HHS in 2010: 40-67% of those with individual insurance won't be able to keep it

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77990231/

More and more it seems like these anti-Obamacare stories are bunk, peddled by journalists who aren't doing their jobs and don't know what they're talking about, insurance companies who want their customers to buy more expensive plans, and irresponsible/ignorant people who aren't willing to actually find out what their options are.

This is absolutely true. Unfortunately, Person A gets screwed by Obama makes a more entertaining and sensationalist read than Person B gets better healthcare coverage. Thanks, free market!

To be fair, plenty of people are going to wind up getting screwed by predatory insurance companies because of the ObamaCare switch. It's a major problem the GOP is hungry to score points off of, but has 0 interest or plan in actually solving. Instead, the GOP is going to waste time spewing more venom, bile, and nonsense in its futile attempt to fully stop a law that's already taken effect from taking effect.

Hopefully, the Republicans get their party back someday.

[Indy Texas]

I'm sorry, are men required to get pregnancy coverage? Do men's policies cover obstetrician vistis, etc.? Speak more about that. Or is this just about the costs of pregnancy not accruing 100% to women per surcharges, but being shared among the pool of all people?

Don't know, but what I heard was the former - all the policies read the same, and not based on gender as it were. But economically, to the extent true, it does not make any difference either way. It's a cross subsidy. Again, we can do away with the cross subsidies, and just give folks subsidies based on means. Everyone will still have the means to purchase insurance with some "bronze plan" (as Muon2 puts it) minimal level of coverage.

No doubt the Pubs get more of the blame here for the mess, but both parties really have egg on their faces. The Pubs to the extent of my knowledge were AWOL about the notion of getting everyone insured, and getting past the moral hazard problem, and giving folks the subsidies that they needed one way or the other to purchase bronze plans based on means. Rather, if I recall correctly, there were just into making insurance more affordable and portable, and did not get much into the subsidy business. Maybe some did (offering some subsidies - I don't think any went the universal coverage route), and no doubt the Wyden Plan had some subsidy component. But I am not sure if the Wyden Plan got there as to meeting all the basics above, and why the Dems, as Mike puts it, thought it "too radical," (is that really true, and who said that on the Dem side, or were other reasons in play?), and if someone could outline the basics of that approach to refresh my memory, that would be appreciated.

The Republicans' problem is that they are convinced that being able to buy policies from other states is the bandaid that will solve everything when it's illogical on its face. I, as a Texan, can't buy a West Virginia health insurance policy because I am not a West Virginian. The insurer is going to make different inferences about my health and I will be facing a different set of providers and price levels. If a comparable plan in West Virginia is cheaper than what I have, it is because it is priced for a West Virginian who is expected to be going to West Virginian doctors in West Virginian hospitals.

They also push health savings accounts as though the average American has all this extra money laying around and if only they could exempt it from taxes...

[muon2]

No doubt the Pubs get more of the blame here for the mess, but both parties really have egg on their faces. The Pubs to the extent of my knowledge were AWOL about the notion of getting everyone insured, and getting past the moral hazard problem, and giving folks the subsidies that they needed one way or the other to purchase bronze plans based on means. Rather, if I recall correctly, there were just into making insurance more affordable and portable, and did not get much into the subsidy business. Maybe some did (offering some subsidies - I don't think any went the universal coverage route), and no doubt the Wyden Plan had some subsidy component. But I am not sure if the Wyden Plan got there as to meeting all the basics above, and why the Dems, as Mike puts it, thought it "too radical," (is that really true, and who said that on the Dem side, or were other reasons in play?), and if someone could outline the basics of that approach to refresh my memory, that would be appreciated.

Here's an Oregonian article from July 2009.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Obama cut an ad attacking McCain's plan in 2008, which had some similarities to Wyden's, so that made it harder too for him to support it.

