General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNBC NEWS: Obama Admin. Knew Millions Could Not Keep Their Health Insurance
By Lisa Myers and Hannah Rappleye
President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law.
But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
MORE...
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
vi5
(13,305 posts)Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)Obama and those that voted for the ACA knew that "some" people would not be able to keep the health care they currently have.
Why? Because the ACA creates a "basement" of coverage under which no policy can fall.
So yes, there are Americans that have a basic policy today that will no longer be available. So Obama's statement "If you like what you have now you can keep it" was not truthful.
He should have said, "if you have a policy that provides the basic minimums of coverage including preventive, maternity, etc. care, you can keep it. But if you have a policy that provides little to no coverage, those policies will need to be upgraded to a reasonable minimum".
Here I fault both the President and his team for not being specific enough.
That said, I do believe that having and paying for insurance that provides essentially nothing is meaningless. It may sound good on paper...oh if I get cancer and have to have treatment, after I pay $50K of my own money I can get $250 a day.....
The reality is many of these policies were "shams". We need a basic minimum just as most states require for auto insurance.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)For a premium of $.02 a month per person, you can imagine a plan that only pays for a bandaid if you cut yourself and no other care.
For a premium of $2500 a month per person, you can imagine a plan that pays everything with no deductible and no co-pay.
At some point, a civilized society can/will mandate a minimum standard of care. There was little of a minimum standard before Obamacare, now there is a very definite one.
If your plan was below the minimum standard, it has to go. Every state has minimal standards for car insurance. At some point those may have changed. If your plan was below standard, you had to get a new one.
This isn't unusual or arcane. This is a good thing.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)That gets me 10 % off of my hospital bill. You damn socialist liberals. Making me get real insurance. I was just fine with mu faux insurance with other americans as my co-Payers.
BluegrassStateBlues
(881 posts)Those insurance plans were mainly for decor. Now those folks might be able to find something worth buying.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)lol
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)BluegrassStateBlues
(881 posts)
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Thank goodness we have you on this board, the mighty troll hunter!
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
BluegrassStateBlues
(881 posts)Think that had anything to do with it?
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I think the grass is a little worn.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Automated Message
MIR Team (EarlG) banned BluegrassStateBlues
Mail Message
Reason:
Previously banned multiple times.
http://www.democraticunderground.com?com=profile&uid=308371&sub=trans
Real name:
DU Member for: 23 days
Posts: 881
Recommendations: 293
Star member: No
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The OP is a well valued member. If you disagree with the OP then say what you disagree with.
marmar
(78,627 posts)KAESNO2
(17 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Automated Message
MIR Team (EarlG) banned BluegrassStateBlues
Mail Message
Reason:
Previously banned multiple times.
http://www.democraticunderground.com?com=profile&uid=308371&sub=trans
Real name:
DU Member for: 23 days
Posts: 881
Recommendations: 293
Star member: No
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)because the network will also change?
Well, we didn't want to make any fine tuning to the ACA for a decade or so. People will have gotten over it by then...
surrealAmerican
(11,657 posts)... it's likely because you had not sought medical care.
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.
This needs an investigative report? What do they think "most" means? There are 300 million people in this country. The President consistently said most Americans will be able to keep their plan. He specifically addressed the misinformation pushed by Republicans to scare those who have employer-based and other forms of health care.
Ed Henry asked the question during today's press briefing.
MR. CARNEY: Well, let’s just be clear. What the President said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act that create minimum standards of coverage -- minimum services that every insurance plan has to provide so that an individual shopping for insurance, when he or she purchases that insurance, knows that maternity care is covered, that preventative services are covered, that mental health services are covered, that the insurance policy you buy doesn’t have an annual limit or a lifetime limit, that there are out-of-pocket expenses capped at a maximum level both annually and for a lifetime.
So it’s true that there are existing health care plans on the individual market that don't meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act. There are some that can be grandfathered if people want to keep insurance that's substandard. But what is also true is that Americans who have insurance on the existing individual market will now have numerous options available to them, and 6 out of 10 will pay less than $100 per month in premiums for better insurance. It’s not even an apples-and-apples comparison.
This is qualitatively better insurance coverage than what was available in many cases to Americans around the country -- in an area of the insurance market, by the way, that so lightly regulated that you often didn’t know what you were getting. So you could sign an insurance policy, get that plan, pay a lot of upfront money, premiums, out-of-pocket expenses, and then find out that because of the fine print, it doesn’t cover the actual condition that you have. That will no longer be the case.
