Obamacare/ACA Megathread

[Annapolis]

I do not believe republicans, democrats, Obama or anyone with a political voice saw it coming. I do not think any of them expected insurance to cancel grandfathered plans, when their premium saw no limits from ACA.

Everybody who voted on the bill was told right before they voted that it would lead to people being dropped from their plans: http://youtu.be/7kEDgyshwrc?t=2m7s

That's not reason alone to call the ACA a bad bill, but the lawmakers had to know that was a possibility at least. And therefore they probably shouldn't have sold it to the public by guaranteeing that they could hold onto their old plans if they wanted. That's a fairly significant piece of misleading information.

[Felya]

Everybody who voted on the bill was told right before they voted that it would lead to people being dropped from their plans: http://youtu.be/7kEDgyshwrc?t=2m7s

That was 5 minutes of rhetoric, punctuated by a finish where Bouhner implies he did not read the bill.

That's not reason alone to call the ACA a bad bill, but the lawmakers had to know that was a possibility at least. And therefore they probably shouldn't have sold it to the public by guaranteeing that they could hold onto their old plans if they wanted. That's a fairly significant piece of misleading information.

It was sold to the public this way, because there are specific parts of the act that allow for grandfathered plans. What in ACA is causing these cancelations?

[Annapolis]

That was 5 minutes of rhetoric, punctuated by a finish where Bouhner implies he did not read the bill.



It was sold to the public this way, because there are specific parts of the act that allow for grandfathered plans. What in ACA is causing these cancelations?

The video is rhetoric, which is why I brought you right to the place that disproved your previous statement that the politicians hadn't even thought that the ACA could possibly cause people to lose their previous plans.

Insurance companies no longer wanted to renew plans with customers given the new guidelines for health insurance as outlined in the ACA. They either modify the plans so that they meet the new guidelines and therefore cost more, or they stop offering plans to populations that didn't bring them much profit anyway. Is this the first time you're hearing this?

[Felya]

The video is rhetoric, which is why I brought you right to the place that disproved your previous statement that the politicians hadn't even thought that the ACA could possibly cause people to lose their previous plans.

It didn't disprove anything. It was rhetoric, because he never said what in ACA would cause it, but even implied he didn't read the bill to know. If he knew what it was, he would try to at least point it out, if not try to fix it. Instead, it was just rhetoric, with no substance.

Insurance companies no longer wanted to renew plans with customers given the new guidelines for health insurance as outlined in the ACA. They either modify the plans so that they meet the new guidelines and therefore cost more, or they stop offering plans to populations that didn't bring them much profit anyway. Is this the first time you're hearing this?

Which guidelines? It's not my first time hearing about it, because I explained why in the post you quoted, cutting out the explanation mid sentence.

Edit:

To make it easier, here is what you cut out:

The irony there, the one thing you claim he lied about, wasn't the issue his opposition pushed. Opponent of ACA, didn't run up and say that insurance plan that would increase their ACA limited copay, wouldn't shift the cost to the limitless premiums to remain grandfathered, but instead cancel. In light of death panels and government take over,

[Annapolis]

The irony there, the one thing you claim he lied about, wasn't the issue his opposition pushed. Opponent of ACA, didn't run up and say that insurance plan that would increase their ACA limited copay, wouldn't shift the cost to the limitless premiums to remain grandfathered, but instead cancel. In light of death panels and government take over, I do not believe republicans, democrats, Obama or anyone with a political voice saw it coming. I do not think any of them expected insurance to cancel grandfathered plans, when their premium saw no limits from ACA.

Apparently you want me to decipher your confusing wording of why you think plans were dropped. I thought we were arguing about the supporters of the bill knowing beforehand that it could lead to customers being dropped from their plans? Well whatever I'll indulge you. It seems like you're saying that plans were dropped because the ACA limits the copay on plans and nobody could have known that changing an insurance plan would make some companies drop their customers. Apparently everybody should have assumed that they would recoup their costs by raising premiums. Boy the wording of that was brutal.

So you don't think it was reasonable to expect that insurance companies might just choose to cancel plans rather than change their plans in some cases? Not to mention, the same plan at an increased premium really isn't the same plan is it?

It didn't disprove anything. It was rhetoric, because he never said what in ACA would cause it, but even implied he didn't read the bill to know. If he knew what it was, he would try to at least point it out, if not try to fix it. Instead, it was just rhetoric, with no substance.

Which guidelines? It's not my first time hearing about it, because I explained why in the post you quoted, cutting out the explanation mid sentence.

So you're saying that the reason that supporters of the bill still remained ignorant about possible plans being dropped was because they ignored the opposition to the bill. Well in that case we shouldn't really blame them.

[Felya]

So you don't think it was reasonable to expect that insurance companies might just choose to cancel plans rather than change their plans in some cases? Not to mention, the same plan at an increased premium really isn't the same plan is it?

I think insurance doing what ever it takes to make as much money as possible is not only reasonable, but is their job. According to ACA, grandfathered plans were seen as the same, with limitless premiums. The limit was set on copays. As example 5 in ACA dealing with grandfathered plans showed, even increases of 35% would still count as unchanged as far as ACA considered them grandfathered. As example 6 showed, only when that number reaches close to 50%, does it lose it's grandfathered standing. But, premiums could be limitlessly increased to justify the copay not increasing, while maintaining unchanged status.

