Thoughts from our liberal brethren on the recent events regarding Obamacare.

Tider@GW_Law said:

To be perfectly honest, I am still confused by all the anger and shock directed at the feds because insurers are canceling some policies. These cancellations of grandfathered policies are not required by anything in the ACA or the federal regs implementing it, and the expiration and termination of individual/group policies and even complete lines of business by insurers is not uncommon - in many markets this occurs at a fairly predictable rate too.

Click to expand...

That may be fair point, but I doubt it. The vast majority of cancellations, (all of them when it comes to those who are close to me) are due to the regulatory changes. The rate of cancellations before and after the implementation of the law are anything but static.

Tider@GW_Law said:

Here's what I have:
- We all knew there would be new requirements on plans being phased in post-2010, and many of these requirements (e.g., no pre-existing condition exclusions, coverage of a comprehensive scope of services, and no annual or lifetime benefit caps) would result in a significant portion of the individual policies becoming more generous and consequently coming with accordingly higher premiums

Click to expand...

Knowing that what we were going to get was different from what was being sold does not address the point. We were told that the plans we had would be allowed to continue. There was no indication that a plan without coverage that was not needed would be forced out by regulation. Just because there are those that were naïve enough to believe the statement does not make a statement true.

Tider@GW_Law said:

- Plans only maintain grandfathered status (i.e., exempt from above requirements) if there are no changes to material features of the plan
- We all know insurers routinely close books of business, and the associated dwindling of grandfathered plans was publicly reported in federal coverage projections and non-profit studies since the ACA was passed in 2010

Click to expand...

I would like to see some information as to how many plans actually survive to get grandfathered compared to the projections.

Tider@GW_Law said:

- President Obama can't speak for the private health insurance companies, and the ACA does not give the feds the power to force insurers to continue offering specific products in the state-regulated individual and small group markets - indeed, the ACA expressly prohibits the feds from requiring termination of grandfathered lines of business
- Plan networks are always in a state of flux to some degree, and providers are free to accept or reject rates offered by a plan from year-to-year

Click to expand...

True he can't, but making it extremely difficult if they don't usually accomplishes the same purpose as forcing them. Whether it is or not there is an obvious appearance of a step by step forced path to single payer.

Tider@GW_Law said:

Which part of this is it that is now coming as a surprise to people? Again, EVERYTHING above was known in 2010 and has never been treated as anything more than common knowledge by those in state and federal government agencies and literally every single person who deals with health policy to any degree.

Click to expand...

Again, not surprising to me. I guess not to anyone else either. The statements being quoted indicate that Obama himself was not considering this common knowledge. They are just pointing out the lie.

jthomas666 said:

Don't tell the insurance companies then, because they've been doin' it wrong for years.

And I appreciate that you can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious health insurance.

Click to expand...

Now don't go all hyperbolic on me.

Anyway, this whole line of discussion originated from my general statement about those who are having favorable impacts on the exchanges: in summary, those being "screwed" are paying for the "favorable impacts" being felt by others.

Bamabuzzard said:

* The president's claim of :



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/

But as we're finding out this is not true and it is even being reported that he and his administration knew this all along.

*The White House pressuring insurance executives to keep quiet about problems in the roll out.


* The report that they went into the healthcare bill and made changes to it AFTER it was passed.


I would like to hear the thoughts from our liberal brethren on the above.

Click to expand...

I want to clarify your second bullet point. If you are talking about the regulations that were ultimately written sometime after the passage of the ACA, I wouldn't characterize them as "changes to the bill after it passed". Assuming no typical Obama Administration overreach, the authority to create the regulatory details of grandfathered status were built into the bill that passed. Nevertheless, given Obama's earlier assertions, it was still effectively "bait and switch".

Tider@GW_Law said:

To be perfectly honest, I am still confused by all the anger and shock directed at the feds because insurers are canceling some policies.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. You are correct in saying that the Feds do not directly control the manner in which private insurance companies respond to the ACA - but they knew, or at the very least should have predicted what the response would be. Based on the Obama administration's largely socialist stance on other matters, it's plausible and even likely that this was deliberate. This is why we are angry with the Feds.

graydogg85 said:

You're missing the point. You are correct in saying that the Feds do not directly control the manner in which private insurance companies respond to the ACA - but they knew, or at the very least should have predicted what the response would be. Based on the Obama administration's largely socialist stance on other matters, it's plausible and even likely that this was deliberate. This is why we are angry with the Feds.

