On-Topic WH Admits it Lied About All People Being Able to Keep Their Health Insurance

[palbert]

I admit being confused in this welter of data.

From this morning's interviews, primarily with Lisa Myers, NBC's tasked reporter, I am given to understand (fully expect to hear if otherwise) that the "cancellations" are actually terminations of ACA non-compliant policies and replacement or substitution of different non-compliant policies, of different premium structures, or even of compliant policies.

To some extent I must go back to "sticker shock" as affecting the attitudes of both "realists" or "whiners." If those having now non-compliant policies (which are not grandfathered back to March 23, 2010 because the coverage underwent a "significant change" in the time since then) I can have little sympathy.

I can fully understand why a single man would object to subsidizing maternity care. I think that, and possibly other coverage, should be severable. But then as a single non-father I object to subsidizing public education. (And subsidizing sports packages on DirecTV.)

 

[palbert]

Continuing the queries:

Is there any correlation between the non-state-sponsored exchanges' states and the cancellations/terminations? Can that even be correlated?

 

[darden]

objectively, it seems like the White House was either lying or willfully ignorant of the report that millions wouldn't be able to keep their current health care plans.

but realistically, it probably won't affect the vast majority in any negative way.

 

[Jack Springer]

^^

According to the NBC News report the Administration knew in 2010 that they people could not keep their insurance.

Such a major issue would have to be known within the Administration and by the President. Americans can't continually be expected to believe that Obama knows little about what goes on within his Administration.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_...ns-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

 

[opinterph]

Is there any correlation between the non-state-sponsored exchanges' states and the cancellations/terminations? Can that even be correlated?

I have not found a site that makes that correlation. It seems that the cancellations are most often reported per insurer, with mention of the affected states.

It is my understanding that persons who like their current non-compliant plan and wish to keep it may do so – IF the insurance provider continues to offer that plan. However, persons who remain (or become) insured under non-compliant plans will be subject to the tax penalty for failure to enroll in a compliant plan.

Persons who seek to obtain coverage outside the open enrollment period may have no option but to purchase short-term policies that may not provide coverage for pre-existing conditions or qualify as a compliant plan.

(The situation may vary from state to state.)

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

I felt that was a bad mistake when President Obama kept repeating the point about keeping your insurance. Anyone who has had a real job with real benefits flat out knows that their health insurance with their employer frequently changes from year to year, and the benefits change (usually for the worst regarding the consumer/insured) even more frequently. The private sector run for profit health care is the problem. I never understood why President Obama didn't say something more in lines If your employer offers a quality health plan their will be no change as far as the ACA law is concerned, that is a private matter with your employer and their employees as it has always been. The majority will see no effect from the ACA. The same will hold true with private policies that are offer true benefits (in other words not underwritten in trash back water states like SC, TX or Miss). But he didn't say that... he hasn't handled this well in what admittedly was going to be problematic upon the start up like any new program faces.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

Health insurance that includes maternity and pregnancy coverage -- which I don't think you need but will still have to pay for in your policy.

This is the latest fad in tea bagger me, me, me mentality & terminology. Seems to be a lack of understanding in what exactly a shared risk is. Because a male has little need for maternity care doesn't mean it will be that way their entire adult life from 18 to death. I even know some gay dudes that got married and have had kids. The same argument could be made that woman shouldn't have to cover prostrate cancer as the great majority of prostrate cancer is with older men, why should a 33 yr old female have to insure for that?
Or the rednecks could say wait a minute I'm a white Alabama born man and have 1 white wife why should I have to have coverage that covers a majority black illness like sickle Cell Anemia?
My private United Health Care policy covered drugs like Viagra at 100% now why in the hell should woman have to cover drugs like Viagra in the policy they pay for?
Wait a minute say the bible thumper in the Ozarks of Arkansas why should my health plan cover medications and treatment for homosexual AIDS related illness .

What a small mean nasty brain thinks like this, but sadly the walnut sized Einsteins seem to reign supreme in there selfish lack of understanding.
Things like good quality maternity care for pregnant woman benefit all society not just he woman and her new born.

Where does this ignorance and selfish attitude end in our society?

 

[Rolyo85]

Here is the LA Times showing that people with existing policies are having big increases. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-...k-20131027,0,4888906,full.story#axzz2j1tIOY71
A major purpose of the obamacare was to get pay medical expense for people already sick. They cannot buy insurance because their expense will exceed the premiums, if any they can pay. If you have a bad heart, you cannot expect to pay 300 for a policy and expect the insurance company to pay for a coronary by-pass operation. If you house is on fire, you cannot pay a 500 premium and expect the company to build you a new house. It would not be insurance, it would be a gift.
Insurance companies cannot issue insurance policies to the sick without going broke. The idea of obamacare was to force everyone to buy a policy at inflated premiums and use the excess to give health care to those with preexisting illnesses. Big increase for the young and healthy is a big part of the plan.