So you're saying that the reason that supporters of the bill still remained ignorant about possible plans being dropped was because they ignored the opposition to the bill. Well in that case we shouldn't really blame them.

No, I'm saying any eluding to dropped plans, was by people who didn't know how or why it would happen. As the video you linked pointed out, there was nothing specific by Bouhner clamping it, but even implying that he would have no way of know because he did not read it. I'm saying, opponents never said that the copay increase, would be the vehicle to do it, nor did they ever try to fix it.

I believe that if either side knew it would happen, they would both try to work on fixing it. At least maybe bitch about it... That's why I think none of them knew. Seems reasonable...

[Annapolis]

No, I'm saying any eluding to dropped plans, was by people who didn't know how or why it would happen. As the video you linked pointed out, there was nothing specific by Bouhner clamping it, but even implying that he would have no way of know because he did not read it. I'm saying, opponents never said that the copay increase, would be the vehicle to do it, nor did they ever try to fix it.

I believe that if either side knew it would happen, they would both try to work on fixing it. At least maybe bitch about it... That's why I think none of them knew. Seems reasonable...

Given that new standards were being put in place for insurance companies, I wouldn't think it would surprise anyone that some insurance companies would drop their customers. To me, if you are going to sell a new healthcare bill to Americans and use statements like "if you like your old plan you can keep it, period" the onus is on you to make sure that those statements are as true as you make them sound. I worry that the reason it wasn't brought up was because the bill was much easier to sell to the public by promising everyone who liked their situation that nothing would change, even if it might. It is extremely paternalistic to retroactively say "well that might not have been true, but now you have plans that provide more coverage".

[Cthulhu 2020]

The California plan cancelations were due to one of the insurance companies in the state leaving the market because of their inability to compete, reasons that had nothing to do with the ACA.

[Annapolis]

The California plan cancelations were due to one of the insurance companies in the state leaving the market because of their inability to compete, reasons that had nothing to do with the ACA.

What makes you think that the cancellations were isolated to California?

[Masark]

What makes you think that the cancellations were isolated to California?

Where does he say he thinks that? What he's doing is pointing out that cancellations, regardless of cause, are being piled on the White House's front steps.

[Endus]

Where does he say he thinks that? What he's doing is pointing out that cancellations, regardless of cause, are being piled on the White House's front steps.

Right.

The issue is that the majority of plans are being cancelled for choices made by insurance companies, after the ACA requirements were in place. Either they deliberately changed a plan, knowing it would negate the grandfather status, or they just voluntarily cancelled for reasons that don't relate to the ACA, and so on.

Those issues aren't the ACA's fault. Not directly, anyway. And it's a little unfair to blame to government for things that are the result of the insurance industry's choices.

If the insurance providers had wanted to keep a grandfathered plan, they just had to not change it. Changing it gives them an excuse to cancel it. IIRC, their customers could have protested the changes, but that itself would have been a cause to cancel the insurance, too. The issue is that they wanted to cancel the plans, not that the ACA is somehow "forcing them to remove insurance".

[Annapolis]

Right.

The issue is that the majority of plans are being cancelled for choices made by insurance companies, after the ACA requirements were in place. Either they deliberately changed a plan, knowing it would negate the grandfather status, or they just voluntarily cancelled for reasons that don't relate to the ACA, and so on.

Those issues aren't the ACA's fault. Not directly, anyway. And it's a little unfair to blame to government for things that are the result of the insurance industry's choices.

If the insurance providers had wanted to keep a grandfathered plan, they just had to not change it. Changing it gives them an excuse to cancel it. IIRC, their customers could have protested the changes, but that itself would have been a cause to cancel the insurance, too. The issue is that they wanted to cancel the plans, not that the ACA is somehow "forcing them to remove insurance".

I agree that a lot of plans are changed or cancelled every year without the ACA and the ACA is probably being blamed for a lot of those. In addition the ACA is only indirectly responsible for some dropped plans because insurance companies could have kept them like you said. But even if the ACA indirectly caused plans to be dropped that goes against what Obama said previously. When you are that resolute about a statement I would expect that you would have accounted for even those indirect causes of lost plans.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I agree that a lot of plans are changed or cancelled every year without the ACA and the ACA is probably being blamed for a lot of those. In addition the ACA is only indirectly responsible for some dropped plans because insurance companies could have kept them like you said. But even if the ACA indirectly caused plans to be dropped that goes against what Obama said previously. When you are that resolute about a statement I would expect that you would have accounted for even those indirect causes of lost plans.

It was naive to think that all plans would stay.

But the same people crying foul that Obama lied would have just as quickly cried foul in the form of "big gubbamint regulations are evil!" if there had been a clause in the ACA that forced insurance companies to grandfather all existing plans.

It's not so much any actual concern for the issue, just a game of political slaps. Obama can do no right in the eyes of some.

[Felya]

Given that new standards were being put in place for insurance companies, I wouldn't think it would surprise anyone that some insurance companies would drop their customers.