So I get what the effort here is, but the fact is, is that --
Q Well, the President said one thing and you're admitting that that's not going to be the case, that not everyone is going to keep their plan; they will, admittedly, wind up probably with better insurance in the long run, so they may be healthier. That should be said. But the President sold it as if you have a plan, you’ll get to keep it. And that's not true.
MR. CARNEY: Ed, I appreciate what you're trying to do. Eighty-plus percent of the American people already get insurance through their employer, through Medicare, through Medicaid. They don't have to worry about or do or change anything. Those remaining individuals who do not have insurance at all now will have it available to them through -- or don't have insurance at all or get it through the individual market will now have insurance available to them through expanded Medicaid services in those states that have accepted the expanded Medicaid program, as well as through the health care marketplaces.
And it’s correct -- I mean, I take your point -- it’s correct that substandard plans that don't provide minimum services that have a lot of fine print that leaves consumers in the lurch, often because of annual caps or lifetime caps or carve-outs for some preexisting conditions, those are no longer allowed -- because the Affordable Care Act is built on the premise that health care is not a privilege, it’s a right, and there should be minimum standards for the plans available to Americans across the country.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/28/1251352/-Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Jay-Carney-health-care-law-and-NSA-spying
The RW is all over this like it changes anything.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)As if NBC was trustworthy and not part of the media consolidation paradigm.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The have your attention and if you think they're looking out for your interests then I worry for you.
Did you think that Obama or anyone else could force insurers to suddenly care for people?
What he said was true: nothing in ACA was going to limit choice of plans or physicians.
He did NOT say that he was going to magically dictate that nothing could change, that insurers and the old plans would HAVE to remain available under the same terms.
That would have been impossible to enforce and it was never the intention.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)they want to sell you. They are owned".
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)are doing the ACA a solid by pushing your bogus talking points.
You/Ted Cruz: Many will lose their inexpensive policies
Reality: those policies were scams that bilked people out of money while never paying benefits. Under the ACA, people will get real insurance policies that provide real benefits.
Thank you for helping educate the public.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)No exceptions.
pnwmom
(109,946 posts)Makes perfect sense.
Otherwise, if they allowed changes, where would they draw the line?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Obama vowed repeatedly during the 2008 campaign that premiums would fall drastically as a result of the ACA. Exactly the opposite has occurred, just as many of us warned at the time.
Health Premiums Up by $3,065; Obama Vowed $2,500 Cut
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health-premiums-3-065-obama-224300715.html
Even if everyone who needs subsidies got them (which they don't), the subsidies mask the real problem.
The real problem is that the ACA entrenches the obscene, profit-driven middleman structure of health insurance into our health care system without any serious cost controls. By the design of the corporatists who created it, it guarantees outrageous profits to the insurance companies for merely standing between us and our doctors. Yes, the subsidies help individuals, but they are still funded by our tax dollars, and every dollar that is funneled into the pockets of health care CEO's is a dollar that is not going to education and roads and community services. Or actual health care.
We need real reform that reduces costs and eliminates the middlemen and the profit motive. Health care should not exist as a profit venture for billionaires. It should be designed first and foremost for the health and well being of a country and its citizens. We need single payer.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I believe premiums will go down, but only after we get 10-20 million more people signed up and the 80/85 rule does its thing within those parameters. All the influx of money into the pool, plus the cap on profits, operating in conjunction could very well lead to a very substantial drop in premiums. If that happens though, one shouldn't expect it to happen until the exchanges have been going for a year or so.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)They are built into the rules, including the rules for premium increases. ACA is all about *keeping the middlemen in the system* and ensuring they are well-fed.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that premiums will drop by over $5500 in the future? Because that's what would have to happen in order for the promise to be kept. They would have to drop by the amount of the $3000 increase we have endured, and then drop *another* $2500.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(125,702 posts)http://healthcare-economist.com/2012/01/31/does-obamacare-limit-profits-for-health-insurance-companies-in-your-state/
Anything beyond that has to be refunded.
Rilgin
(795 posts)You are working from the wrong direction. This issue is not what they have to refund or spend but how much they are allowed to keep.
The poster above is right. We have enshrined the insurance companies as permanent middle men taking, as you have correctly said up to 15% or 20% of all the premiums paid. Compare this to most industries and you will see how absurd this is. Further, currently, I believe the Insurance Industry takes about this much but also have much greater marketing costs. We are now removing most marketing and advertising costs from their expenses since government pays for the exchanges and the marketing of the exchanges so the 15% to 20% only includes profit and administration (which is rather minimal).