[cinyc]

To be fair, plenty of people are going to wind up getting screwed by predatory insurance companies because of the ObamaCare switch. It's a major problem the GOP is hungry to score points off of, but has 0 interest or plan in actually solving. Instead, the GOP is going to waste time spewing more venom, bile, and nonsense in its futile attempt to fully stop a law that's already taken effect from taking effect.

Hopefully, the Republicans get their party back someday.

Please explain why Republicans should help Democrats clean up the mess they created all by themselves.  Democrats rammed Obamacare down the American people's throats, ignoring the cloture rules and public opinion polls.  Democrats own this mess - and time and again have shown themselves unwilling to compromise with Republicans on Obamacare - most recently, by EVERY Senate Democrat voting against Ron Johnson's "if you like your plan, you can keep it" bill.

The fact is that the Obama administration wrote the regulations on keeping existing plans very narrowly, to force as many people as possible into more expensive Obamacare plans as possible.

[Lief 🗽]

To be fair, plenty of people are going to wind up getting screwed by predatory insurance companies because of the ObamaCare switch. It's a major problem the GOP is hungry to score points off of, but has 0 interest or plan in actually solving. Instead, the GOP is going to waste time spewing more venom, bile, and nonsense in its futile attempt to fully stop a law that's already taken effect from taking effect.

Hopefully, the Republicans get their party back someday.

Please explain why Republicans should help Democrats clean up the mess they created all by themselves.  Democrats rammed Obamacare down the American people's throats, ignoring the cloture rules and public opinion polls.  Democrats own this mess - and time and again have shown themselves unwilling to compromise with Republicans on Obamacare - most recently, by EVERY Senate Democrat voting against Ron Johnson's "if you like your plan, you can keep it" bill.

The fact is that the Obama administration wrote the regulations on keeping existing plans very narrowly, to force as many people as possible into more expensive Obamacare plans as possible.

I bolded the parts that are lies.

I also italicized the parts where you think a major political party has no responsibility to work in good faith with the other for the good of the country.

[muon2]

To be fair, plenty of people are going to wind up getting screwed by predatory insurance companies because of the ObamaCare switch. It's a major problem the GOP is hungry to score points off of, but has 0 interest or plan in actually solving. Instead, the GOP is going to waste time spewing more venom, bile, and nonsense in its futile attempt to fully stop a law that's already taken effect from taking effect.

Hopefully, the Republicans get their party back someday.

Please explain why Republicans should help Democrats clean up the mess they created all by themselves.  Democrats rammed Obamacare down the American people's throats, ignoring the cloture rules and public opinion polls.  Democrats own this mess - and time and again have shown themselves unwilling to compromise with Republicans on Obamacare - most recently, by EVERY Senate Democrat voting against Ron Johnson's "if you like your plan, you can keep it" bill.

The fact is that the Obama administration wrote the regulations on keeping existing plans very narrowly, to force as many people as possible into more expensive Obamacare plans as possible.

I bolded the parts that are lies.

I also italicized the parts where you think a major political party has no responsibility to work in good faith with the other for the good of the country.

I've bolded a line that is an interesting conundrum in US politics. Legislative parties can be organizations that primarily function to determine leadership of legislative chambers, but provide less control of policy votes. This type of party tends to have a lot of maverick voices within it, colloquially referred to as RINOs and DINOs. It also produces more bipartisan agreements.

In order to move policy agendas for a party there needs to be more discipline within the ranks. In many parliamentary democracies this evolves into a ruling party and a "loyal opposition" who will vote against the majority party on principle on key issues. This reflects a strong party structure and leaves the majority to their own devices to move policy forward.

The dilemma in the US is that there are many who want strong discipline in their party's ranks, but want the collaboration of weak parties from the other side. I contend that looking at other democracies one sees that these are generally mutually exclusive goals. A citizen is forced to either accept a lot of wayward voices in their own ranks that frustrate a party from within or an opposition who's goal is to frustrate the majority from without.