What standards caused them to drop the plans?

To me, if you are going to sell a new healthcare bill to Americans and use statements like "if you like your old plan you can keep it, period" the onus is on you to make sure that those statements are as true as you make them sound. I worry that the reason it wasn't brought up was because the bill was much easier to sell to the public by promising everyone who liked their situation that nothing would change, even if it might. It is extremely paternalistic to retroactively say "well that might not have been true, but now you have plans that provide more coverage".

Which part of ACA, which 'standard' or 'guideline' do grandfathered plans fail at meeting, when canceling? Why was that 'standard' or 'guideline' not brought up by opponents, if it was so obvious even you could see it? I realize the onus is on him to be correct, but the onus is on you to prove he knew about it and just said what he did to sway people.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree that a lot of plans are changed or cancelled every year without the ACA and the ACA is probably being blamed for a lot of those. In addition the ACA is only indirectly responsible for some dropped plans because insurance companies could have kept them like you said. But even if the ACA indirectly caused plans to be dropped that goes against what Obama said previously. When you are that resolute about a statement I would expect that you would have accounted for even those indirect causes of lost plans.

Yeah, he should have just taken them over and forced them to have plans against their will. Which by the way, was the government take over opponents criticized, but not any actual reason why ACA would result in dropped plans.

[Annapolis]

What standards caused them to drop the plans?

I don't know that this is a fair question. Would someone other than the insurance companies know why they dropped people's plans?

The goal of the ACA was to change the standards of the health insurance industry. Nobody buying new insurance can avoid the ten essential health benefits in their plans. Considering a lot of plans change from year to year anyway, being kicked off of your old plan permanently isn't too surprising of a long term outcome (e.g. every year your plan changes a bit, this year when it changes at all you lose the ability to have any plan similar to it). In fact, like I said it is really a goal of the law. Politifact mentioned something about those 10 essential benefits and how they could affect people's plans who were grandfathered in. Grandfathered plans are not supposed to be held to those 10 essential benefits standards, but apparently in some cases they might be. If the grandfathered plans were altered enough since 2010, then they are no longer grandfathered in.

I don't think there is a simple answer. Here's a good summary that matches with a lot of the info I found: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...surance-plans/.

[Vyxn]

Right.

The issue is that the majority of plans are being cancelled for choices made by insurance companies, after the ACA requirements were in place. Either they deliberately changed a plan, knowing it would negate the grandfather status, or they just voluntarily cancelled for reasons that don't relate to the ACA, and so on.

Those issues aren't the ACA's fault. Not directly, anyway. And it's a little unfair to blame to government for things that are the result of the insurance industry's choices.

If the insurance providers had wanted to keep a grandfathered plan, they just had to not change it. Changing it gives them an excuse to cancel it. IIRC, their customers could have protested the changes, but that itself would have been a cause to cancel the insurance, too. The issue is that they wanted to cancel the plans, not that the ACA is somehow "forcing them to remove insurance".

your still trying to convince people that insurance companies purposely cancelled plans so to cause a risk of them losing that costumer. it is beyond any logic,
and some of those companies that you claimed purposely changed plans there for having to cancel them are not even in the exchange there for knowing they will lose them as a customer. so keep on trying to convince people that. your just insulting their intelligents

[Tastyfish]

your still trying to convince people that insurance companies purposely cancelled plans so to cause a risk of them losing that costumer. it is beyond any logic,

Oh you don't think that has happened?
Really?
You don't think plans where intentionally Cancelled, to create backlash for forcing companies to comply?
Really?

[Vyxn]

Oh you don't think that has happened?
Really?
You don't think plans where intentionally Cancelled, to create backlash for forcing companies to comply?
Really?

they are in the business to make money and purposely losing customer to make a political statement is absurd

[Tastyfish]

they are in the business to make money and purposely losing customer to make a political statement is absurd

Not really.
They clearly are fine with creating propaganda against ACA or funding it, why not drop a low money making plans? Is it really a loss to them? Wouldn't the bigger loss be covering more for people at the same cost or close to it?

They are creating and defending their coporate fiefdoms.
One of the major goals in doing that is to make the little guy distrust and be suspiciouos of the government, and turn toward the corporation, which is what this is doing.
ACA is bad, we are good, because of ACA you have to suffer.



Your whole thing is "you are suffering because of ACA, the insurance companies are not at fault"
come on now..


Great example is wow. WOW is the insurance company, and they make CATA... people STILL come back for MOP.

[chrisberb]

But the same people crying foul that Obama lied would have just as quickly cried foul in the form of "big gubbamint regulations are evil!" if there had been a clause in the ACA that forced insurance companies to grandfather all existing plans.
.

This so much.

they are in the business to make money and purposely losing customer to make a political statement is absurd

Insurance companies have always dropped policies at times, the same way that other companies stop creating products. Just because an insurance company has a paying customer, does not mean they were making (enough) money on that product/person.
The ACA didn't directly tell insurance companies they had to cancel policies, but it did take away some of their freedom to change the policies, and i'm sure that lack of freedom is pushing some insurance companies to drop said policies.