D'Ohbama!: If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan...

And now for the rest of the story....

The Shocking Facts About Obamacare Sticker Shock

The Los Angeles Times’ Chad Terhune profiles Jennifer Harris, a self-employed lawyer in California who “has been paying $98 a month for an individual health insurance plan that provides less coverage than the Affordable Care Act requires.” As a result, her policy will soon be cancelled and Harris will have to spend at least $238 a month for insurance that meets the minimum benefits outlined in the law. Her family earns too much to qualify for subsidies, meaning she will have to pay approximately $140 more per month for insurance.

It’s hard to know exactly how many Americans will find themselves in this situation, but approximately half a million policyholders across the country have received cancellation letters from insurers, undermining President Obama’s promise that you can keep the coverage you have and save thousands of dollars doing so.

So what gives?

Under the law, policies in existence before the law went into effect on March 23, 2010, are exempt from the new minimum benefit requirements absent major changes. But some of the individual plans issued since, still offer skimpy benefits, very high out-of-pocket spending or have annual and lifetime limits. They’re designed to attract younger and healthier beneficiaries — who rarely use the coverage they purchase at those attractively low premium rates — but don’t provide comprehensive insurance should one actually fall ill or need to use care.

Harris, who is three months pregnant, and will soon need maternity coverage, doesn’t fall neatly into that description, however. Terhune explains in an email that her current plan includes maternity care, but has substantial cost sharing requirements associated with it. Her maximum out-of-pocket cap is actually very similar to the $6,350 cap in a Silver policy.

On balance, Harris will probably receive more coverage than she does today and will have to pay more for it every month. Her total medical expenses, however, could be lower, since the new plan will cover more health care services for her and her baby, potentially saving thousands in additional medical expenses. And now – thanks to the law – her pregnancy will not be used against her as a pre-existing condition when she’s applying for coverage.

Indeed, Harris’ $98 premium is the result of the very kind of medical underwriting that allowed insurers to charge relatively healthy people a lot less for insurance and exclude sicker people altogether. Those practices are outlawed by reform. Insurers will no longer keep sicker people form signing up for insurance or charge older people more than three times the rates of younger and healthier applicants and offer benefits in 10 broad categories of coverage. Since many insurers are anticipating more sicker people to sign up for care and are now offering more benefits, premiums are comparatively higher, though competition among plans has shown to lower rates.

But ultimately, the decision over whether to cancel coverage is that of insurers. They have the option of incorporating the new minimum standards into their plans (to ensure compliance), though some may still cancel policies in an effort to shed some of the sickest and costliest beneficiaries or push people into different plans.

During an appearance on NBC’s Meet The Press on Sunday, Pat Geraghty, CEO of Florida Blue, put it this way, “[W]e’re not cutting people, we’re actually transitioning people. What we’ve been doing is informing folks that their plan doesn’t meet the test of the essential health benefits, therefore they have a choice of many options that we make available through the exchange.

“And, in fact, with subsidy, many people will be getting better plans at a lesser cost. So this really is a transition. And in fact, the 300,000 figure is the entire year. So it’s really 40,000 people for January 1, and we’re walking them through that transition,” he added.

Call it “transition” or “cancellation,” most individuals will qualify for subsidies and will likely see savings in their new plans. Harris, however, who for years has benefited from a system that kept sicker people out, could now pay more for a structure in which everyone — including her — can always buy comprehensive coverage.

 

Does this mean Obama was telling the truth when he said what he said?

 

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

Nope. How could you even take such a position when you were told over and over gain in 2009 that he was lying? Multiple members on this board, including myself, explained to you exactly why this was a lie.

 

The notion that cost increases are simply limited to increase in benefits that people should be thankful for is ridiculous. I can demonstrate that nearly identical plans are going to be more on January one

 

Having inadequate coverage is akin to not having any coverage under the mandate. If the point is to make sure everyone provides themselves adequate coverage so that society isn't footing their bill, then we can't really allow cheap policies that only pretend to insure people.

So, yeah, the Obama Administration knew 3 years ago that a bunch of policies would get cancelled as insufficient. I knew it too, and any thinking person should have known. But, I don't know why we should cry over the loss of ineffectual insurance policies. Liked you old policy? Take a class on money management and then look at it again.

 

Except, in 2009, he wasn't lying and you would have been wrong, from what I can tell. It seems the plans that people had back then are exempt from Obamacare rules. So if you insurance back then and still have that plan, you're fine if I'm understanding that correctly. It's only plans that people signed up for after March 2010 that are problematic. But if he said it again in 2012, that wouldn't be the case.

 

Obviously you don't get it. This thread is about dummies fighting for the right to continue doing dummy things. That's how you really look out for the dummies, not by providing them real value in return for their dollar. Fight on beautiful dummies, don't let nobody tell you how to burn that dollar.

 

What might be insufficient for some doesn't mean its insufficient for others. i fully understand there are ineffective policies, but there are plenty of others that was sufficient for their particular needs. What bothers me about the ACA is that it gives the insurance companies more power. There is no reason for them to compete, not that they were before.

 

And just because a $7000 Toyota Corolla from 1988 is a bad deal for some, doesn't mean it's a bad deal for everybody.

I do agree that there needs to be more incentive for the insurance companies to compete.

 

It's your money and you should be able to buy it with your money if you feel it's a good deal for you.

How would you feel if you like the deal, and your mama say you can't buy it? Or... if you don't like the deal, and your mama forces you to buy it?

 

This is partially true, we also have Lemon Laws to protect us against bad products. Who protects the guys paying $60 bucks a month for health insurance and get absolutely nothing in return when they need to use it?

ACA has a ton of flaws, but throwing out the bad deals isn't one of them.

 

If for $60/month, I need to pay out of pocket for every $ under $10K per year for medical expenses and 20% over that, I'd take that deal any day.

 

eddiewinslow?

 

He can buy his own car. I wouldn't want to tell him what he can or cannot buy with 'his' own money.

 

The libtards are truly pathetic, your mental disorders are really bad that you could not distinguish between a bold face lie and the truth.

Your Liar-in chief has been lying to you when you put him in office from day one.

 

Give it up right wingers, affordable healthcare is marching right over you, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

And next is a guaranteed income for every citizen, paid for with corporate taxes and a wealth cap for every citizen. No one needs more than 100 million dollars and anything over that amount should be redistributed.

 

Not going to happen. The Democrats are not going to vote for a wealth redistribution like that unless it grandfathers in everyone they care about. You are a damn fool if you think a party that is beholden to Hollywood and other left/east coast millionaire liberals is any more likely than the Republicans to start handing away all the super rich people's money.