[Lief 🗽]

Unfortunately the concept of a loyal opposition makes a lot of sense in unicameral parliamentary systems, but none at all in a bicameral presidential system. Whether they like it or not, the Republicans control half of the legislative branch. They have a duty to the country to constructively work to solve problems, not just complain incessantly and pass legislation they know isn't going anywhere to score points with their extremist base.

[7,052,770]

Already a high-profile "victim" of Obamacare who made the TV rounds has admitted she didn't know what she was talking about and now that she understands what her old plan didn't cover and what the new ones do, it's a "blessing in disguise":

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115457/obamacare-victim-florida-happy-she-can-get-real-coverage

[Brittain33]

Good article about how policyholders are being misled by their insurers about their options.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insurance-companies-misleading-letters-obamacare

[muon2]

Unfortunately the concept of a loyal opposition makes a lot of sense in unicameral parliamentary systems, but none at all in a bicameral presidential system. Whether they like it or not, the Republicans control half of the legislative branch. They have a duty to the country to constructively work to solve problems, not just complain incessantly and pass legislation they know isn't going anywhere to score points with their extremist base.

That works both ways. It's not helpful when one side says we'll work with you if you start from our position. I would also interpret your statement to indicate that a loyal opposition strategy would be legitimate if there was single party control of the government.

[Torie]

FWIW, I have had the same individual policy since 1984, and still have it. It has not yet been cancelled. I keep reading that all of them that are grandfathered will slowly die away (maybe because they can't sign anyone new up), but I have only 2.5 years to the Medicare finish line, and hope that I can make it without being forced into the apparent abyss (I want to pick my own doctor (almost all are within the PPO system that I have), and hire and fire them at will (which I have done quite often, until I find someone who understands customer service - I like Romney, in this context, love firing people). I cannot  endure long waiting times without going nuts, and lashing out. My time is my most precious commodity. And I don't want to wait very long for a treatment that I need to cease being miserable. Anyway, my  policy has served me very well (it never occurred to me to "fire" it). And for some reason, no matter what the government does, I tend not to be the screwee, and often the beneficiary (the latter of course unjust really). I am not sure why that is true either, but it just worked out that way.

In a perfect world, you buy a policy when a healthy young stud, that lets you do your own thing, and keep it forever, no matter what may come, and the company stays with you as well.

Thank you.

[Indy Texas]

FWIW, I have had the same individual policy since 1984, and still have it. It has not yet been cancelled. I keep reading that all of them that are grandfathered will slowly die away (maybe because they can't sign anyone new up), but I have only 2.5 years to the Medicare finish line, and hope that I can make it without being forced into the apparent abyss (I want to pick my own doctor (almost all are within the PPO system that I have), and hire and fire them at will (which I have done quite often, until I find someone who understands customer service - I like Romney, in this context, love firing people), and have to endure no waiting times (which I cannot tolerate, without going nuts). That policy has served me very well. And for some reason, no matter what the government does, I tend not to be the screwee, and often the beneficiary (the latter of course unjust really). I am not sure why that is true either, but it just worked out that way. Thank you.

No you haven't, Torie. When you signed up for it in 1984, was the term of your contract 30 years? The premiums you pay have changed. The fine print has changed. Your current policy ostensibly covers a lot of procedures that did not even exist in 1984, which would not be possible if you had the exact same policy. Furthermore, if you bought an insurance policy when you were 30 years younger that had the same deductibles and coinsurance as you have today, that doesn't sound like very good risk management on your part. A 32 year old doesn't need anywhere near the level of coverage a 62 year old does.

[Torie]

I bought a policy in 1984, and kept it, and never read the fine print (I just throw all of that in the trash), and sure the co-pays went up with inflation, and the premiums as I aged, and I never had a problem picking my own doctor. I never signed another damn document ever since 1984. So to me, other than the premium cost based on the age factor, and the cost of medical technology,  nothing material has changed. Nothing at all. Obviously I was incredibly lucky, hearing all these horror stories. Maybe the moral is to stay the course, both as the insurer, and the insuree.

