Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The law, which was passed by Congress and signed by the President, had language that allows insurance companies to grandfather in existing policies. The insurance companies are the ones with the choice. They are choosing to cancel those existing policies rather than grandfather them in. So, are you blaming the insurance companies for making this choice?
I've been told repeatedly that President Obama is the smartest man to ever grace the office of president (ha, take that Thomas Jefferson!). I would assume that the smartest president in history, a lawyer no less, would know that insurance policies get changed every year and could therefore insure that the language was written in such a way that an older policy couldn't be canceled because the insurance company made changes. Of course, he didn't because (a) he's not the smartest president in history; (b) he probably didn't read the bill; and (c) he benefits from the language so he can say, "Look, I said you could keep your insurance, and any insurance from this date or before is supposed to be grandfathered."
I agree. So why didn't Obama and/or the Dems anticipate this? Why did Obama then go on a very public and well documented drive saying we could all keep our insurance when he had the information from his own agencies saying that was unlikely?
I think Obama was trying to sell a law, and he was saying that the law didn't force people to drop their insurance, and the law didn't force insurance companies to drop their policies. The law was written to allow everyone to keep their insurance if they wanted to. The law doesn't force insurance companies to do what they are doing. Obama didn't bring up the possibility that insurance companies could do this, because he has no way to stop the insurance companies from acting like private companies in a free marketplace, and he hoped that by including insurance companies in the writing of the law, that they wouldn't behave so badly. His lie was one of omission, and he was really, really overly optimistic about insurance companies and their greed. However, the cap on profits, I think, is going to result in people getting checks back from the insurance companies. Otherwise, we're going to see some creative bookkeeping on the part of insurance companies in 2014.
Of course they saw a wonderful opportunity in mandated coverage.. The opportunity to get rid of competition who didnt mandate the same coverage, while at the same time being involved with "the exchange" thus planning to get millions of new customers at the expense of other insurance companies who didnt offer such benefits.Your argument is now backing up exactly what I said.
Maybe you're right. My experience right now, with all the e-mails, phone messages, and junk mail, is that competition is growing, not shrinking. But, for instance, I know that New Hampshire has a very different insurance environment. I don't know where you live, but certainly your experience is different than mine. But my experience is that there are many private insurers that are not on the exchanges that are doing some heavy marketing right now.
https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i...d-health-plan/
The status depends on when the plan was created, not when you joined it.
How many plans have existed for that period of time? I bet not many since most policies change every year
Furthermore, most of the items causing the increase in cost, are NOT grandfathered.. once again per the link
All health plans must: •End lifetime limits on coverage •End arbitrary cancellations of health coverage •Cover adult children up to age 26 •Provide a Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC), a short, easy-to-understand summary of what a plan covers and costs •Hold insurance companies accountable to spend your premiums on health care, not administrative costs and bonuses
How many plans have existed since March 23, 2010? I would wager quite a few of the plans that insurance companies are cancelling.
Maybe you're right. My experience right now, with all the e-mails, phone messages, and junk mail, is that competition is growing, not shrinking. But, for instance, I know that New Hampshire has a very different insurance environment. I don't know where you live, but certainly your experience is different than mine. But my experience is that there are many private insurers that are not on the exchanges that are doing some heavy marketing right now.
I dont believe those not on the exchange, can take subsidies.. So how would these other companies doing this heavy marketing, get access to consumers that have them? Convince them that they should pay out of pocket? Fat chance of that..
How many plans have existed since March 23, 2010? I would wager quite a few of the plans that insurance companies are cancelling.
And those that do, STILL Need to offer the following, even those grandfathered
All health plans must
•End lifetime limits on coverage</p> •End arbitrary cancellations of health coverage
•Cover adult children up to age 26
•Provide a Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC), a short, easy-to-understand summary of what a plan covers and costs
•Hold insurance companies accountable to spend your premiums on health care, not administrative costs and bonuses
Having a grandfathered plan, does NOT exempt these requirements..
Did all the liberal voters know any different than any other voter?
