Companies' cancellation of existing health insurance policies continues

[hooverville29]

It's now hitting the news more often and the nation will soon be much more widely aware of it. It's the next series of hearings on the Hill, without doubt.

The cancellation of existing policies is spreading around the country, as insurance companies seem to be using ACA as an excuse/reason for cancelling existing policies and offering their former customers a choice -- pay higher premium for new policies or bye-bye.

This isn't Obama-hate and crap like that. This is real stuff actually happening to hundreds of thousands of people (300,000+ in California alone), soon to be millions nationwide. It directly contradicts what the President said about people keeping their existing policies. This has nothing to do with any GOP troublemaking. It's a real event. The White House is going to have to face it and get a handle on where they are on the issue. Again, it's really there.

[randr]

1. Pointing out that the Insurance Industry

was and continues to be the problem

[hooverville29]

2. Yep. Not saying wheels are coming off, but it's not good.

[Laelth]

88. It is a real issue, certainly.

Did the insurance companies betray Obama? Did they say they wouldn't do this in 2009 and 2010 when the ACA was being negotiated? Or is it that because of the ACA, they can't sell bad policies that they used to be able to sell? Naturally, "decent" insurance costs more. That would explain both the cancellations and the higher price.

Anybody know what's really going on?



-Laelth

[shraby]

3. Looks like the counry will be moving to single payer faster than anyone ever thought.

[hooverville29]

5. Here the GOP does enter in. It'll never pass this Congress or the next.

Even if the Dems keep the Senate, remember the 60 vote rule? Odds are the GOP will squeak by in the House, if for no reason other than the usual mid-term result. Anyhow, it's really unlikely we could get the legislation.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

4. They should say, "oh, those? Not really insurance so it doesn't count"

Most NORMAL RATIONAL people understand that to mean that regular workers on employment based insurance aren't going to be forced onto other plans by Obamacare. And they are not being forced.

MOST people understand that to mean People won't be pushed off of Medicare or Medicaid.

This law helps the eternally stupid by not allowing insurance companies to sell them shitty non insurance.

[hooverville29]

8. And that's what the WH must clear up and get the Prez off the exposed, general position

he's in right now. They allowed him to take a position that was way too general and broad. Now they'll have to 'explain' and narrow what he said.

This was done very clumsily and doesn't make the Prez look good in the eyes of many ordinary who simply took what he said to mean what the words ordinarily mean. Unfortunately, that won't keep it from really pissing off a lot of people who did take what the President said at face value and now have to pay higher premiums, which contradicts another expectation most have -- ACA won't make my insurance cost more, etc. For some, it will, and there will be a political price to pay for that, like it or not.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

15. That "political price to pay" was baked into the assumptions about ACA

By the White House and Congressional Dems. They weighed the "anger index" against the "ecstatic index" and decided on balance the U.S. population would approve of ACA impacts.

I agree with that assessment and think this is overblown by media hounds and GOP shitbags.

[hooverville29]

26. Disapproval is going up (back to 50+% levels)and so is approval (42%) as undecideds decide

where they are. This one has a tough row to hoe. We'll see how it'll break out. Is it a done deal that everything will work and Americans will line up behind it with enthusiasm? No, not a done deal at all. We'll see how it breaks out.

[hooverville29]

27. Here's the RealClear tracking of polls on the subject.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

[Pretzel_Warrior]

31. Is it rolled out? No! Not one person has started on insurance through exchanges

People are sheep. They are going off of vague info they are hearing. When people are signed up through 2014 and the other pieces kick in fully, this will be a VERY popular program. Right now, low information people are listening to morons.

[hooverville29]

39. It's that kind of elitist contempt for ordinary people that can cause real problems down the road

Those 'morons' and 'low intelligence' people are American citizens who vote and used to be championed by the Democratic Party. You'd better pray that this works when it rolls out -- and works in the eyes of the *majority* of the American people, not just a minority who obtain a special advantage.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

47. Even Ted Cruz is convinced it will work

He originally told audiences they needed to stop it because people would like it and wouldn't want to give it up.

