Larry

Obama promises that his law won't change your existing policy. Obama signs a law which states that it does not apply to existing policies. Before his law even starts to go into effect, employers choose to cut the money they spend on health insurance. (And pocket the money for themselves.) Obama did not make this decision. His law (which has not yet even taken effect) had no contribution to it whatsoever. Republicans howl. "Obama did this!" Before his law even goes into effect, insurance companies raise rates. Obama did not make this decision. His law (which has not yet even taken effect) had no contribution to it whatsoever. Republicans howl. "Obama did this!" Next year, the law still hasn't gone into effect. Some other employers decide to reduce coverage, and pocket the money. Obama did not make this decision. His law (which has not yet even taken effect) had no contribution to it whatsoever. Republicans howl. "Obama did this!" The law still hasn't gone into effect, and insurance companies raise rates again. Obama did not make this decision. His law (which has not yet even taken effect) had no contribution to it whatsoever. Republicans howl. "Obama did this!" After 4-5 years of this, part of his law finally starts to take effect. The "grandfather clause" in his law is still in full effect. But the insurance companies have chosen to do things which make their plans ineligible for grandfather status. They were told that, if they changed the plans, then they wouldn't be grandfathered, and they chose to do that. (Obama didn't choose that. The insurance companies did.) (Or, in some cases, the decision to change was made by somebody else. The insured chose to change plans. Or their employer chose to change plans. The decision which renders a person's policy unable to be grandfathered could have been made by any of several people, not just by the insurance company. But none of them was Obama.) Since the insurance companies have chosen to throw away their grandfather status, they have only two choices, instead of three. They can comply with the new law, or they can stop selling that insurance. The insurance company chooses the second option. Obama did not make this decision. His law did affect this decision, by forcing the company to make a choice. (More on that, later.) Republicans howl. "Obama did this!" In fact, they howl that "He lied when he made that speech, 6 years ago! Obama promised me that my employer would not change my plan, at any time over the next four years! He promised me that employers would not choose to change the plan they offer their employees! He promised me that health insurance would not go up in price during the years before his law went into effect!" In fact, they go so far as to announce that "His law was written for the purpose of causing all of these other people to make these decisions!" ---------- Now, is it possible for a law, which does not explicitly mandate that insurance be cancelled, to actually be responsible for insurance being cancelled, anyway? Certainly. Just because a law does not explicitly mandate cancellation, doesn't prove that it didn't cause it. To pick an intentionally ludicrous example, if Obama passes a law mandating that health insurance companies must provide all insured with a free pony, every year, for the life of the insured, and pay all of the costs associated with said pony(s), and do so without any rate increases, ever, for the life of the insured, . . . . And a bunch of companies say "I can't comply with that law, and still make money. I'll go out of business, first.", then yeah, Obama's law certainly can be blamed for forcing said companies to make that decision. Even though the law does not actually explicitly mandate that they shut down. On the other hand, if Obama passes a law mandating that health insurance companies must provide free condoms, . . . . And Acme Industries decides to cut the amount which the company pays for employee health care by $500 a month (and make the employees pay $500/month, instead), . . . . Then that does not mean "Obama made my health insurance go up $500 a month!". ---------- Yeah, it's certainly possible that there's some mandate or other, in ACA, which is so burdensome that it implicitly forces companies to cancel insurance rather than comply with whatever onerous burden it imposes. Even though it doesn't explicitly mandate it. But, I'm not seeing a single person so much as attempt to make that case. All I've seen, for years, is "A private individual made a decision to do something, and I blame Obama for it!". Or, lately, the even better one "Obama lied, because he promised me that no private individual would make a decision which affects me!"

Having trouble figuring out what you're saying. (Unless it's the same thing twa tried to push, in which case, see above.) ---------- Really? The ACA mandates that business coverage must exclude families? Learn something new every day, here in Tailgate. And here I thought all it said was that any policy, in order to count as being covered under this law, had to meet certain minimum requirements. That the policy, if it didn't cover this or that, had to add coverage.

So, Obama promised that your plan would not change in any way whatsoever? You mean, other than the changes which your insurance company has already made, right? Cause, if your plan hasn't changed, then it's grandfathered, and therefore exempt from the regulations. But you're going to say that those changes, that your insurance company made, well, they don;t count as violations of "you will be able to keep your plan". But any other changed, well, then, if they happen, then "Obama lied"? "I hereby promise that, in 2013, your insurance, which will have changed, in ways I cannot predict, and will will have no control over, will not change." Given my personally low opinion of government agencies, and their verbosity, I'm under the impression that every insurance policy sold in Florida is probably subject to thousands of pages of regulations, right now. And yet, those regulations and mandates don't cause every insurance policy in Florida to be cancelled. The companies simply comply with the regulations. Oh, now, there's a good one. The insurance companies, which lost their grandfather status, because they changed their policy, (after a law was passed which stated that, if they change their policy, it loses grandfather status), just couldn't change their policy to comply with the regulations, because if they change the policy which they've already changed, they would lose the grandfather status which they've already lost. You think of that one yourself?