They obviously didn't. They fell for Obama's BS hook, line and sinker, not once but twice. The "other" voter would be those who weren't swayed by his "hope and change".
I think Obama was trying to sell a law, and he was saying that the law didn't force people to drop their insurance, and the law didn't force insurance companies to drop their policies. The law was written to allow everyone to keep their insurance if they wanted to. The law doesn't force insurance companies to do what they are doing. Obama didn't bring up the possibility that insurance companies could do this, because he has no way to stop the insurance companies from acting like private companies in a free marketplace, and he hoped that by including insurance companies in the writing of the law, that they wouldn't behave so badly. His lie was one of omission, and he was really, really overly optimistic about insurance companies and their greed. However, the cap on profits, I think, is going to result in people getting checks back from the insurance companies. Otherwise, we're going to see some creative bookkeeping on the part of insurance companies in 2014.
And there you have it - it was all by design so we could say those darn insurance companies act like private companies in a free marketplace, so let's scrap the insurance companies altogether and only allow single-payer. Of course, with all the scandals coming out of the White House from government run amok, who in their right mind would want the only option to be government-run healthcare? Every scandal comes with the response that Obama didn't know that, he read it in the papers just like we did, the government is so vast he can't keep his eye on everything, etc. When the IRS targets specific groups for their political affiliation, and the government spent extra money and manpower to put barriers outside open access areas because of the government "shutdown," then I'd say that's a government run amok.
I think Obama was trying to sell a law, and he was saying that the law didn't force people to drop their insurance, and the law didn't force insurance companies to drop their policies. The law was written to allow everyone to keep their insurance if they wanted to. The law doesn't force insurance companies to do what they are doing. Obama didn't bring up the possibility that insurance companies could do this, because he has no way to stop the insurance companies from acting like private companies in a free marketplace, and he hoped that by including insurance companies in the writing of the law, that they wouldn't behave so badly. His lie was one of omission, and he was really, really overly optimistic about insurance companies and their greed. However, the cap on profits, I think, is going to result in people getting checks back from the insurance companies. Otherwise, we're going to see some creative bookkeeping on the part of insurance companies in 2014.
IF his own agencies didn't already telegraph this happening, that excuse might work. However, what's happening right now was already predicted as likely. To try and act like Obama was all 'gosh, I can't believe the insurance companies did that' is pretty sad. He either lied or was incompetent. From what I've seen, it's likely a combination of the two.
More importantly, why did he make it a point to say people could keep their existing insurance policies? Because people overwhelmingly polled they were happy with their insurance. Imagine if Obama had to sell Obamacare on its merits - that you would need a new ACA-compliant policy, that you likely wouldn't keep your existing policy, that costs from many would rise. You see, he had every motivation to lie (whether by omission or overtly). I'm sorry, but I simply am not willing to believe a man with his purported intelligence could be so gullible, as you are claiming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Maybe you're right. My experience right now, with all the e-mails, phone messages, and junk mail, is that competition is growing, not shrinking. But, for instance, I know that New Hampshire has a very different insurance environment. I don't know where you live, but certainly your experience is different than mine. But my experience is that there are many private insurers that are not on the exchanges that are doing some heavy marketing right now.
In our state, we've had several drop out. Some states, like West Virginia, have a total of one insurance company to choose from. So choice and competition is not inherent in Obamacare.
Since those 34 states chose not to set up their own exchanges, the federal exchange becomes those states' exchanges de facto. You're jumping way ahead of yourself if you think otherwise.
Sorry, NO. ACA Section 1311 specifies that the subsidies are only available to exchanges established by a state. The federal exchange is authorized under an entirely different section. Courts generally balk at construing a statute in such a way that effectively eliminates specific words from the statute. Furthermore, since the Act at other points uses broader language, referring to exchanges “established under this Act,” suggests that Congress knew how to write broader language if it wanted to. Congress specifically chose to do no such thing. Congress specifically limited subsidies to state exchanges only.
"It's the Law of the Land!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