What do you think the shutdown was about? GOP is scared shitless. Which is why they and all their many drones are today spending energy trying to talk it down.

[Morganfleeman]

99. Hogwash

This law is designed to fail. It is predicated on having large numbers of young people sign up. Frankly, may young people are going to look at the prices and take a punt, because even with subsidies, the pricing is significantly higher than before. Any economic actor is going to look at the cost of the fine vs of the cost of insurance and many will take the fine. You have to make the fine punitive enough to force people to choose insurance, because someone who is healthy may take the risk and forego insurance. And even worse, they'll sign up for insurance when they get sick, which will drive prices higher.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

100. From the lack of accurate facts you throw up

You either don't know what you are talking about or are here to purposefully mislead.

[Morganfleeman]

109. It's common sense

Use your brain. We're tallking about common sense predictions based on a flawed model. What's inaccurate about the assumption that a rational actor will choose a fine over a buying insurance which they may not feel they need or that they can acquire when they are sick?

This law will implode in on itself when you don't see the requisite signups. In a way, maybe that's a good thing, as it can pave the way to a single payer model, but unfortunately there will be a steep price to pay in the interim The most likely to sign up are those with pre-existing conditions, which also happen to be the most expensive to care for. Without sufficient young people to subsidize those higher risk groups, premiums necessarily must go up. This was Obama's own argument during the 2008 presidential debates when he eschewed the individual mandate.

Let's not forget this whole bill is modeled on the Heritage Foundation principles. It's a fellating of the insurance industry, plain and simple. Single payer is progressive, the ACA is not.

[kestrel91316]

95. "Elitist"? And is "special advantage" anything like "special rights"?

[bigwillq]

6. What was done in ACA to prevent this?

[HereSince1628]

68. There was a DU thread up earlier today about a moratorium on such things

maybe do a DU limited google search.

[littlewolf]

7. from what I have gathered

the reason policies are being cancled and blamed
on ACA, is those policies did not meet the standards
set by ACA. so now you have more complete coverage
and of course since it covers more, it costs more.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Because the existing policies didn't cover what is required by ACA. Most of

these policies were junk.

[hooverville29]

14. Policies weren't 'junk' to people who first bought them. Now rug's pulled out from under them

and they're going to be pissed at having to pay more or be uninsured. When they bought those 'junk' policies, nobody warned them that the federal government would come along and take them away (and that is definitely the way people directly hit will look at it). The Prez should never been set up to make the broad assurance he did. It was done clumsily.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

32. You are so transparent.

[hooverville29]

46. No, as a matter of fact you are. You expect ordinary people to accept what looks like disadvantage

purely to satisfy ideology. They won't accept that. They'll wait until they see an advantage for themselves, and then they'll like it. Paying more isn't an advantage, as such, depending on what it buys (remember the deductible). We'll see how it 'rolls out.'

[treestar]

103. Look like?

Ordinary consumers should be subject to caveat emptor more, shouldn't they? If they chose to just take what their employer offered rather than shop around, that's their "right" isn't it?

[spinbaby]

40. Here's what no one warned them about

If they got seriously ill or injured under one of those junk policies, they could cough up tens of thousands of dollars and then go bankrupt.

[jeff47]

84. No, they were junk. The people buying them didn't understand that.

Heck, one of the ones highlighted explicitly told the purchaser that they needed to buy real health insurance in addition to that policy. It was designed to only pay the co-pays for a "real" health insurance policy.

[kestrel91316]

96. Thank you for your concern. The only thing clumsy in this picture is your attempt

to portray yourself as a Democrat.

[Shivering Jemmy]

106. Yes they were junk

[ReverendDeuce]

52. Horseshit...

My policy was exceptionally good for me. I had to use it two years ago for a severe leg injury. I received the best care in the area, complete physical therapy, and made a 100% recovery. My total bills would have been about $80,000. I paid up to my $1,500 deductible and that was it.

My current plan, which ACA kills as of January 1st:

~$150/mo, $1500 deductible, and a 0% co-pay.

My new ACA-approved "recommended plan" is now:

~$240/mo, $3000 deductible, and a 50% co-pay.

But at least I have, as an adult male, maternity and pediatric dental/vision until I am 19, right? Right? RIGHT?!

[unblock]

10. in fact there are multiple changes, obamacare being sometime the cause, but more often the excuse.

we've already heard stories about some companies moving employees to part-time status to avoid the issue.

some other companies are dropping health insurance coverage altogether and instead giving employees a small cash benefit toward private insurance. my take on this is that this is painful in the short run but ultimately will make the arguments for single payer stronger. so, an ugly path to the right end.

as for the insurance companies, they will continue to do their best to extract the most and pay out the least, and the tactics you note are par for the course.

[leftyohiolib]

11. theyre cancelling the policies that allowed you to be kicked off if you get sick

where being a woman is a pre-exsiting condition, where acne at age16 is a pre-exsiting condition that with which they can deny you your chemo, you mean those policies?

[hooverville29]

17. Yeah. but people had them and in fact had a form of health insurance, faulty or not.

And now those faulty policies are being cancelled, and those people are uninsured totally (how's that for a fault) unless they pay higher premiums for a policy. Lots of people are above that subsidy level, by the way, and it is turning out that some will in fact pay a bundle for insurance and won't be able to afford it.

Nobody ever told them that would be what would happen when this all started. That wasn't what the President said in his reassurance. This whole thing was done very, very clumsily by White House staff in the way they allowed the Prez to be trotted out to make assurances that Sibelius should make. Then later, she can be fired if it goes too wrong. This has been very clumsy.

[leftyohiolib]

50. they had the til they got sick then they were cancelled anyway

now people have to pay for insurance they wont get dropped from

[SoCalNative]

45. True, but they are also cancelling policies

that people may have had for a reason. Maybe some people will never, ever need maternity coverage, birth control, or other things that they will now be forced to pay for because it is mandatory that they are covered.

[kestrel91316]

97. Ahhhhhgeeez, not THIS shit again........................

[SoCalDem]

12. Those policies are the equivalent of the "accidental death" policies that masquerade

as life insurance policies..mostly worthless...unless you get struck by lightning on the 3rd Tuesday of any month ending in "q".

[leftstreet]

13. That probably should have been explained

"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." Barack Obama June 2009

How hard would it have been to say that if your plan met the new requirements, you could keep it?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

16. Ooooh!!! You nailed Obama on that one!

[leftstreet]

18. He did it to himself

“If somebody has insurance they like, they should be able to keep that insurance. If they have a doctor that they like, they should be able to keep their doctor.” Barack Obama, YouTube, March 6, 2009

“The plans you are discussing embody my core belief that Americans should have better choices for health insurance, building on the principle that if they like the coverage they have now, they can keep it, …” Barack Obama, Letter to Senate Democrat Leaders, June 2, 2009

“Americans must have the freedom to keep whatever doctor and health care plan they have…” Barack Obama, Remarks on Health Care, Washington, D.C., June 11, 2009

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.” Barack Obama, Address to the AMA, June 15, 2009

“There’s no doubt that we have to preserve what’s best in the health care system, and that means allowing Americans who like their doctor and like their health care plan to keep their plan. And that’s going to be a priority for us.” Barack Obama, Remarks at Northern Virginia Community College, Annandale, VA, July 1, 2009

“I know a lot of Americans who are satisfied with their health care right now are wondering what reform would mean for them, so let me be clear: If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them. If you like your health care plan, you can keep that too.” Barack Obama, Remarks on Health Care, Washington, D.C., July 15, 2009

“And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.” Barack Obama, Holmdel, NJ, July 16, 2009

“Those who oppose reform will also tell you that under our plan, you won’t get to choose your doctor, that some bureaucrat will choose for you. That’s also not true. Michelle and I don’t want anyone telling us who our family’s doctor should be, and no one should decide that for you either. Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period. End of story.” Barack Obama, Weekly Address, July 18, 2009

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Barack Obama, Town Hall Meeting, August 11, 2009

“No matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it.” Barack Obama, Weekly Radio Address, August 15, 2009

“If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health.” Barack Obama, Speech George Mason University, March 19, 2009

“If you already have health insurance through your job — and because many of you are members of unions, you do — nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change your coverage or your doctor. Let me repeat: Nothing in this plan will require you to change your coverage or your doctor.” Barack Obama, Address to the AFL-CIO Convention, September 15, 2009

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/08/05/airbrushing-away-the-numerous-false-promises-of-obama-care/

[Pretzel_Warrior]

21. You mean spoke the truth? The ones being cancelled are not "health care"

They were disaster plans. Not comprehensive health plans.