Click to expand...

To what point are you referring? The feds did and have made public predictions about what was going to happen with grandfathered plans. The ACA and implementing regs have been very clear since 2010 about how the market rules were changing into 2014. The feds have been clear they can't direct or prohibit what products insurers do and don't offer in the non-exchange individual and small group markets.

I'm not sure how much more deliberate they could have been about where things are going into 2014 - but it is now their fault that private insurers weren't similarly deliberate and transparent in communicating their plans on grandfathered product lines???

Again, little has changed in the regulatory landscape at the federal level in the past year and a half to push insurers one way or the other on continuing grandfathered plans.

Two other dynamics are more important. First, a number of state lawmakers and insurance commissioners have pushed grandfathered plans out the door because they've realized they don't want to deal with the added admin burdens of regulating plans under two different sets of rules. Second, those insurers that are now offering products in the exchanges have realized that there are significant cost reductions to be had in getting as many of their covered lives into exchange products as possible (hence the discussions of "enrolllee transition programs" on these insurers' investor calls in recent months).

I would agree that the Administration should have done a much better job of qualifying the "you can keep your plan" statement, but, on the other hand, that wasn't the kind of speech he was giving.

mittman said:

That may be fair point . . .

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. The structure of your post makes it cumbersome to respond. See my response to the slate canine above.

Tider@GW_Law said:

I would agree that the Administration should have done a much better job of qualifying the "you can keep your plan" statement, but, on the other hand, that wasn't the kind of speech he was giving.

Click to expand...

The only kind of speech he ever gives is to deceive.

"It's not a tax. It's NOT a tax" but then the ACA is ruled constitutional as a tax.

Response to cbi: Would this be an example of where the Court ignored legislative intent?

Tide1986 said:

Would this be an example of where the Court ignored legislative intent?

Click to expand...

More like an example of CJ Roberts tying himself in knots.

Tide1986 said:

Response to cbi: Would this be an example of where the Court ignored legislative intent?

Click to expand...

The Court has no obligation to consider presidential rhetoric in its deliberations.

But I believe the intent all along was to create a permanent institution to transfer wealth and further solidify the liberal voting base. Tax is just a dirty word they wanted to avoid being associated with.

Tider@GW_Law said:

I respectfully disagree. The structure of your post makes it cumbersome to respond. See my response to the slate canine above.

Click to expand...

Ok,

There seems to be a lot of disagreement with this comment:

"Again, little has changed in the regulatory landscape at the federal level in the past year and a half to push insurers one way or the other on continuing grandfathered plans."

I know at least 20 people (I know that is small and anecdotal, but there are enough to have created a media firestorm) who have plans that should be continued based on what you are saying, and grandfathered based on what the administration said, but are being discontinued. The insurers as specifically citing regulatory changes at the federal level as the reasons for discontinuing them. I can accept that some of the insurers are being opportunistic, but there are far too many occurrences for the majority to be the case.

Bamabuzzard said:

* The president's claim of :



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/

But as we're finding out this is not true and it is even being reported that he and his administration knew this all along.

*The White House pressuring insurance executives to keep quiet about problems in the roll out.


* The report that they went into the healthcare bill and made changes to it AFTER it was passed.


I would like to hear the thoughts from our liberal brethren on the above.

Click to expand...

I can help with this Buzz ......

To sum up obamacare: Barry, after a weekend Taco Bell bender, has taken a mighty, fiery dump on your dinner plate, hidden it between two slices of bread, and expects you to thank him while we you eat it and smile.

To sum up the liberal spin:

Bamaro says if you add a pound of lunch meat to the crap sandwhich, it's a balanced meal. And there is nothing better than balance.

92tide doesn't care if it's a crap sandwich or not. (He prefers to eat sandwiches in the hot tub with the rest of the frogs.)

GW_Law denies there are any turds on the plate.

Seebell likes crap sandwiches and doesn't understand why you don't.

JT will never admit the turds are undesirable, but is disappointed at the sandwich's presentation.

Glad I could help. You're welcome.


Edit - Oh, and if I may add my opinion (and I think I speak for libertarians generally) ...... Barry, two things: (1) Go crap on your own plate, and (2) Don't make me pay for your crap.

cbi1972 said:

The Court has no obligation to consider presidential rhetoric in its deliberations.

But I believe the intent all along was to create a permanent institution to transfer wealth and further solidify the liberal voting base. Tax is just a dirty word they wanted to avoid being associated with.