Market competition might, in theory, act to reduce premiums within the exchanges since one insurer might take only 14% rather than 15%. However, do you really believe that this will really reduce the premiums substantially rather than around the edges. They are a cartel and competition has not worked so far to reduce premiums.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(125,702 posts)The only exceptions were large corporations who were able to negotiate such limits for their employees insurance.
Rilgin
(795 posts)The published profit margin right now for the health insurance industry seems to be between 3% and 5%. See the first two links from my google search below. These figures are a litle misleading since there are ways to hide profit (high salaries) and they inflate costs to decrease profits. But Health Insurance Companies do not actually profit 15% of the premium doller. 15% to 20% is not a savings on the insurance companies administrative costs and profit. That is the problem with believing our own propaganda. If the Obama Administration woud have decided on the tougher political fight to get actual health care reform (medicare for all), the fight would have been harder but it would have been much easier to defend when actualized. We would have actually improved peoples lives and stuck a stake in certain right wing philosophies.
Just cause democrates adopted something and it has some decent aspects for some people do not fall for the propaganda from our own leaders. They are defending a small bill that provides insurance for a small number of the currently uninsured at a fairly high cost withou addressing the real problems which is insurance.
http://www.iedc-consulting.com/profit-margin-for-health-insurance-companies/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-rome/the-truth-about-health-in_b_863632.html
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(125,702 posts)But don't they have to pay their employees? Don't they have overhead costs? How the hell is that 15 to 20 percent profit?
Rilgin
(795 posts)Administration (Emphasis added) and profit. If you look at my post, I say administration and profit each time I refer to the 15 or 20%.
Now again, I will refer you to easy google searchs. You will find that currently (emphasis added) insurers administrative costs (i.e. those employees and offices you are talking about) is about 3% for big insurers insuring big companies. Look at the chart in the middle of this article which shows insurance company administration (and marketing btw) at around 6% compared to medicaires approximately 1%.
Now if you add 6% administration and 5% profit, you again find you are just giving what you think is out there rather than the actual facts. Again, I am not an expert and do not know the exact numbers but simple google searchs show that you just think you know what insurers administrtive and profit costs are. I would suspect that some policies have enormous profits built in but thats just suspicion. In general, Insurance companies do not take 20% above expenditures now nor wll they after the ACA.
Holding insurers to 15% or 20% sounds good but it really does not do much. The fact is that insurers cost more than single payer but its not this gross amount that you are citing. And the problem with insurers is more than just the spread between premiums and health expenditures.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 28, 2013, 10:18 PM - Edit history (3)
Does your income increase by ten percent every year?
For reasons that have been explained over and over and over and over again on these boards, crowing about a guaranteed 20 percent going to the insurance companies is absurd. Even taking into account the greater overhead of private corporations versus a program like Medicare (which in itself is a reason to consider this a scam), 20 percent allows for obscene PROFITS for corporations that serve no purpose other than acting as middlemen. By any accounting, that's just fact. Look at the financial data on these companies.
You didn't address my comment about the promised huge REDUCTIONS in premiums, versus the huge increases we actually got. You insist that things will get better. But no serious analysis of ACA suggests that we will be seeing anything remotely resembling the reductions in costs that we were promised.
We have watched as the corporate talking points have shifted from promising huge decreases in premiums, to arguing that Obama promised only reductions in increases (I know *you* didn't say that, but it's a frequent talking point here and why I keep the above video handy: to correct the constant rewriting of history)...and now to focusing on the subsidies.
But the subsidies mask the real problem. Some individuals are helped by them, certainly, but millions more will still be trapped paying for high-deductible, low-benefit plans they cannot afford to use. But the most important point is that ALL OF US end up paying the subsidies TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES for these still obscenely expensive plans instead of what SHOULD have happened, which was to eliminate the profitmongering from the system and focus instead on real cost controls.
ACA does not even begin to attempt to solve the problem that it was cynically named to suggest it would. It does not fix the problem of corporate, bloodsucking middlemen or spiraling costs. Rather, it entrenches those middlemen into the system while providing them a captive market and guaranteed profits.
Which makes sense, because they helped write it.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(125,702 posts)It's already been established in this thread that those type of policies are not allowed under the ACA. You're argument is Sisyphean.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)It may be that just the increases over time slows down to pace with inflation, which would still be a dramatic improvement over the situation as it has been the past few decades.
I'm pro-single payer. But I'm not writing the ACA off in the meantime. I want to see it succeed and I see a lot of potential for how it can.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023939187
By Sy Mukherjee
Looks like Obamacare is more “on track” than “train wreck.”
