Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Tab dump

1) "If you’ve ever fantasized about what would happen if the people who helped create the global financial crisis started getting serially murdered, you should give this book a go."

2) The anatomy of the tea parties.

3) "The Senate is merely a symptom of the U.S. political system's larger dysfunction. The Senate is worth examining mostly because it is like a giant X-ray machine, allowing us to peer into the broader body politic to examine its broken pieces."

4) Republicans have really impressive party discipline.

5) Alan Blinder lists his priorities for financial reform.

6) Did Evan Bayh seriously quit because of lefty bloggers?

Recipe of the day: Spiced ricotta and orange pancakes.

By Ezra Klein  |  February 16, 2010; 6:36 PM ET
Categories:  Tab Dump  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The many, many Senate jobs bills
Next: Magical third-party thinking

Comments

Tea baggers are lower than bankers. Bankers rip us off for money. Tea baggers do what they do to elect republicans, the idiots who caused the great depression and the great recession.

Posted by: Lomillialor | February 16, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Ezra, when are you going to run a correction for the post about Anthem? It was a 25% rate increase, not 40%.

Posted by: ab13 | February 16, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

The latimes reports anthem wanted increases ranging from 30 to 39%

Posted by: Lomillialor | February 16, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

"Ezra, when are you going to run a correction for the post about Anthem? It was a 25% rate increase, not 40%.

Posted by: ab13

no correction is necessary.| i subscribe to anthem-blue cross california and my plan went up 39 percent...i received notification of it last week, and the new amount was due march first...in less than a month, with no time to prepare, no advance notification.
there have been other increases, but nothing that steep and sudden.

Posted by: jkaren | February 16, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

and speaking of california....

you cannot turn on the radio out here, without hearing a "meg whitman for governor"commercial. i switched to avoid it, to another station, and one was playing on there too.
during a twenty minute ride, i heard 4 meg whitman commercials. and, this has been going on for months and months. she has more commercials going than supermarket chains.
she speaks about cutting welfare...that able-bodied people should all be out working and getting jobs now and refers people to her site, which is now a huge, comprehensive site that looks like a little newspaper.
and nary a peep from the other side.
meg whitman could very well be the first female president at this rate.
money money money, flowing like niagra falls.
anyone thinking she is not completely prepared for this run, check out her website.
and of all people, giving testimonials for her in her commercials...none other than pete wilson.

Posted by: jkaren | February 16, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Is the author of the tea party article implying that Obama is to blame for the tea party movement? Or am I reading too much between the lines?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 17, 2010 12:21 AM | Report abuse

IF I WERE BARACK OBAMA AND WANTED TO PURSUE A GENUINE BIPARTISAN HEALTHCARE REFORM:

I'd propose a very simple reform of healthcare as a first step toward a genuine bipartisan effort for lowering long term costs and improving access to healthcare.

The first simple reform would be a simple extension of the tax exemption for healthcare insurance that employers get---I'd offer extending to everyone.

This would begin to decouple employment from healthcare costs and allow for corporations to begin hiring again without fear of increased employment costs passed on to corporations through government mandates. It also would remove the incentive of Democrat partisans to utilize the healthcare crisis to try and impose socialized medicine.


Unfortunately Obama appears to be one of those Democrat partisans seeking to utilize the healthcare crisis to try and impose socialized medicine.

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | February 17, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

"The latimes reports anthem wanted increases ranging from 30 to 39%

Posted by: Lomillialor "

Well the LA Times is wrong, it was a 25% rate increase. The increases varied by plan type from a decrease up to a maximum 39% increase. Just about everyone reporting on the issue has characterized the increase as if everyone got that maximum increase, which is extremely dishonest.

Posted by: ab13 | February 17, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

"no correction is necessary.| i subscribe to anthem-blue cross california and my plan went up 39 percent...i received notification of it last week, and the new amount was due march first...in less than a month, with no time to prepare, no advance notification.
there have been other increases, but nothing that steep and sudden.

Posted by: jkaren"

Yes, a correction is necessary. That you personally got a 39% increase has absolutely nothing to do with what the overall average rate increase was. Your anecdote is meaningless.