Click to expand...

I was really just being a smarty pants for GW's benefit. Should've used a smiley.

mittman said:

Ok,

There seems to be a lot of disagreement with this comment:

"Again, little has changed in the regulatory landscape at the federal level in the past year and a half to push insurers one way or the other on continuing grandfathered plans."

I know at least 20 people (I know that is small and anecdotal, but there are enough to have created a media firestorm) who have plans that should be continued based on what you are saying, and grandfathered based on what the administration said, but are being discontinued. The insurers as specifically citing regulatory changes at the federal level as the reasons for discontinuing them. I can accept that some of the insurers are being opportunistic, but there are far too many occurrences for the majority to be the case.

Click to expand...

I hear ya. I have seen similar notices, and they are misleading if you are someone who truly had a grandfathered plan that had maintained its grandfathered status. A little over half the current individual market policies here in California have maintained grandfathered status and will continue into 2014, so it is clearly something an insurer can do if they sincerely want.

Tide1986 said:

I was really just being a smarty pants for GW's benefit. Should've used a smiley.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I took it as such.

Actually, I have a slightly different approach which might just bring some of them around to their senses.
As members of the democrat party, they have chosen to make themselves part and parcel to the wrongdoings of their party. They choose to defend those of their party leadership who lie, cheat, rob the American workers and put the economy of the US in such terrible jeopardy. Hence they also accept the guilt of those they defend as if they themselves performed the acts.
"If you join it, you become it. . If you pick it up, you carry it."
With that in mind, I'd like to hear from Bamaro, 92 Tide, Tider@GW_Law, et al, why they have done this to the rest of us, and what they intend to do to correct it.

Bama Reb said:

Actually, I have a slightly different approach which might just bring some of them around to their senses.
As members of the democrat party, they have chosen to make themselves part and parcel to the wrongdoings of their party. They choose to defend those of their party leadership who lie, cheat, rob the American workers and put the economy of the US in such terrible jeopardy. Hence they also accept the guilt of those they defend as if they themselves performed the acts.
"If you join it, you become it. . If you pick it up, you carry it."
With that in mind, I'd like to hear from Bamaro, 92 Tide, Tider@GW_Law, et al, why they have done this to the rest of us, and what they intend to do to correct it.

Click to expand...

As a fan of the Alabama football team, would you like to answer for Eddie Williams' arrest on robbery charges? Why did you do that to that poor robbed student by supporting the Alabama football team?

In other words, what on earth are you talking about?!?! Care to fill us in on the 50 or so dots it took you to reach this conclusion - like "members of the democrat party" (as if I'm on the daily Oval Office conference call because I've voted that way the past few elections) and "put the economy of the US in such terrible jeopardy" (I assume then you are assigning full blame for the federal shutdown on Democrats)?

My own recent experiences with "grandfathered" plans.
My wife and I have individual BCBS policies we buy and have had for about 5 years. We got a letter from BCBS around October 1st saying our plans were being discontinued. Didn't meet the ACA etc. New offer from BCBS was a similar plan at twice the price!! We can buy the same new BCBS plan on the exchange for half of what we can buy it from BCBS!! (assuming we can ever get on the website)

My son, age 23, buys his own BCBS policy. He's had it for 3 years. He got his BCBS letter 2 days ago. His plan is grandfathered and his rate will go from $115/month to $135/month!! Not bad. On the exchange his rate for the exact same BCBS plan is $248. Duh? On the exchange he will qualify for a subsidy. So BCBS will charge twice as much on the exchange but my son will pay much less out of pocket because of the subsidy!!

If I was into conspiracy I might think that BCBS was trying to get rid of us elderly and keep the young'uns.

I think that many of these plans could have been grandfathered if the insurance companies had chosen to do so.

Bama Reb said:

Actually, I have a slightly different approach which might just bring some of them around to their senses.
As members of the democrat party, they have chosen to make themselves part and parcel to the wrongdoings of their party. They choose to defend those of their party leadership who lie, cheat, rob the American workers and put the economy of the US in such terrible jeopardy. Hence they also accept the guilt of those they defend as if they themselves performed the acts.
"If you join it, you become it. . If you pick it up, you carry it."
With that in mind, I'd like to hear from Bamaro, 92 Tide, Tider@GW_Law, et al, why they have done this to the rest of us, and what they intend to do to correct it.

Click to expand...

I plan on killing myself ASAP:biggrin2: