The good folks over at InsureBlog have seemingly taken quite a bit of flack since Bob Vineyard observation of an apparent disconnect between the health insurance premium quoted in young Master Frost’s rebuttal to the President a few weeks ago, and what was available with just a quick search online. Critics have observed that without knowing the specifics of the Frost family’s situation an accurate quote isn’t possible, and that the Frost kids’ injuries would cause them to be ineligible for low-rate health insurance policies due to preexisting conditions clauses in the underwriting guidelines.
The critics have, of course, missed the point that Bob was trying to make—that the $1,200/month premium quoted in the radio response didn’t past a smell test of what the family might have paid before the accident, if they had chosen to buy coverage.
Sadly, criticism online all too often involves excessive vitriol, and there seems to be a bit of a “circling the wagons” action going on at InsureBlog to defend Bob’s core point.
I like this post by William Halper, which includes the following comment:
Bob, The_Prof and I can all cite personal experiences where people have tried to purchase health insurance after a serious medical problem arose. For these people, their families and frequently their extended families, it’s a disaster.
I have enormous sympathy for these people. They didn’t intend for this to happen. And a percentage got trapped because they fell through a crack in the system and/or they didn’t know what options were available to them. But, a substantial percentage, at least in my experience, had made a conscience (and retrospectively stupid) decision to gamble and they lost that bet. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve said to somebody, “But why didn’t you call me a month ago?â€
(Disclaimer, I could be a bit oversensitive for a couple of days to the notion that gambling when it counts is foolish, since I’m at a conference in Las Vegas, where the excesses of the math tax unsettle me….)