I'm also calling BS on your claim of less than a month, because all carriers are required to give at least 30 days notice of an increase, and if they don't notify you by then they have to delay your increase to 30 days from when you did receive notification.

Posted by: ab13 | February 17, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Joe Biden has said that Iraq will be one of Obama's greatest legacy.

I agree.

It is the one policy area in which Obama has pursued a liberal goal while maintaining a reasonable grasp of conservative concerns.

If Obama pursued healthcare reform with that same temperment, Paul Ryan would have a seat at the table writing that legislation. Its easy---he could simply trade places with the SEIU Lobbyists.

But of course Democrats aren't the party controlled by "special interests".

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | February 17, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

ab13

my anecdote is not meaningless.
it illustrates ruthless action toward vulnerable and faithful consumers.


and please refrain from unkind declarations toward me, because i remember very well when i received the mail, informing me of my rate increase!
and even thirty days is not enough time to prepare for an increase of that magnitude, in this economy, and especially,when one might have little time to seek out another plan.
especially from a company that is there to help protect your physical and mental health!

Posted by: jkaren | February 17, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

"Is the author of the tea party article implying that Obama is to blame for the tea party movement? Or am I reading too much between the lines?"

Too much between the lines. To infer that the writer thinks "Obama is to blame" is sort of like deciding historians think Lincoln is to blame for John Wilkes Booth. I don't think the writer is making that point in, or in between, the lines.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 17, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

jkaren,

I'm with you. I did not find your personal experience to be meaningless, and the argument made over 30 days/less than a month is splitting hairs.

The fact that Anthem's customers were given such huge increases with such minimal notice is rightly being pointed to as an example of why the current health care system is in failure mode.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 17, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

-----"my anecdote is not meaningless."

Yes it is meaningless in the context of the correct amount of the rate increase. Ezra said it was 40%, it was actually 25%. That is a pretty drastic difference. The fact that you personally received a 39% increase is meaningless, because it does nothing to change the FACT that it was a 25% increase. Your argument is analogous to the global warming deniers who say today is colder than yesterday.

-----"it illustrates ruthless action toward vulnerable and faithful consumers."

You are silly. The rate increase reflects underlying experience, is actuarially sound, and in compliance with CA laws. When a gas station raises prices because the cost of oil goes up do you call them ruthless? Would you prefer that Anthem not charge an appropriate rate and ends up going out of business?

-----"and please refrain from unkind declarations toward me, because i remember very well when i received the mail informing me of my rate increase!"

It is not unkind. If you really received notification fewer than 30 days in advance then legally Anthem cannot change your rate until 30 days from the notification date. Because of this fact companies are very rigorous in making sure they get rate increase letters out on time, and most mail them at least a week in advance of the 30 days. If they were not able to get yours out on time they would have been legally required to delay the effective date of your rate increase, so the only plausible explanation is that the postal service lost your letter for a couple weeks, or you are mistaken about the dates.

-----"and even thirty days is not enough time to prepare for an increase of that magnitude"

Take that up with your state legislators then, because they are the ones who decide how soon notification must be given.

Posted by: ab13 | February 17, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Patrick_M: "and the argument made over 30 days/less than a month is splitting hairs."

No, it is calling into question whether she understands her policy and/or is telling the truth. If she really did not receive notification until last week they cannot legally change her rate until 30 days from that date.

"The fact that Anthem's customers were given such huge increases with such minimal notice"

The notification period is determined by the state of California, not Anthem. If you don't like it call your insurance commissioner.

Posted by: ab13 | February 17, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

ab13,

I don't think that jkaren was arguing that Anthem lacked the legal right under California law to do anything that they did. Instead she shared her personal direct experience with an astounding rate hike, the very short (legal or not) ultimatum deadline she faced, and her resulting frustration as a consumer.

If to you that information about her experience was "meaningless" to the discussion about Anthem, so be it. To me it certainly was not.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 17, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

ab13

the insurance companies are indeed fortunate to have such a staunch defender as you.
and i hope that you dont receive a 40 percent increase in your health insurance, with less than a month to figure out options for yourself, when you have health and financial issues.
if that were the case, you might be more sensitive to individual, anecdotal experiences.
i have said for many years, that i would do anything to hold on to the wonderful policy that i have, and i have been incredibly appreciative for the care and coverage i receive.
but as partrick-m said, so be it.

Posted by: jkaren | February 17, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Patrick, I shouldn't have to break out the handpuppets, but apparently I do. This is not that difficult.

I stated that Ezra should correct the post about Anthem because it was a 25% increase, not the 40% that the media is distorting facts to report. jkaren says no correction is needed because she personally received a 39% increase. This is a non-sequitur. The increase was 25%. Her anecdote is meaningless because there was never a question as to whether certain individuals may have received increases as high as 39%, what was in dispute was the average amount of the rate increase.

And I've never suggested that jkaren questioned Anthem's legal right to give 30 days notice. What I suggested was that if she thinks 30 days is insufficient she should take the issue up with the California department of insurance, because they are the ones who decide how much notice is required. Blaming Anthem for following a CA law that is also a nationwide standard (only 12 states require more than 30 days notification for a rate increase) is silly.

----"If to you that information about her experience was "meaningless" to the discussion about Anthem"

This is not a discussion about Anthem! It is a discussion about the inaccuracy of Ezra's previous post. If you want to have a more general discussion about Anthem and their rating practices I am more than willing to participate. But that's not the discussion we were having. I said Ezra should correct his post. jkaren said he didn't need to based on irrelevant information. She was wrong. End of story.

Posted by: ab13 | February 17, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

-----"the insurance companies are indeed fortunate to have such a staunch defender as you.
and i hope that you dont receive a 40 percent increase in your health insurance, with less than a month to figure out options for yourself, when you have health and financial issues.
if that were the case, you might be more sensitive to individual, anecdotal experiences."

It has nothing to with being sensitive to individual experiences. You having the misfortune to have received a very high rate increase does nothing to change the fact that Ezra was reporting an inaccurate number, a sensationalized number meant to impugn a company who followed both state law and standard actuarial practice.

As painful as the rate increase might be for you and others, it would be even more painful if the company did not price their products adequately and did not have sufficient funds on hand to pay claims, or went out of business and all 800K CA members lost their coverage.

I am very much a supporter of comprehensive health reform, but if we cannot debate the issue without lying and distorting facts then we'll get nowhere. All I ask is that Ezra report the facts accurately, which is why I made the request for him to correct his previous post.

Posted by: ab13 | February 17, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

ab13

none of us have seen every single directive on every policy, but in all reliable reporting across the board, it has been reported as a 39 percent hike.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2010/February/13/anthem-rate-hike-delay.aspx

Posted by: jkaren | February 17, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"but in all reliable reporting across the board, it has been reported as a 39 percent hike"

Then the reporting was not "reliable", because it was a 25% increase. Your own link says as much in the 3rd sentence.

The LA Times reported it as 39% initially, and everyone ran with the 39% number without doing any fact-checking. It is sloppy and irresponsible journalism. By the time Ezra wrote his post there was enough information out there for him to know it was not really 40%, so he was either negligent in his reporting or engaging in the same sensationalist reporting as other outlets. I would expect better from him.

Posted by: ab13 | February 17, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

ab13,

Regarding Anthem and jkaren, this will be my last go-round about this.

Ezra's post about Anthem is here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/a_california_insurer_shows_how.html

Ezra's post incorporates a link to the LA Times article, which describes the rate increases as being "up to" 39%. The article further quotes an Anthem spokesperson as saying that those highest rate hikes go to about a quarter of the customers, and that the average increases are likely to be around 25%. So if we round the 39% to 40%, I guess we can all agree that Ezra would have been more precise to describe it as "a 40% increase to about one fourth of the subscribers."

That is still a very large block of subscribers (not just "certain individuals") who did indeed experience a 40% increase, and anyone who read Ezra's post also had the link that provided the additional information about the average increase for the pool as a whole (which is still a whopping number). I think to say that Ezra was lying or distorting the facts in the comments he made in response to the news article linked to the Ezra's discussion is at least arguably a bit of a stretch.

That aside, when you reacted to jkaren's personal experience by telling her that "Your anecdote is meaningless. I'm also calling BS on your claim of less than a month, because all carriers are required to give at least 30 days notice of an increase...," I then took exception, because jkaren was simply stating facts that bear on the subject of Anthem, and because (and here I must break out my own set of hand puppets for you) I think it is indeed "unkind" to describe her remarks as "meaningless" and "BS," to which you have now added "irrelevant."

I simply disagree that her experience is any of those things. It may be those all of those things to you, but it is not to me.

And speaking of irrelevant, why post the challenge to Ezra under the "tab dump" (of five topics that did not include Anthem)? Why not use the "email Ezra" tool, or post the challenge to the original thread?

I am glad you are a supporter of HCR, on that topic we are all in agreement. Have a good evening.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 17, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Patrick, no matter how hard you try to massage it, her anecdote WAS meaningless and irrelevant to the discussion. A single data point does absolutely nothing to change the fact that the stated rate increase amount was inaccurate.

-----"I simply disagree that her experience is any of those things. It may be those all of those things to you, but it is not to me."

And this is even more meaningless. Something being interesting to you has nothing to do with the issue at hand, namely, was Ezra's post inaccurate. That's just dandy if you were interested in it, but my comment was not about what Patrick_M finds interesting, it was about the accuracy of Ezra's post.

I also don't care if his link contained the correct number, because my comment was about his post. He claimed it was 40%, that is not true.

-----"I then took exception, because jkaren was simply stating facts that bear on the subject of Anthem"

If she'd been stating facts that bear on the subject of spotted owls it would have been just as relevant. Those facts did not bear on the subject of the actual amount of Anthem's rate increase, which is why I correctly characterized them as meaningless.

-----"And speaking of irrelevant, why post the challenge to Ezra under the "tab dump" (of five topics that did not include Anthem)? Why not use the "email Ezra" tool, or post the challenge to the original thread?"

I did post the challenge in the original thread, as well as a couple others. Ezra is an influential policy blogger, it is extremely irresponsible for him to be perpetuating inaccuracies that do a disservice to the debate on health reform. I posted the challenge a couple of places because I'm sure he doesn't read every comment. Comparing this to jkaren's failed attempt at refuting my comment is silly.

Posted by: ab13 | February 17, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"if she'd been stating facts that bear on the subject of spotted owls it would have been just as relevant. "

here's something we can all agree on.
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ea/news_releases/Images/CA_Spotted_Owl_USFS.jpg

keep your sense of humor.
it helps.
.

Posted by: jkaren | February 17, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

jkaren,

I hope you will continue to post about your future dealings with Anthem and about what you find if you have to shop elsewhere, etc. Too often the public policy discussions here and elsewhere become completely abstract.

I can only imagine how stressful getting hit with a rate hike of that magnitude must be. I had to carry my own personal insurance for my family several years and back then an annual increase for my family of even 10 or 12 percent per month would always wreak havoc on the household budget. And now in my state the number of carriers that will even offer individual insurance has gone the way of the spotted owl, so I am guessing that even in a big state like California your options are few.

Just imagine if a person was disputing Ezra on the validity of a health insurance mortality statistic and someone else had shared the fact that his or her uninsured mother had passed away that day from an illness that had gone untreated. I would like to think that there would be enough civility around here that such a story would not be branded as "meaningless...BS" but in the flames of an internet blog, one just never knows what people are going to say.

Good luck with Anthem, and hang in there.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 17, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

thank you, patrick-m, for your kind words.

i try to stay grateful and positive:-)

Posted by: jkaren | February 17, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Oh please, spare me the sanctimony Patrick.

Yes, clearly someone getting a rate increase is analogous to a relative dying, and of course I would be dismissive towards someone who just lost a loved one.

But sarcasm aside, it is true that if I was questioning the validity of a certain mortality statistic and someone piped in with one anecdote about their relative that died, that would be "meaningless" in the context of "proving" that statistic. So in making your strawman analogy, you've actually proven just how wrong your entire argument was.

jkaren was not just casually sharing this anecdote, she was trying to use it as a direct refutation of my claim that the actual rate increase amount was 25%, except her anecdote did nothing of the sort. So for all your high-minded piety you're still wrong. There is nothing "uncivil" about telling someone that a meaningless personal anecdote is indeed meaningless when they're using it to argue against a point you've made.

Posted by: ab13 | February 17, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

And for the record, I'm sorry jkaren that you have to deal with such a drastic increase in your rates, but despite your personal hardship Ezra's post was still wrong. I never intended to make light of your situation, only to point out that it had nothing to do with the accuracy of the "40% rate increase" claim.

Posted by: ab13 | February 17, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

hand puppets reluctantly re-enter for encore, stage right:

"So for all your high-minded piety you're still wrong. There is nothing "uncivil" about telling someone that a meaningless personal anecdote is indeed meaningless when they're using it to argue against a point you've made."

Hand Puppets: Non-dispositive of your narrow point - yes. REPEAT: YES - YOU ARE RIGHT. EZRA SHOULD HAVE SAID "UP TO" 40%." Your correctness about Ezra's imprecision in this instance is not what I am challenging

Given that, were jkaren's comments entirely without meaning? - NO. As we talk about these topics, personal anecdotes remind us that there is a forest of direct human experience and not just the trees of the minor factual points (25 vs. 40) about which we so often argue.

jkaren's response was not dispositive of your quarrel with Ezra, but that does not make her telling of her personal experience "meaningless." That's just NOT the right word (said the hand puppets with special emphasis).

And, dude, when jkaren said she received a letter with a particular response date, and you called "BS on that," that challenge did not relate at all to Ezra's failure to put the words "up to" in front of the words "40 percent."


"I'm sorry jkaren that you have to deal with such a drastic increase in your rates, but despite your personal hardship Ezra's post was still wrong. I never intended to make light of your situation, only to point out that it had nothing to do with the accuracy of the "40% rate increase" claim."

Hand Puppets: Thunderous standing ovation!!! Had it been said this way initially, Patrick_M would never have commented.


hand puppets exit, stage left.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 18, 2010 1:58 AM | Report abuse

"hand puppets exit, stage left."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51QfKWTgP7A

Posted by: jkaren | February 18, 2010 2:15 AM | Report abuse

most excellent, sadly I'm (barely) old enough to actually remember KF&O & here's right back at you, jkaren:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNv3rVV1mfs

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 18, 2010 2:52 AM | Report abuse

Patrick, don't hurt your back stretching so far to try to cling to a still-incorrect point.

-----"Given that, were jkaren's comments entirely without meaning? - NO"

Yes, they were without meaning. Let's revisit what she said:

"no correction is necessary. i subscribe to anthem-blue cross california and my plan went up 39 percent."

She was using it as a direct refutation of me saying Ezra needed a correction. In that context, which is the only context relevant here since it was the entire point of the discussion, her anecdote is meaningless.

-----"jkaren's response was not dispositive of your quarrel with Ezra, but that does not make her telling of her personal experience "meaningless.""

Yes it does. Because meaningless only refers to the dispute over the magnitude of the rate increase. There was no other discussion.

-----"As we talk about these topics, personal anecdotes remind us that there is a forest of direct human experience and not just the trees of the minor factual points (25 vs. 40)"

This is laugh out loud funny. We were not talking about the forest of human experience. We were talking about Ezra using sloppy journalism to sensationalize a story and direct unwarranted animosity at Anthem. And 25 vs 40 is not a minor factual point, it's the whole point of the story. You're trying so hard to find some way to justify you and her both being wrong, it's pathetic to watch.

-----"And, dude, when jkaren said she received a letter with a particular response date, and you called "BS on that," that challenge did not relate at all to Ezra's failure to put the words "up to" in front of the words "40 percent.""

No, it did not relate to that challenge, but it did call into question both her recollection of the facts and her knowledge of the health insurance market, both relevant points. Anthem is legally bound to not change her rate less than 30 days from her receiving notification and never would have mailed that letter that late, the only other plausible explanation is that the postal service misplaced her letter or she was mistaken about the date.

-----"Had it been said this way initially, Patrick_M would never have commented."

