Media madness, ACA edition

I was at the gym this morning, on the treadmill, when I saw a spot on Fox about a family that could not find a policy for their 1 1/2 year old. They were, of course, blaming Obamacare. I usually try not to let this stuff get to me, but I was caught off guard. They were claiming that their insurance company will not insure a child under the age of 2. Because of Obamacare. A few thoughts, in no particular order:

1) Every statement they were making was accompanied with a disclaimer on the screen that basically said “this is what the private insurance rep told us”. In other words, they took the word of a person working on behalf of a private company at their word as to how the ACA functions. No fact checking at all. Their one quote from the NY dept of health states that all children are covered in family plans. In other words, the statement from the government completely discredits the whole story. But no matter.

2) There is no way – no way at all – that this 1 1/2 year old could not be insured under the ACA come January 1. They will get Medicaid, at least. Of course, these people looked upper-middle class to me, so it’s likely they will get exchange insurance for their child.

3) There is no “too young to be insured” in the ACA. None.

4) These parents have already had their problem resolved. They claim that it was only after they “went public” that it was fixed. I don’t see how that’s true. But it’s ALREADY OVER. Yet the story is presented as if it’s happening now.

5) I’m sorry, but I find it somewhat hypocritical that only now, after decades of about 50 million people being uninsured every year, that suddenly the media is outraged by stories of people (healthy, mind you) having difficulties finding insurance. Really? Suddenly this is an issue? Didn’t seem like it before… AND THIS STORY IS ALREADY RESOLVED. AND LIKELY NOT ENTIRELY TRUE.

I know I need to just suffer through this for a while. But it’s becoming frustrating.


Hidden information below


Email Address*