While Hobby Lobby and other legal battles are important decisions playing out in the high courts, none address the structural problems with the delivery of insurance to consumers. To address the structural problem, let's go back to the breakup of AT&T.
I'm assuming you are aware of this issue, President Obama -- the fact that doctors are refusing to take your insurance. I'm assuming you get that this is not acceptable.
Since the new health insurance exchanges launched last October, there's been a seemingly endless stream of news stories, mostly about rollout problems, health insurance cancellations, enrollment numbers, or personal anecdotes that are quickly repurposed as political fodder. But what about the shopping experience?
Having elections every two years for House members means that the only real work that the Representatives do following being elected is start working for their immediately looming re-election.
"We're just gently nudging younger people into seeing how beneficial the new health care system is," says Health and Human Services/Biological Havoc spokesperson Alan Kollop.
Regardless of your general disposition toward the president, let's make sure your anger isn't just a little bit misguided.
The patients who reach out while in the quicksand of catastrophic illness, like the 49-year-old man who was terminated by his insurance company because he had the nerve to contract brain cancer, are equal parts heartbreaking and inspirational.
Insurance companies suck. Anyone disagree? No? Good, let's continue. They want you to die, don't they? Okay, maybe that seems a little harsh, but that's what it feels like to me every time I hear the word "denied." I'm sure by the end of this post, if you put yourself in my shoes, you'll feel the same way.
The Obama administration's decision to postpone the requirement that large employers offer health insurance to their workers has been characterized by pundits on the left as a capitulation to big business and on the right as the latest evidence that Obamacare isn't working. Actually, it's neither.
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is facing a dilemma. Should he sign a bill that was intended to help many state residents get coverage for cost-effective health care that insurers often refuse to pay for? Or veto the bill because it is loaded with amendments that will benefit insurers?
It's no news flash to say health care reform is politicized. Our country is increasingly polarized, "us" versus "them" and "either/or" instead of "both/and." But it's one thing to say it, it's another to watch it play out in the implementation of health care reform across our United States.
The ACA is raising the quality of care, halting skyrocketing health costs, providing preventive care without co-pays, and eliminating the worst insurance company abuses. Instead of improving health care, the Republican repeal plan would take it away.
The reason Republicans once liked health insurance exchanges is that in theory they will facilitate choice and competition, which should bring down the cost of coverage. Based on news out of Oregon last week, there is reason to believe that the theory is holding up.
As the video of the hearing shows, instead of allowing me to explain how common industry practices contribute to the dwindling number of small businesses being able to offer coverage, Rep. Blackburn gave me only one-third of one minute to talk when it was her turn to ask questions.
ALEC and their allies in government and the media can cry their crocodile tears for the poor, downtrodden insurance companies, but I won't shed a tear for the multimillion dollar industry.
A recent story out of Oklahoma shows just how vital investigative journalists are -- and how health insurance agents and brokers may be anything but vital in just a matter of months.