.)
There are also working people in the cohort of those who pay no federal income tax, but whose annual income falls below the threshold where they would owe federal income taxes.
Most who pay no federal income taxes pay other taxes, however.
Thus, I don't qualify for SNAP due to my resources on hand (which I was using to pay for my catastrophic plan).
You obviously understand your situation. It's my understanding if you're below the 200% of poverty line asset limits don't apply for Basic Food benefits under SNAP. Medicaid (Apple Health) eligibility runs 138%, 200%, or 300%, depending upon family circumstance. So there are circumstances where cross enrollment may not apply.
And this all assumes things are running smoothly..
EVE! Oh thou daughter of Perdition!
"Most who pay no federal income taxes pay other taxes, however."
Thanks for the link, Robert, I'll read it. But before I do, let's you and I join in support of elimination of the onerous 15% Social Security "tax".
She should transfer her "residency" to a relative in Wisconsin, so she won't be in Washington state's Medicaid program, and since Wisconsin didn't follow the ACA and adopt the Medicaid expansion/state exchange, she wouldn't have to enroll there.
ObaMeDontCare
BTW now that she's on Medicaid she is now eligible for all sorts of freebees. Free cell phone, SNAP, Section 8, etc....
WooHoo!!! Turn us all into beggars because they're easier to please.
Hopenchange Baby! Hopenchange!
"It was done; she was enrolled, and there was nothing to do but click 'Next' and then to sign out."
You are welcome comrade. Now eat your peas.
"When she entered the website, she gave up the option of going rogue. The rest was a cranking forward into the machinery."
The next foreseeable evolution of this machinery are the automatic enrollment of people who haven't enrolled in an approved policy by a drop-dead date.
In Soviet America, insurance enrolls you!
There's definitely a difference between dealing with an insurance agent versus a welfare case worker. When you're a paying customer you expect to be treated with respect or you'll take your business elsewhere. But when you are receiving charity you better accept being treated with condescension and contempt, even incompetence.
Post a Comment