Why are you so interested in pushing this? Do you want to see Obama fail? Do you want to see ACA fail?

[leftstreet]

23. He probably should have explained it n/t

[Skink]

77. Fly by night plans is how Dean put it

[geek tragedy]

24. What a shock to see an anti-ACA troll like you posting rightwing screeds against the ACA

Here's some other of that author's work:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/10/17/the-tea-party-victory/

I see it quite differently “from the vantage point of the forest:” The Tea Party has denied President Obama his long term goal of creating a positive-rights European-style entitlement state. The Tea Party changed the conversation from fundamental change, massive second stimuli, investment banks, national value added, fuel, and carbon taxes to sequestration and haggling over nickels and dimes of federal spending, and forced the Obama administration to gamble its second term (and legacy) on the unlikely success of Obama Care, which every Democratic member of Congress now personally owns.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/09/23/the-problem-is-obesity-not-hunger-thoughts-on-the-food-stamps-debate/

The current hysteria over the House bill to cut food stamps by $40 billion over a decade (see Krugman, Free to Be Hungry) will be framed against America’s “hunger crisis” fabricated by the powerful “hunger lobby.” Democrats will use the “hunger crisis” as a cudgel to beat those who favor cuts in food stamps into bloody submission. How can any decent person favor cutting aid to hungry families, who, according to the crisis mongers, constitute one out of six of our neighbors? Few politicians have the fortitude to withstand the onslaught and the “crisisists” will likely win. A non-crisis will be “solved,” as real facts and real crises are ignored.

Facts are the enemy of the “crisisists.” Therefore, we hear few of them, and the facts we hear are distorted beyond recognition. In this case, the facts speak for themselves: The United States, and increasingly the affluent world, has a crisis not of hunger but of obesity. The hunger crisis is a clever fabrication to serve political and commercial interests. If the hunger lobby’s facts are true, our hunger rates equal those of the poorest African and Asian countries.

[leftstreet]

25. Are you confusing me with someone else?

I am, and have always been, opposed to the individual mandate. The legislation could have stood on its own as necessary reform for insurance holders. Not sure that makes me a 'troll.'

[geek tragedy]

28. The fact that you push rightwing talking points and policy goals. You were here pimping the House

Republicans demand to delay the individual mandate, using their precise arguments, within minutes of their decision to make that demand.

And here you are citing a Teahadist who denies there are hungry people in America in order to attack the ACA.

[leftstreet]

29. Is Forbes magazine banned at DU?

I've seen articles posted here over the years, but if there's been a change I can delete my post

[Pretzel_Warrior]

35. I'm glad you just have to eat the individual mandate

Deal with it! Elections have consequences!!!! Hahahahhaha!!!!



No matter what you, as one insignificant individual thinks about him, Obama is still president until January 2017.

[leftstreet]

48. Good grief n/t

[geek tragedy]

37. If your agenda and sources weren't so transparently rightwing, you

wouldn't have to ask such questions.

Unfortunately, at DU it appears that folks like you are allowed to cite Tea Party authors to make your points to your hearts' content.

But, those of us not attempting to sabotage the ACA in order to help the Koch brothers are free to call you out.

Larry Kudlow says jump:

Sell the Individual-Mandate Delay


The individual mandate is the heart of Obamacare. And a year’s delay would give the GOP its last chance to stop this statist, government-controlled model of health care and replace it with a private-sector, pro-competition, patient-power alternative. But in the next couple of days, the GOP has to make the sale.

You ask, how high?

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3752682

[leftstreet]

43. So Forbes magazine isn't banned here?

Can 'folks like me' still quote it?

[geek tragedy]

63. Due to the tolerance of rightwing talking points around here, you're free to do so

until it gets to "enough is enough" territory.