[krazen1211]

Folks, you can't make this stuff up.



Link

Her heartfelt letter made it to the President's hands and then into his October 21 speech.

"'I was crying the other day when I signed up. So much stress lifted.'" Obama said, reading from Sanford's letter.

The president said Sanford's story was proof, despite the technical problems with the healthcare.gov website, that the Affordable Care Act was working.

A cheaper "bronze" plan, Sanford said, came in at $324 per month, but also with a high deductible - also not in her budget.

Then another letter from the state exchange with even worse news.

"Your household has been determined eligible for a Federal Tax Credit of $0.00 to help cover the cost of your monthly health insurance premium payments," the latest letter said.

"This is it. I'm not getting insurance," Sanford told CNN. "That's where it stands right now unless they fix it."

[jaichind]

Folks, you can't make this stuff up.



Link

Her heartfelt letter made it to the President's hands and then into his October 21 speech.

"'I was crying the other day when I signed up. So much stress lifted.'" Obama said, reading from Sanford's letter.

The president said Sanford's story was proof, despite the technical problems with the healthcare.gov website, that the Affordable Care Act was working.

A cheaper "bronze" plan, Sanford said, came in at $324 per month, but also with a high deductible - also not in her budget.

Then another letter from the state exchange with even worse news.

"Your household has been determined eligible for a Federal Tax Credit of $0.00 to help cover the cost of your monthly health insurance premium payments," the latest letter said.

"This is it. I'm not getting insurance," Sanford told CNN. "That's where it stands right now unless they fix it."

Yes, although if this women did some research ahead of time, like using one of many subsidies calculators online and knowing her MAGI, she should have figured out ahead of time she did not quality for subsidies.  Of course that her insurance plan will be more expensive was something she would not be able to know ahead of time.

[The Vorlon]

ObamaCare forcing insurance companies to drop certain types of plans is, to paraphrase Bill Gates "A feature, not a bug" in the design.

ObamaCare allows into the risk pool a large number of very expensive to insure people - folks with pre-existing conditions, the very sick, etc...  For some to pay less, others have to pay more... this is just the fiscal reality of the thing.

The proposed "fix" to ObamaCare simply speeds up the "negative selection" death spiral that is the heart of ObamaCare.

The goal of ObamaCare is to obliterate private health insurance so by default "single payer" is all that is left standing -  and forcing folks out of low cost plans they actually wish to buy of their own free will into higher cost plans that have the effect of providing a defacto subsidy to other higher risk/higher cost enrollees in just simply a fiscally unavoidable consequence of extending coverage.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Folks, you can't make this stuff up.



Link

Her heartfelt letter made it to the President's hands and then into his October 21 speech.

"'I was crying the other day when I signed up. So much stress lifted.'" Obama said, reading from Sanford's letter.

The president said Sanford's story was proof, despite the technical problems with the healthcare.gov website, that the Affordable Care Act was working.

A cheaper "bronze" plan, Sanford said, came in at $324 per month, but also with a high deductible - also not in her budget.

Then another letter from the state exchange with even worse news.

"Your household has been determined eligible for a Federal Tax Credit of $0.00 to help cover the cost of your monthly health insurance premium payments," the latest letter said.

"This is it. I'm not getting insurance," Sanford told CNN. "That's where it stands right now unless they fix it."

Yes, although if this women did some research ahead of time, like using one of many subsidies calculators online and knowing her MAGI, she should have figured out ahead of time she did not quality for subsidies.  Of course that her insurance plan will be more expensive was something she would not be able to know ahead of time.

So, here's a question: If she doesn't qualify for any subsidies, she's making over $50,000, or $4,166 a month. But somehow, she doesn't have $300 a month to spend on health insurance? Everything else she's spending money on is a higher priority than her health?

Who are these people?

