Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-29-2013, 11:25 AM
 
21,422 posts, read 10,507,691 times
Reputation: 14080

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Katy said the insurance companies couldn't make even minor changes to existing insurance policies if they wanted to grandfather them in.

The President isn't forcing insurance companies to choose to cancel policies rather than grandfather them in. The insurance companies even could make minor changes to those grandfathered policies. It is the INSURANCE companies that are choosing to cancel them.

And it matters because you are blaming the President for the choices made by insurance company management. The President isn't sitting in on the insurance companies' meetings where they are CHOOSING to cancel people's coverage. The President doesn't get to vote at their board meetings.

I can understand anger over the ACA. It's not a law I particularly like, either. I've said over and over that it fails to address the real problems. I don't think most Americans even understand the real problem of our out-of-control healthcare costs.

But in terms of insurance companies cancelling people's coverage. That's a choice that insurance companies are making. They have the luxury of blaming the ACA, but the ACA allows the insurance companies to grandfather in existing policies. The insurance companies are CHOOSING not to. And they are accountable for that choice.
Come on! You think you're getting me, but in reality you are just reinforcing my point. The law, which was passed by congress and signed by the president, had language that allows the insurance companies to force changes that could make policies ineligible for grandfathering. That's exactly what I was objecting to! Insurance companies are going to protect their bottom line, but who is going to protect us? Obviously not the President, nor the Democratic Party, both entities claiming that they fight for the little man, the consumer. Nothing you've said makes what I've said wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2013, 11:26 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,808,044 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
So you dont think those insurance companies that offer things like maternity leave, decided that maternity leave should be MANDATED, in order to crowd out competition by those who didnt offer it?How nieve can you be?
I think that the insurance industry saw a wonderful opportunity in mandated coverages. They could offer coverage that most of their customers wouldn't need, charge people more, and if people complained, blame it on the ACA. Maternity coverage (maternity leave is something offered by employers, not by insurance companies) is something all insurance companies offered. It just wasn't offered on all their policies. And the insurance companies have the option to grandfather such policies in. They are choosing not to because there's more profit in cancelling the existing policies and offering the more expensive ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 11:28 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,808,044 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post
Come on! You think you're getting me, but in reality you are just reinforcing my point. The law, which was passed by congress and signed by the president, had language that allows the insurance companies to force changes that could make policies ineligible for grandfathering. That's exactly what I was objecting to! Insurance companies are going to protect their bottom line, but who is going to protect us? Obviously not the President, nor the Democratic Party, both entities claiming that they fight for the little man, the consumer. Nothing you've said makes what I've said wrong.
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 11:29 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
And the policies are what get grandfathered in. Not the contracts. The policies. All the insurance companies have to do is show that the policy is essentially the same. As far as I know, everyone renews their contract with the insurance company annually. I renew my contract for my auto insurance every year. My policy is unchanged, except for small amendments the insurance company includes with the policy. The coverage is the same, the requirements are the same. The rate changes, as the car ages, and as the insurance company deems the risk in the place where I live and drive changes. But the policy hasn't changed.
And if your state law says that all policies must have $1,000,000 coverage, with $0 deductible, you will have to sign up for $1M coverage with $0 deductible when you go to renew..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,996,345 times
Reputation: 6191
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I think that the insurance industry saw a wonderful opportunity in mandated coverages. They could offer coverage that most of their customers wouldn't need, charge people more, and if people complained, blame it on the ACA. Maternity coverage (maternity leave is something offered by employers, not by insurance companies) is something all insurance companies offered. It just wasn't offered on all their policies. And the insurance companies have the option to grandfather such policies in. They are choosing not to because there's more profit in cancelling the existing policies and offering the more expensive ones.
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 11:31 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I think that the insurance industry saw a wonderful opportunity in mandated coverages. They could offer coverage that most of their customers wouldn't need, charge people more, and if people complained, blame it on the ACA. Maternity coverage (maternity leave is something offered by employers, not by insurance companies) is something all insurance companies offered. It just wasn't offered on all their policies. And the insurance companies have the option to grandfather such policies in. They are choosing not to because there's more profit in cancelling the existing policies and offering the more expensive ones.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 11:32 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,808,044 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
And if your state law says that all policies must have $1,000,000 coverage, with $0 deductible, you will have to sign up for $1M coverage with $0 deductible when you go to renew..
And if my state law says that existing policies with lesser coverage can be grandfathered in, then when the insurance company tells me that they are forced to cancel that existing policy, I know the insurance company is lying. Because they are choosing to cancel the existing policy rather than grandfather it in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma
468 posts, read 1,537,483 times
Reputation: 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Chim Chim has already stated that they were expected to lie, so they could do this, and that was the expected behavior and outcome.
True. But, most people give some kind of reasonable argument for, or against, whatever the topic of debate is about. However, this Chim person makes absolutely zero sense. To sum up what Chim says, "I know they are going to lie to me, so I don't believe everything they say, therefore I wasn't lied to." Ummm... say, what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 11:34 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
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?
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 11:37 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
And if my state law says that existing policies with lesser coverage can be grandfathered in, then when the insurance company tells me that they are forced to cancel that existing policy, I know the insurance company is lying. Because they are choosing to cancel the existing policy rather than grandfather it in.
Not one bit of the grandfathering of the law says they can ignore the law. See the link on my previous posting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:13 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top