[leftstreet]

65. You're saying I might be banned?

I'd find that surprising. I see articles posted from Forbes all the time

I really do think you and your friend are confusing me with some other user

[geek tragedy]

66. We'll see how far you're willing to carry Teapublican water re: the ACA nt

[leftstreet]

67. ??

Miss, Dude, Sir, Lady, whatever... I think you're mistaking me for someone else

[geek tragedy]

69. No, I'm thinking of the person who came here to support the House GOP's demand

that the individual mandate be delayed by a year.

[leftstreet]

70. Um..I was here long before the ACA

??

I agreed with Obama when he campaigned against Hillary's insurance individual mandate

I'm still against it

And I still believe the ACA has excellent and necessary reforms for insurance consumers

Can I go now?

[geek tragedy]

72. Oh bullshit. You've been as nuanced on the ACA as Ted Cruz.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3422861

leftstreet (25,187 posts)
10. Obamacare is scary enough without this

Forcing people to hand their money over to FOR-PROFIT insurance companies
No public option
Allowing states to opt-out of medicaid expansion
No controls over rates

[leftstreet]

73. You're starting to creep me out

What is your problem?

Yes that's my post. There's nothing wrong with it

If you spent as much time stalk...researching other members posts here, you'd find many people making similar statements

[hughee99]

33. Interesting to see a series of Obama quotes referred to as a "rightwing screed".

You don't see that every day.

[geek tragedy]

42. Helpfully compiled by a Tea Party author. More to the point, people will be getting better plans

than their current junk plans, and even more to the point plans stop getting renewed by insurers all the time.

But, the leftwing collaborators with the Tea party find the issue of quality of plans offered to be immaterial, since their common goal is to scrap the ACA and go back to the pre-2009 status quo.

[hughee99]

60. Ah, so they're out of context then, right? n/t

[geek tragedy]

64. Yes. He was talking about plans that were around in 2009 and grandfathered in.

Once the ACA came into play, all NEW policies had to comply with basic minimums.

It's still the case that anyone who has the policy they had before the ACA became law can keep that plan.

[hooverville29]

19. How about having them cancelled and having nothing but a chance to pay more. Don't expect people

to fall all over themselves to reward those in a system which takes money away from them, whether it be private, governmental, or a combination.

[SoCalDem]

20. Boo

Hoo

[hooverville29]

49. And that's exactly the 'screw the people' attitude that will be deadly at the polls

[SoCalDem]

54. for the greedy bastard GOP.. I agree with you there

but then we both know that's not what you meant..

What's that I hear?? Mom calling you up from the basement for lunch

[ReverendDeuce]

55. Not remotely true. That's what's called a "talking point" to parrot...

Yes, there are junk policies out there. But most states don't allow them to be sold.

I had a perfectly good health insurance plan (well, I will have it until Jan 1st) with a ~$150/mo premium with 0% co-pay and a $1,500 deductible. I had no maternity (I'm male so why do I need this?) and am over the age of 19 (no need for pediatric dental/vision).

It's through Blue Cross and I had used it two years ago for $80,000 worth of broken leg repairs and recovery.

The new ACA plan they are putting me into is absolutely terrible by comparison. To get something similar to what I have today, I'd need to buy the only platinum plan offered in my state which is over $400/mo.

There are lots of people in states where junk policies can't be sold where the ACA has enabled insurance companies to stick it to customers.

[SoCalDem]

56. Sorry, I forgot that the national law is all about you

Nothing happens until Jan, so things will probably work out.... Perhaps your boss will offer coverage that's better priced for you..or maybe you'll find one on the ACA site when things are up and running..

Everyone's running around with their hair on fire about something that's not even in effect yet, and about which the details are sketchy because of the website thing..

Read up on "the commons".. perhaps something will click for you..

Decent societies pool resources & care for each other.. Most here at DU are not selfish GOP types who care only about ourselves.

[geek tragedy]

22. People forced to stop spending money on junk insurance, get subsidy to buy something much better nt

[hughee99]

30. Obama should tell people that are being dropped they're TOO STUPID to know

what a good policy is. That seems to be what I'm reading here, that the people with canceled policies all had shitty policies and didn't know the difference.