In a striking illustration of the promise that the health law holds for consumers, two Oregon private insurers vying to sell coverage on the state’s Obamacare insurance marketplace this October are reevaluating their opening bids for the plans’ monthly premiums. The reason? A side-by-side regional comparison of all proposed 2014 premiums for Oregon marketplace plans became public on Oregon’s marketplace website Thursday, and showed that the two insurers’ planned monthly premiums were far higher than other proposals. That raised fears among the companies’ officials that their plans wouldn’t be competitive on the market later this year, leading them to proactively request a rate reduction — and as more of Obamacare is implemented, state insurance commissioners expect that trend to continue:
“Posting rate comparisons company-by-company is a taste of what is to come,” says Cheryl Martinis of the Oregon Insurance Division.
Judging by the reaction, there’s already an impact.
Providence Health Plan on Wednesday asked to lower its requested rates by 15 percent. Gary Walker, a Providence spokesman, says the “primary driver” was a realization that the plan’s cost projections were incorrect. But he conceded a desire to be competitive was part of it.
A Family Care Health Plans official on Thursday said the insurer will ask the state for even greater decrease in requested rates. CEO Jeff Heatherington says the company realized its analysts were too pessimistic after seeing online that its proposed premiums were the highest.
“That was my question when I saw the rates was, ‘Can we go in and refile these?’” he said. “We’re going to try to get these to a competitive range.”
Although some insurers have been using Obamacare as an excuse to hike premiums despite record profits, such rate hikes have been rarer — and less extreme — since the law’s passage. And to emphasize, this is all happening before the state has had a chance to review and approve initial plan rates — much less launch the actual marketplace. After the exchange opens up, consumers will have even more detailed information about marketplace plans, including the ability to compare — not just rates — but actual benefits offered on the plans side-by-side.
That’s particularly significant because much of the current variation in health plan premiums stems from rampant health care price opacity and wildly divergent benefits offered on different health plans — a status quo that won’t last in the Obamacare era since the law requires qualifying insurance plans to offer a base level of ten “essential health benefits,” including prescription drug, mental health, and maternity services. That means that Americans will be able to go online and figure out whether a plan costs more because it actually provides more robust benefits, or because an insurance company is just trying to gouge prices and maximize profits. Insurance offered on the marketplaces will be separated into Bronze, Silver, and Gold plans based on how generous their offered coverage is, making consumer comparisons between similar health plans simple.
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/10/1994331/obamacare-forcing-insurers-lower-premiums/
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)through and through.
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIGOPPlatform2012.pdf
CAHI's Eight Point Plan and the 2012 Republican Party Platform on Health Care
September, 2012
The GOP health policy platform is remarkably similar to CAHI's Eight Point Plan.
Their list of links:
Health Policy & Think Tanks
Academy Health
American Accreditation Health Care Commission
Brookings Institute
Cato Institute
Center for Health Care Strategies
Coalition Against Guaranteed Issue (CAGI)
Commonwealth Fund
Citizens for a Sound Economy
Electronic Policy Network
Employee Benefit Research Institute
ERISA Industry Committee
The Galen Institute
Heartland Institute
Health Hippo
Health Policy Factcheckers
Heritage Foundation
Independent Institute
Institute For Health Freedom
National Academy for State Health Policy
National Center for Public Policy Reserach
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Center to Preserve Social Security & Medicare
National Committee for Quality Assurance
Pacific Research Institute
Townhall.com
Urban Institute
Workgroup for Electronic Data
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I posted an article on Yahoo News, from BusinessInsider.
The figures I cited have absolutely nothing to do with CAHI.
The figure for promised reductions in premiums came from Obama's mouth.
The figure for actual increases in premiums came from the NONPROFIT, NONPARTISAN Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey, as is clearly stated in the article.
Several other groups and individuals are quoted or cited elsewhere in the article on various points, including both someone from CAHI *and* someone who helped design Obamacare. That is what you often expect in a news article: input from several sources. Those quotes had nothing to do with the information I posted.
Yet you write this slimy post trying to give the impression that my numbers came from some right-wing group.
Behavior like you just demonstrated here is why people are so sick of the Third Way propaganda, and why it has no credibility anymore.
Shame on you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The article is from Investor's Business Daily.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)lobbying group. Don't you fucking DARE call ME dishonest when all I did was point out who the group is that YOUR post refers to. That is some kind of strange behavior of YOURS, dude. I won't classify it. I think people can draw their own conclusions.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)It should be clear by now that you are not going to get any kind of rational debate on Obamacare here. Right now there is a sizable faction that are as wrapped in fantasy as the pre-election "skewed polls" Republican crowd was just last year.