Now, I suspect that yes, the administration has intentionally chosen to adopt really narrow rules of what's allowed to be grandfathered, under the law. (I believe it, simply because I haven't seen anybody dispute it. And I'm pretty sure that, if it were untrue, somebody would have disputed it.) But, there's part of my point you keep pretending to not have seen. Maybe if I make it bigger. Show me that Obama knew that the insurance companies would cancel thousands (millions?) of people, rather than simply comply with the standards.

Would Trayvon Marttin still be alive if Zimmerman didn't follow him? You mean, "what if?" games don't prove that X is the person responsible for Y? ---------- Congress (at various levels) pass regulations all the time. And then people make decisions, based on those regulations. I was told (decades ago) that Virginia law mandates that auto insurance policies are required, by law, to cover 1) The person named on the policy. 2) That person's immediate family. 3) Any person living with that person. 4) And any person who the insured voluntarily allows to operate the vehicle. Those mandates didn't demand that auto insurance be cancelled. It demanded that auto insurance must meet those standards. Every single person being cancelled, today, could keep their existing insurance. All the insurance company has to do, is meet the standards. (Well, or they could have kept the policy the same as it was, before the law went into effect. But the insurance company already decided not to follow that part of the law.) ---------- But, we've moved the goalposts a whole lot of times, since your original claim that started this whole thing. Your claim that Obama knew all along that people wouldn't be allowed to keep their insurance. You know. "Obama lied for years". Show me that Obama knew that the insurance companies would cancel thousands (millions?) of people, rather than simply comply with the standards.

Let me get this straight. 1. Poster makes the claim that "the truth of the matter is that the law was written so that insurance companies would have to cxl plans.". 2. Second poster asks for support of that claim. 3. First poster moves goalposts, says "Insurance plans can only exist under certain conditions.". I didn't ask you to substantiate a claim of "The ACA mandates that insurance must meet minimum standards". I'm well aware of that. (I'm even of the opinion that at least some of the "standards" look a lot like political pandering, to me.) I asked you to support your claim that the ACA demands that insurance be cancelled. In fact, your claim that this was the intent of the law. (At least, that's what "was written so that" looks like, to me.)

Could you quote me that clause? The one that mandates that insurance companies cancel people's insurance?

No, it isn't. Obama never promised that insurance companies would not cancel insurance policies. And there is nothing in ACA forcing them to do so. In fact, the law stating that any policy which was in effect when ACA went into effect, is immune from the ACA's requirements, is still in effect. Has the government adopted, through bureaucratic procedure, an excessively narrow definition of what constitutes a "pre-existing insurance", so to speak? I've seen claims of it. And I assume they're true. But, to get to "Obama lied", you have to maintain that: 1) That Obama promised that "if you like the insurance that you bought, years after I give this speech, then that insurance will be exempt from this law, too". 2) AND that he promised that "And when these regulations go into effect, I personally guarantee that your insurance company won;t cancel your insurance, rather than comply with them". Obama isn't canceling people's insurance policies, insurance companies are. The ACA gave those companies three choices: 1) Give people the same insurance they had, before ACA was passed. 2) Or comply with the new minimum standards. 3) Or cancel. The insurance companies are choosing option 3. Obama isn't. Funny, I don;t see the word "SHOULD" in here: Your post contains no link, no quotation marks, and the things you claimed aren't in the link you're providing now. Strike three, I believe.

Funny, I see three claims you made. 1) That Obama "lied for years". 2) That he "knew you can't" [keep your insurance]. 3) And that he has apologized, and admitted #1 and #2. And, frankly, you can't back up any of them. For example, I would love to see you show me where Obama promised that insurance companies wouldn't cancel insurance policies. Really? He promised that he was going to force insurance companies to keep offering you insurance, even if they didn't want to?

Guess it would be silly of me to ask if you can support that claim.

deleted post.

Why?

To extend what?

Yep. It's dead and buried. Obviously people can stop trying to break it, now.

I rather agree with you. Only reason why I can see that this coverage is mandated, is political. (Well, I could see an assertion that preventing pregnancies is a lot cheaper than paying for them. But I doubt that's the motive.)