[geek tragedy]

44. Thank you for the libertarian/Tea Party spin on this. Your objection to improving people's

health care options is duly noted.

[hughee99]

59. Nice, I see what you did there.

Rather than disagreeing or agreeing with what I said (that the people who LIKE their plans and want to keep them, really LIKE crappy plans and can't tell the difference), you implied that I'm pushing the Tea Party line so as not to have to address the point. If we had a smart fella like you on this from the get-go, I'm sure we could have made sure the President didn't make statements that would come back and bite him in the ass later.

As to my objection to improving people's healthcare, I didn't see that ANYWHERE in my post, but go ahead, what's a few straw men between DUers.

[geek tragedy]

62. Yes, you pushed the Tea Party/libertarian line is that we don't need consumer protection

and regulation of the insurance market, and that those who seek to regulate by requiring minimum standards are looking down their noses at people who buy policies that fall beneath those standards.

Obama should tell people that are being dropped they're TOO STUPID to know

what a good policy is. That seems to be what I'm reading here, that the people with canceled policies all had shitty policies and didn't know the difference.

It's classic free market bullshit combined with populist resentment towards big gubmint liberals by claiming that trying to regulate the market means that liberals don't respect purchasers.

And it's not at all surprising to hear this nonsense coming from someone rooting for the ACA to fail, and who endorsed the House Republicans' call to delay the individual mandate by one year:

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3752682

(you're on record voting "yes" to whether Obama should have caved to the House GOP on the delay).

[hughee99]

74. Excuse me? I pushed no such thing.

I wasn't the one who promised people would be able to keep their plans if they liked them. A better promise WOULD have been "We're going to get rid of all the crappy plans on the market and give you a choice between GOOD plans"... but that's not the promise he made.

As for what I'm "on record" for, Here's what my link actually says (if you read it, you probably wouldn't have thought it so clever to post it)...

" So they're going to force people into the market but delaying many of the consumer protections?

I'm unclear why people think mandating coverage under such circumstances is going to help anyone. You want to give the ACA a bad name from the start? Spend a year forcing people into a market where the insurance companies can charge high rates for little or no coverage and a high deductible, and I don't think it's going to make the rest of the ACA any easier to get implemented."


I'm ON RECORD for not forcing people into an insurance program this year while delaying PROTECTIONS for those consumers. This is me, in FAVOR of consumer protection for people. I didn't support delaying the employer or insurance company regulations, but IF you're going to delay those two, why should you force consumers into the market without these protections? You seem to be the one that is in support of mandating health insurance while delaying legislation to limit their out-of-pocket costs.

[geek tragedy]

78. This is per se trolling. You complain about plans being discontinued because

of consumer protections in them, and then turn around and complain that a small segment of the market (employer-based plans, not those sold in the exchanges) had those plans grandfathered in with a 1-year waiver of one specific consumer protection.

You're arguing with yourself.

And, you grossly exaggerate to the point of dishonesty by suggesting/implying that the ACA's consumer protections had all been delayed, when instead it was a small segment that saw a 1 year delay for one specific protection.

Your agenda is quite clear.

[hughee99]

85. I specifically said in the post you're replying to,

that the consumer protections that were delayed were the cap on out-of-pocket expenses.

See the last line in my post. "You seem to be the one that is in support of mandating health insurance while delaying legislation to limit their out-of-pocket costs."

Any by the way, I NEVER complained about plans being discontinued, I complained that the president seems to have made a promise that he didn't keep, one that the repukes are now using to hammer him.

I think the issue here is that you're arguing with yourself. You seem to be adding words or ideas to my post that aren't there (or removing ones that are), and then complaining about them.

[geek tragedy]

86. So, you're simultaneously complaining

that (a) a small subset of employer plans received a one-year waiver on one particular protection and were grandfathered in; and (b) Obama's a big fat liar for keeping the other protections in place, thus knocking out all plans enacted after the ACA was passed that didn't comply with those protections.