The world's tiniest violin plays a song just for you. If someone tells me I'm wrong when in actuality they are wrong with 100% certainty, and they use a meaningless anecdote as their only evidence, I'm not going to go out of my way to sugar-coat it. If that troubles you so much I'll gladly send you each a box of tissues.

Posted by: ab13 | February 18, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

ab13,

As I already said, I AGREE WITH YOU that jkaren's personal experience was NOT dispositive of your narrow factual quarrel with Ezra's imprecise depiction of the overall Anthem rate hike.

Although jkaren's experience had no "meaning" to you ~within the narrow confines of the particular argument you raised with Ezra (under a "tab dump")~ hearing from one of the thousands of Anthem enrollees who was hit with a 39% percent hike had "meaning" to me, within the context of the topic that you raised. I will now and forever disagree with your adjective "meaningless" in reference to the actual experience of an actual Anthem customer.

"Anthem is legally bound to not change her rate less than 30 days from her receiving notification and never would have mailed that letter that late, the only other plausible explanation is that the postal service misplaced her letter or she was mistaken about the date."

Insurance companies always follow the law and never make mistakes? Talk to any manager in the HR department of a large employer who had had to straighten out the denial of perfectly valid claims by the employer's private health insurer. Sure, I completely agree with you that it is also extremely possible that Anthem mailed their form letters on the last possible legal date, and that USPS delivered the letter slowly.

Whether Anthem was slow getting the announcement out, or whether USPS delivered the letter slowly (or both), your charge of "BS" on her simple recitation of the gacts of her own direct experience was over the top, baseless, and yes, "unkind."

You can save the tiny violins and the tissues, and invest instead on treating your OCD.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 18, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

-----"As I already said, I AGREE WITH YOU that jkaren's personal experience was NOT dispositive of your narrow factual quarrel with Ezra's imprecise depiction of the overall Anthem rate hike."

Give me a break. Describing the rate increase as 40 vs 25, or 60% higher than the actual increase, is quite a bit more than a "narrow factual quarrel". A 25% rate increase would be on the high side but not historically unprecedented, a 40% increase would astronomical, and would probably include some people getting upwards of 55%. It was not an "imprecise depiction", it was a blatantly wrong depiction being used to smear a company and steer the health reform debate. I'm sure that if an insurer released a public statement on health reform with such blatantly wrong numbers, you'd just describe it as a mere "imprecise depiction", right?

-----"Although jkaren's experience had no "meaning" to you ~within the narrow confines of the particular argument you raised with Ezra (under a "tab dump")~ hearing from one of the thousands of Anthem enrollees who was hit with a 39% percent hike had "meaning" to me"

That's great. I'm very happy that it had meaning for you. I hope it had an enormous positive impact on your day and greatly enlightened you. But guess what, it was still irrelevant to the discussion.

-----"I will now and forever disagree with your adjective "meaningless" in reference to the actual experience of an actual Anthem customer."

Then you would be disagreeing with something I never said.

-----"Insurance companies always follow the law and never make mistakes? Talk to any manager in the HR department of a large employer who had had to straighten out the denial of perfectly valid claims by the employer's private health insurer."

Sure, insurers make mistakes. But so do customers of the insurers who are describing their experiences with them, especially customers who have a clear bias against the industry, which is why I give the benefit of the doubt to Anthem in this instance (also because I know how anal insurers are about making sure to get those letters out in plenty of time, especially when it is such a controversial increase). And her claim was factually wrong, because if she did not receive notice until last week she is not legally obligated to pay that higher premium until 30 days after. So yes, the claim that she had to pay a higher premium in less than a month was BS.

-----"Whether Anthem was slow getting the announcement out, or whether USPS delivered the letter slowly (or both), your charge of "BS" on her simple recitation of the gacts of her own direct experience was over the top, baseless, and yes, "unkind.""

I don't really care if it was unkind. I'm not concerned with being kind to a person who tells me that my colleagues and I are "immoral" and "have no conscience". I've done infinitely more than jkaren has ever done to make insurance affordable and accessible to everyone.

Posted by: ab13 | February 18, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company