I asked you what you thought about pre-existing conditions. Should they just die out?

 

[Kulindahr]

The cheaper plans are what the people could afford, Some may see a price break, With a Subsidy, But the new plans cost more. The Insurance companies have sent out letters saying the policies have been cancelled and they must purchase approved policies.
The point is, The President said if you like your Insurance, You can keep it, That was a lie.
Next up is - Your Doctor. Do you get to keep Him/Her?

In order to have made it not a "lie" in the view of right-wingers here, it would require the government to have authority over the day-to-day operations of the insurance companies, telling them which policies they can't cancel. So what the righties are really arguing for here is bigger government....

 

[darden]

In order to have made it not a "lie" in the view of right-wingers here, it would require the government to have authority over the day-to-day operations of the insurance companies, telling them which policies they can't cancel. So what the righties are really arguing for here is bigger government....

in order for it to have been a factually correct statement, rather than a lie/misrepresentation/uninformed statement, he would have had to say "you can keep your insurance if it meets ACA requirements" rather than

any insurance that you currently have would be grandfathered in so you could keep... I would not be required to get the better one.

 

[Kulindahr]

You lie. We are talking about people who have insurance policies now. A major purpose of Obamacare is to extort more from those people to make the gift of insurance to those with preexisting illness.

Here is the LA Times showing that people with existing policies are having big increases. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-...k-20131027,0,4888906,full.story#axzz2j1tIOY71
A major purpose of the obamacare was to get pay medical expense for people already sick. They cannot buy insurance because their expense will exceed the premiums, if any they can pay. If you have a bad heart, you cannot expect to pay 300 for a policy and expect the insurance company to pay for a coronary by-pass operation. If you house is on fire, you cannot pay a 500 premium and expect the company to build you a new house. It would not be insurance, it would be a gift.
Insurance companies cannot issue insurance policies to the sick without going broke. The idea of obamacare was to force everyone to buy a policy at inflated premiums and use the excess to give health care to those with preexisting illnesses. Big increase for the young and healthy is a big part of the plan.

These two posts illustrate the actual problem: one side is talking about caring for people's health, and the other is talking about business. The two are mutually exclusive, but thanks to Obama trying to be nice to the Republicans by adopting a Republican plan, we're trying to mix them -- a proposition which can't help but lead to insanity.

What the GOP wants is a system that allows some to profit off the misfortune of others, leaving still others on the side unable to be in the game -- after all, if they could get away with it, the insurance companies would cover only those who will never be sick or injured. What the Democrats want is an actual health care system, where everyone gets taken care of regardless, and no one profits. So we should all stop pretending that we're actually talking about the same thing in the first place.

Philosophically, what the Democrats want rests on a concept in the first phrase of the Constitution: "We, the people...." That phrase implies that the people are a body who can act together, who are a single entity, with their fortunes bound together. The Democrats believe that those people deserve a certain minimum standard of respect and care from one another because they are together, and that it is a legitimate function of government to require that everyone participate in ensuring that minimum.

In contrast, the Republicans believe that "the people" are more atomistic, that the term has no substance but is merely a handy way of referring to all the individuals at once. To them, the general good of the people is best served by social Darwinism, allowing each and every to sink or swim on their own. Consequently, they see it as the proper function of government to stay out of the way, allowing those individuals who have fewer resources and lesser talents to fade and even die, while rewarding those who advance above their fellows.

Perhaps a comment from Benjamin Franklin is fitting: If we do not all hang together, we shall most assuredly hang separately.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is what is staggering about the US system. A colonoscopy is a colonoscopy is a colonoscopy. That the range of charges can vary across the states by tens of thousands of dollars indicates that a lot of people in the administration side are making out like bandits. The dollars are not going into the product...they are going into unnecessary non-clinical overheads.

Actually, the cost of a given process at a given hospital is far more directly related to the number of patients who cannot pay than to the overhead.

 

[Kulindahr]

Such a major issue would have to be known within the Administration and by the President. Americans can't continually be expected to believe that Obama knows little about what goes on within his Administration.

But you're the one who keeps insisting that we should all believe exactly that!

Make up your mind, Jack.

 

[Kulindahr]

in order for it to have been a factually correct statement, rather than a lie/misrepresentation/uninformed statement, he would have had to say "you can keep your insurance if it meets ACA requirements" rather than

Sorry, but as Opinterph noted the president probably wasn't including the standard process of insurance companies dropping or changing plans. If Obama had added tha to his statement, the right would certainly be trying to make him look like a fool for saying something everyone takes for granted.