The president promised in 2008-2009 that people who liked the insurance they had then would be able to keep it--that promise was kept via the grandfathering. He did not promise that all plans created AFTER it became law would exist in perpetuity. that would have meant promising zero consumer protections.

[hughee99]

93. You're getting closer...

I simultaneously complained that a one-year waiver was granted on a provision that would protect some people AND that the president made a promise that the repukes can use to attack him with because what he said "isn't really what he meant".

I have NOT argued that consumer protection ISN'T needed or that I wasn't in favor of it. I have NOT argued that plans that don't cover almost anything should be allowed. I have NOT objected to improving people's health care options. I have NOT suggested that all consumer protections have been delayed, and I have NOT argued that when the president said:

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.” Barack Obama, Address to the AMA, June 15, 2009

he meant anything other than that. I didn't see anything in his speech to lead me to believe otherwise (in case you're worried about context, HERE's the speech).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/obama-ama-speech-full-tex_n_215699.html

The president should have been clearer in what he was promising and instead it looks like he provided the repukes a club to beat him with. Your issue with me (and others) seems to be just that we're pointing out that the repukes are trying to do just that and that pointing it out puts us "on their side".

[geek tragedy]

94. Trying to communicate the nuances of health care reform in soundbytes

is impossible. He was going to get tripped up.

Not very productive to validate the rightwing criticisms, much better to push back and explain.

[leftstreet]

76. That member did no such thing

Read his/her posts

Ridiculous!

[geek tragedy]

79. Ha, the "delay the mandate like the Republicans want" caucus

is sticking up for each other. How cute.

[leftstreet]

82. I stood with Obama when he opposed the mandate

I hope you did, too

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. "You'll be able to keep your existing insurance*"

* provided your existing insurance doesn't suck ass.

[Logical]

36. 89 posts? LOL, we get it! nt

[redqueen]

53. ...

Sad to see so many DUers carrying that same brand of water, but whatever. It's predictable enough.

[JoePhilly]

38. The ACA does not force the insurers to

maintain their current plans.

Insurers can still cancel any plan type they want, just like they always could, and did.

[gerogie1]

41. Here is a true life example of my health insurance under ObamaCare

There are going to be changes in any new government program. The reason people are upset is that they are unable to shop the online health care exchanges to find health insurance and how much a subsidy/tax credit they will receive. I live in Oregon my present health insurance is $250 per month with a $10,000 per incident deductible and no prescriptions or doctor visits coverage. My new ACA health care coverage from a private health insurer has a $5,000 yearly deductible and prescription coverage. The costs is $290.00 per month, but with the tax credit it is $175 per month.
People are just looking at the prices provided by their health insurance company without shopping the public health exchanges and finding out what their subsidy is and they do not know about extra help for copays also.

[ScreamingMeemie]

51. I feel like framing my cancelation notice.

It is the BEST piece of mail I've received this month. No more overcharging me for no coverage for my son.

[oldhippie]

57. "If you are happy with your plan, you can keep it."

Well, those people had no right to be "happy" with those plans that were not ACA compliant. Those people are too stupid to understand that they were being ripped off by having a plan we don't think is adequate. They weren't really happy, they just thought they were due to their mis-guided notions. We here on DU are much smarter than those people, and they WILL be happy with the mandated ACA approved plans we helped get enacted into law. Period.

ETA: And don't worry, they WILL also be happy with us when they go to the polls in 2014 and 2016.

[B2G]

91. sarcasm?

Hard to tell here some days. Lol.

[EC]

58. Just goes to show how the insurance industry has been ripping off people

with worthless policies. I didn't know there were so many bad policies out there.

[TBF]

61. Looks like we have a rw meme of the day -

many folks are posting this.

[Skidmore]

71. You are unhappy with a market based law

and the fact that insurers are seeking to align their products a risk pools accordingly? Either you don't understand how insurance works or you are fine with the unwell masses forever being shut out out of healthcare.

[cry baby]

75. Today's talking points. eye roll nt

[Rex]

80. When it dawns on people that they no longer have to worry about

where they work (has great insurance) and that their health and their career are no longer connected...it SHOULD be a great relief to the person with common sense.