[Link]

I'm trying to figure out which one of these statements is a lie.  Strange that someone who spends months telling young people not to get insurance now tells us he has had the exact same insurance plan since he was in his early thirties.

Someone please make sure Torie's account hasn't been hijacked.  For all we know the real Torie could be tied up in a basement somewhere.

Ezra Klein claims yes, while a commenter down below about the article says no.

The commenter notes in essence, that no matter how much lipstick you try to put on it all to make it pretty, the fact of the matter is that Obamacare is a bad deal for many young people, as opposed to just waiting to get sick, and then get insurance...

FWIW, I have had the same individual policy since 1984, and still have it.

[King]

Even if you don't qualify for the subsidies, if you itemize, you can still deduct the premium in this situation.

The federal government has done all they can to make health insurance accessible for this type of person. If they can't budget for it still, it's their fault.

[jaichind]

So, here's a question: If she doesn't qualify for any subsidies, she's making over $50,000, or $4,166 a month. But somehow, she doesn't have $300 a month to spend on health insurance? Everything else she's spending money on is a higher priority than her health?

Who are these people?

Well, she could be living in a high tax high real state cost area. 

One can even look at a $100K income family (although in this case it is one income one dependent) budget at

http://www.mybudget360.com/family-budget-how-to-go-broke-on-100000-a-year-why-the-middle-class-has-a-hard-time-living-in-expensive-urban-areas/



And she is more likely to be around $60K. 

Of course she can cut back other things and make it work and she should.  I think what took place here is she heard the Obama regime propaganda that this will help the middle class and lower insurance premiums by $2500 via subsidies.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

It's obscene to complain that you can't afford $250/mo for health insurance when you're spending $250/mo on vacations, $65/mo on cable, and $500/mo on entertainment, all while living in a half-million dollar home. And certainly health care is more important than dry cleaning.

[Link]

It's obscene to complain that you can't afford $250/mo for health insurance when you're spending $250/mo on vacations, $65/mo on cable, and $500/mo on entertainment, all while living in a half-million dollar home. And certainly health care is more important than dry cleaning.

Yeah and $125/month on "gifts."  WTF?!  Obamacare objections just keep getting stranger and stranger.  I thought the Republicans and yellow Avatars told us that a poor person having a DVD player was living the dream.  Now we learn you need a minimum of $125/month for "gifts" to be considered civilized.  I love how it's one set of rules for the 99% and another set of rules for the 1%.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor

Holy Sh-t!  70% of the lazy takers have a VCR!  Wow!

Who here gets $125/month worth of "gifts" from their parents?

If I was making $100K I would not get a $350K mortgage.  My parents made a heck of a lot more than $100K and their mortgage was not even half that size.  Live within your means.

[krazen1211]

So, here's a question: If she doesn't qualify for any subsidies, she's making over $50,000, or $4,166 a month. But somehow, she doesn't have $300 a month to spend on health insurance? Everything else she's spending money on is a higher priority than her health?

Who are these people?

Well, she could be living in a high tax high real state cost area.  

One can even look at a $100K income family (although in this case it is one income one dependent) budget at

http://www.mybudget360.com/family-budget-how-to-go-broke-on-100000-a-year-why-the-middle-class-has-a-hard-time-living-in-expensive-urban-areas/



And she is more likely to be around $60K.  

Of course she can cut back other things and make it work and she should.  I think what took place here is she heard the Obama regime propaganda that this will help the middle class and lower insurance premiums by $2500 via subsidies.

$400 per month is very low for property taxes on that kind of house in Northern NJ, at least. The government education industry complex and those fat cat teachers unions charge closer to twice that.

You can't deduct premiums either until you hit 10% of AGI. It used to be 7.5% of course before Barry decided to take your money.

[Lief 🗽]

Goddamn greedy teacher unions and medicaid moochers, taking money out of hard-working rich people's pockets so they can barely afford to spend $720 a year on haircuts.