 

[rareboy]

This is the latest fad in tea bagger me, me, me mentality & terminology. Seems to be a lack of understanding in what exactly a shared risk is. Because a male has little need for maternity care doesn't mean it will be that way their entire adult life from 18 to death. I even know some gay dudes that got married and have had kids. The same argument could be made that woman shouldn't have to cover prostrate cancer as the great majority of prostrate cancer is with older men, why should a 33 yr old female have to insure for that?
Or the rednecks could say wait a minute I'm a white Alabama born man and have 1 white wife why should I have to have coverage that covers a majority black illness like sickle Cell Anemia?
My private United Health Care policy covered drugs like Viagra at 100% now why in the hell should woman have to cover drugs like Viagra in the policy they pay for?
Wait a minute say the bible thumper in the Ozarks of Arkansas why should my health plan cover medications and treatment for homosexual AIDS related illness .

What a small mean nasty brain thinks like this, but sadly the walnut sized Einsteins seem to reign supreme in there selfish lack of understanding.
Things like good quality maternity care for pregnant woman benefit all society not just he woman and her new born.

Where does this ignorance and selfish attitude end in our society?

It ends when you finally have a single payer, public option that cuts out the stupendous waste and greed in the health care delivery system.

But as you point out, the same argument could be used by the intellectually stunted out there for auto insurance or fire and hazards insurance. If everyone wasn't paying to fund the overall risk to the pool of insured...insurance wouldn't work. Period. But why would we expect FOX Nation to understand the fundamentals of insurance?

 

[Benvolio]

These two posts illustrate the actual problem: one side is talking about caring for people's health, and the other is talking about business. The two are mutually exclusive, but thanks to Obama trying to be nice to the Republicans by adopting a Republican plan, we're trying to mix them -- a proposition which can't help but lead to insanity.

What the GOP wants is a system that allows some to profit off the misfortune of others, leaving still others on the side unable to be in the game -- after all, if they could get away with it, the insurance companies would cover only those who will never be sick or injured. What the Democrats want is an actual health care system, where everyone gets taken care of regardless, and no one profits. So we should all stop pretending that we're actually talking about the same thing in the first place.

Philosophically, what the Democrats want rests on a concept in the first phrase of the Constitution: "We, the people...." That phrase implies that the people are a body who can act together, who are a single entity, with their fortunes bound together. The Democrats believe that those people deserve a certain minimum standard of respect and care from one another because they are together, and that it is a legitimate function of government to require that everyone participate in ensuring that minimum.

In contrast, the Republicans believe that "the people" are more atomistic, that the term has no substance but is merely a handy way of referring to all the individuals at once. To them, the general good of the people is best served by social Darwinism, allowing each and every to sink or swim on their own. Consequently, they see it as the proper function of government to stay out of the way, allowing those individuals who have fewer resources and lesser talents to fade and even die, while rewarding those who advance above their fellows.

Perhaps a comment from Benjamin Franklin is fitting: If we do not all hang together, we shall most assuredly hang separately.

Communism has a certain appeal to the weak, but it does not work in practice.
Alas, it is not the democrat plan "for all to participate in ensuring the minimum". It is the democrat plan to reward its voters with welfare at the expense of others. With fewer that half paying income tax, while about half recieve welfare; with 11 million unemployed and millions more more flooding to be hurried to citizenship so they can vote to hurt than fewer and fewer taxpayers, we have abandoned any thought of shared risk.

 

[Rolyo85]

Communism has a certain appeal to the weak, but it does not work in practice.
Alas, it is not the democrat plan "for all to participate in ensuring the minimum". It is the democrat plan to reward its voters with welfare at the expense of others. With fewer that half paying income tax, while about half recieve welfare; with 11 million unemployed and millions more more flooding to be hurried to citizenship so they can vote to hurt than fewer and fewer taxpayers, we have abandoned any thought of shared risk.

Nobody is talking about communism.

WHAT ABOUT PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS?!

 

[opinterph]

It is the democrat plan to reward its voters with welfare at the expense of others…

You are straying too far from the topic of this discussion.

 

[opinterph]

… persons who remain … insured under non-compliant plans will be subject to the tax penalty for failure to enroll in a compliant plan.

My earlier statement failed to account for exemptions available through the concept of grandfathered health plans. In other words, persons in plans that qualify to be grandfathered can keep their coverage and will be considered in compliance with the ACA personal mandate (no tax penalty). Nonetheless, insurers or employers can take actions that will cause the plan to lose its grandfathered status.

 

[darden]

Sorry, but as Opinterph noted the president probably wasn't including the standard process of insurance companies dropping or changing plans. If Obama had added tha to his statement, the right would certainly be trying to make him look like a fool for saying something everyone takes for granted.

but isn't the whole reason they had to change plans because of the ACA mandate? which, according to this article, they knew would happen and predicted that, in fact, millions would have to change plans before Obama promised that no one would have to.

clearly, most of these plans will be changing for the better, but purely comparing Obama's statement to what they knew at the time, I don't see how it wasn't a lie (or at least willfully ignorant of their own data).