In their minds, Obamacare is not a confused and poorly implemented Heritage Foundation insurance company proposal that offers a mixed bag of benefits and failures with clear and self-evident winners and losers. It is, instead, manna from liberal heaven, all things good to all people, and those who even question this legislative wonder are heretical teabaggers hell bent on spoiling their perfect victory.
Don't question it, just smile, nod vigorously, and slowly back away.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Heading out now.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that they were deemed legally impermissible. Now they will have to get actual insurance.
markpkessinger
(8,795 posts). . . but this is, in part, a problem of the President's own making. When he repeatedly and unequivocally said that people who like their current policies "ill be able to keep them," without offering any kind of qualification about the new minimum standards and how they would impact existing policies, he omitted a crucially important piece of information. Having that piece of information coming to light now will tend to create an impression, among some, that the President was trying to mislead them about the details of the new law. It was uncharacteristically sloppy on the President's part, and might well play into conservatives' arguments.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)everything effective 2009, but what happened was insurance companies (shockingly) began changing the policies on an annual basis, meaning that in effect those policies were already gone and replaced by another one.
Mr.Bill
(24,906 posts)Since I can't keep my $300+ a month policy I have now, I'm forced to make a tough decision.
Do I want to pay $2 (yes two dollars) a month for the bronze plan, which is far better than what I have now, or pay around $200 a month for the silver plan which is a far, far better plan than I have now.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)..with no preventative coverage.
Let's take a step back: Q Why are we forced to purchase automobile insurance? A Because an automobile creates a huge potential liability burden to other drivers and to tax payers. Q Why are minimum liability levels in most states set at 20/50? A Because any lower amount has a very high chance of not allowing for a sufficient level of liability to pay for damages.
Medically uninsured and underinsured individuals create a similar liability? Why? Because, as a rule, we don't allow the very sick or gravely injured to go untreated. We send them to hospitals, and then either allow them to accumulate huge debt, or pass the unfunded burden to the taxpayer.
We can't keep doing that. It's a huge cost driver from both a medical inflation perspective and a governmental tax & budget perspective. The ACA lifts the largest obstacle to individuals getting quality insurance; it allows an individual to receive group rates. In return, individuals must carry insurance, and insurance must meet certain minimum standards.
Over time, the market will probably create individual coverage that meets the ACA specifications, but bypasses healthcare.gov. This is as it should be.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)ends up paying next to nothing, too, in the event that people actually have to use it. What good is a policy if it ends up not covering anything, or covering a medical problem with the co-pay being higher than the sky anyway? At that point, it's rather irrelevant whether you have "health insurance" or not because you are going to have to declare bankruptcy anyway!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that in reality essentially covers nothing is just throwing money away. There were too many policies out there like that. With the ACA insurance companies have to meet a standard, finally, and there were many that didn't meet even the bare minimum. It was high time they got reined in and forced to actually provide health insurance if that was what they advertised they provided.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)Chuck Todd will probably give his expert opinion. 
BluegrassStateBlues
(881 posts)
spanone
(139,581 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(125,702 posts)50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation.
Currently that's about 11.1% of the population.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160676/fewer-americans-getting-health-insurance-employer.aspx
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)That's who the exchanges are for. For most people covered by their employer, very little changes under the ACA.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)you can dump your sickos at will.
everybody wins!
ThoughtCriminal
(14,585 posts)I've also learned that automobiles with working engines are more expensive than cars that you have to push.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The individual market is a small percentage of the insured.
Over 80% are covered through employers or Medicare and Medicaid. They get to keep their policies.
Scam policies that will bankrupt you are now not available. If you want to go bankrupt over healthcare, feel free to just not purchase insurance. It's fine with me, but the hospital may not want to treat you and may give you substandard care, but hey , at least you won't have to suffer through an ACA plan.
This is stupid.
I though we were the smart ones.
Stand for nothing, fall for everything.
I love it when we do the right wing nut jobs jobs for them.
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)dennis4868
(9,774 posts)but they are also being asked to re-enroll and in most cases when people re-enroll they are getting a better plan for less money. Context and all the facts are necessary here.
aznativ
(69 posts)According to some calculators my premium will be about $75 more per month at the minimum. The coverage I have now falls mostly in line with a gold plan.
Heres the kicker- I dont qualify for a subsidy (yes I'm one of those assholes who makes too much money$) and my deductible is likely to go up from $3k per year to $ 12.7k.
Pretty much same coverage for much more cost. I have a few significant med issues so I will prob pay out that deductible every year. Cant wait....
Wish I could keep my old plan.