Ah, got it. Your point was "Look! Someone is advertising your tax dollars at work".

Didn't read the article? Or read it, saw that it doesn't claim taxpayer dollars were used, (in fact, it specifically states that the state exchange has nothing to do with it), and decided to make the claim, anyway, and hope nobody notices that your link disagrees with your claim?

But, I thought it was impossible to get through the web sites.

Robocop's got Batman AND Commissioner Gordon. And Nick Fury. Although, my gut says they're gonna destroy a campy classic.

Observing that the main thrust of your first link is that millions of working poor are unable to get subsidized insurance on the exchanges, because they're too poor. But don;t qualify for Medicaid because they live in a state which has decided to refuse billions of dollars of economic stimulus for political reasons. And the main thrust of the second one is that it looks like CBO might be overestimating the cost of insurance through the exchanges. (And, therefore, the cost of people's subsidies to purchase insurance.) Supposedly, (if I'm reading things correctly), CBO estimated that exchange insurance would be paying providers roughly what commercial croup insurance plans pay, but it looks like they are actually managing to negotiate reimbursement rates that are around 20% lower than that. Rates that are more in line with what Medicare pays, possibly lower. And that these lower reimbursement rates correspond to lower payouts for the insurance companies, which should translate into lower premiums. Edit: Looks like your second link is actually two articles. I described the first article, and you were quoting from the second, which is quite a bit closer to the topic.

Well, I'm pretty sure that Medicaid has both vastly lower premiums and vastly lower deductibles. Now, it probably also covers a lot fewer things. (Probably doesn't cover mental health and substance abuse treatment, for example.) May well have much lower maximum coverage levels. Now, my gut feeling is that Joe Poor probably thinks that not having a $7,000 deductible makes Medicaid just a teensy bit preferable. But I'm sure it's a matter of opinion.

What doesn't amuse me is the way, every time I post, you try to attack me for something I didn't say. My question didn't mention groups. Nor, I think, do the exchanges.

Probably a dumb question. The rule that says "you must cover pre-existing conditions". Does that rule now apply to all insurance sold in the US? Or just policies sold through the exchanges? I assume it's just through the exchanges. (I assume that my policy doesn't have that clause in it.) And it would make sense that, if a clause like that only applied in the exchanges, then it would predictably exert pressure for those policies to cost more, compared to a plan which is allowed to exclude sick people. The exchanges would be selling to a sicker pool. (And, it's new. Nobody knows how much sicker this pool is.) I thought you had said something about a complicated pregnancy, possibly to the point of never having children again. But that may have been somebody else.

So, you're convinced that Obamacare mandates something, some kind of coverage that your old plan didn't cover, and whatever this mandate was (birth control?), BCBS estimates that you're going to use $4,000 of it, a year? That's a lot of condoms. Couldn't possibly be that 1) You were due for a rate hike, anyway. 2) Your wife is looking at a complicated pregnancy and childbirth, and BCBS knows it.

I can understand that, a little. But I also see counters to that, as well. Let's take a really extreme example: Assume that Obamacare mandated that everybody in the country form one, single, insurance pool. Insurance companies are now no longer allowed to consider race, gender, age, previous health history, anything. One price, for everybody who walks up to the window. Assume that the universe remains static. (It won't, but it makes the math simpler.) I would say that in that case, the average health insurance premium ought to change by . . . zero. In such a scenario, the total amount of money paid out for benefits remains exactly the same as it was before. So, the total amount collected in premiums should remain the same. Same total as before, divided by the same number of people as before, equals same average. Now, some people will see their premiums change, by a lot. But the average would remain exactly the same. (Given the false assumption of static modeling.) ---------- That's why I don't "get" the concept that mandating equal premiums for men and women supposedly driving rates up. At least if you assume static modeling, the total amounts paid out remains the same, so the total premiums should, too. Now that, I can certainly see. I certainly assume that the people who set the rates for new policies are a ultra-conservative lot. (I know I would be, if I were in that job.) I'm not going to get fired if I set the premiums for these new plans too high. (Might get rewarded, in fact.) But if I set them too low, it's a disaster. I might never work in the industry again. I could certainly visualize a case where the insurance industry simply doesn't know how things like the "no pre-existing conditions" rule is going to affect people purchasing decisions, and their subsequent need for payouts. I certainly have to consider the possibility that the sickest part of the population will be signing up for the plans with the most coverage, and then going to the doctor a lot more than they used to, because hey, they've got cheap coverage, now. I have no trouble believing that there's a big streak of "let's play it safe, to start with, till we see how this shakes out" involved, here.