No longer can a boss lord over you your insurance policy or cut hours to make sure you don't have one!

Think about it, YES the site needs a lot of work BUT this could turn into the greatest gift the working class has received since LBJ was in office!

[ScreamingMeemie]

81. I am sick to death of Dems buying into this.

[Rex]

83. Me too! To expect everything to work flawlessly is being dishonest!

It could take YEARS to get everything running right...but it is all worth it! Glad you and your son got coverage! No more worrying about work AND the impact it has on your health or vice versa! If it was me, I would find some insurance on the ACA exchange and cancel all ties between my boss and my health ASAP! As it is, I am going to check on some insurance in a few months, I have VA if I need it but want more coverage.

[Vinnie From Indy]

87. As true as many of responses to this issue are on this thread,

this is going to be a HUGE fucking problem for Democrats. It is NOT about the realities of better coverage or anything else but what is in this statement by President Obama:

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health-care reform should be guided by a simple principle: Fix what’s broken and build on what works.”


If millions have their current policies cancelled and face increased premiums for new plans it will be a problem for Democrats. This is not rocket science! Writing a campaign ad that offers that Pres. Obama's above statement was not true is about as simple a soundbite as any GOP candidate could hope to offer and if history is any guide, it WILL resonate with voters.

If the Obama Admin. KNEW that the basic ACA requirements would lead the insurance company's to cancel current policies and offer ACA compliant policies at a higher rates and they made statements like the one Pres. Obama made in the above snippet they have created a very large problem for Democrats. This could be a "read my lips" level political catastrophe.

[Lifelong Dem]

89. What's real is junk insurance

Thanks to Obama we now have minimum standards for insurance.

Standards

Ambulatory patient services (outpatient care you get without being admitted to a hospital)

Emergency services

Hospitalization (such as surgery)

Maternity and newborn care (care before and after your baby is born)

Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment (this includes counseling and psychotherapy)

Prescription drugs

Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices (services and devices to help people with injuries, disabilities, or chronic conditions gain or recover mental and physical skills)

Laboratory services

Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management

Pediatric services

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-does-marketplace-health-insurance-cover/

When you take the subsidy, insurance would cost even less than your junk insurance.

[ProSense]

92. Think Progress debunked NBC's report on insurance cancellations, and there is more

Think Progress debunked NBC's report on insurance cancellations, and there is more
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023942430

I know, the BS is more interesting.

[Sarah 979]

98. Thanks for debunking the NBC propoganda. Here's a much better article from PBS.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/10/why-the-health-reform-law-is-causing-thousands-to-lose-coverage.html

October 28, 2013

Why the health reform law is causing thousands to lose coverage

Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage, frustrating some consumers who want to keep what they have and forcing others to buy more costly policies.

The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1. Most are ending policies sold after the law passed in March 2010. At least a few are cancelling plans sold to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

By all accounts, the new policies will offer consumers better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost -- especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify. The law requires policies sold in the individual market to cover 10 "essential" benefits, such as prescription drugs, mental health treatment and maternity care. In addition, insurers cannot reject people with medical problems or charge them higher prices. The policies must also cap consumers' annual expenses at levels lower than many plans sold before the new rules.

[gopiscrap]

107. welcome to DU

[treestar]

101. It was always the case that they could be cancelled

It does not contradict what the President said. The contract is between the person and the company. Obama said the person was not forced to opt out. The insurance company always could. Don't fall for illogical conclusions.

[JoePhilly]

104. Its amazing how many pretend to not get the distinction you just made.

[99Forever]

102. Reality check.

These are not really "cancellation letters." They are recall notices for faulty, worthless products. "Insurance" that really insures nothing isn't a bargain, no matter what the lying corporate fucks tell you.

[Shivering Jemmy]

105. Good, I'm glad

Those policies charged money but delivered nothing. I hope they keep cancelling such policies.

[Marrah_G]

108. How would you have solved the heathcare problem in this country?

Personally I think Heath insurance companies should all be shut down and we should have Medicare for all. No one should have to pay a company that makes a profit off the suffering of others. No one should be denied care because they can't afford it.