Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
d-usa wrote: I was under the impression you embraced the "me and only myself" mindset when it comes to dealing with anything government related.
It's a cute attempt at a dodge,
I knew I couldn't dodge the master of the dodge and misdirect.
but being fundamentally unable to admit that Obama lied his ass off about the ACA is something that ought to worry you about yourself.
I will worry about how the ACA turns out by the end of 2015. Anything prior to that is just premature. This isn't the first thing he said that didn't turn out as promised and it won't be the last.
When the Republicans introduce a bill that would fix or replace it with something better then they will have my attention.
d-usa wrote: This isn't the first thing he said that didn't turn out as promised and it won't be the last.
Ah, I see you're already thinking ahead to the employer mandate.
Good luck spinning that apocalypse. If they were worried enough to bump it until after the midterms, it's going to be even worse than people who had anything remotely approaching a clue thought.
dogma wrote: Yes. Any person holding an insurance policy prior to the passage of ACA can keep their policy by way of grandfathering.
That's excellent news!
I'm confused as to why so many people are finding their policies canceled by their insurers, then, forcing them to in fact not keep the plan they liked. Perhaps you could explain it to me.
To the undisputed reasons for Obamacare’s rocky rollout — a balky website, muddied White House messaging and sudden sticker shock for individuals forced to buy more expensive health insurance — add a less acknowledged cause: calculated sabotage by Republicans at every step.
That may sound like a left-wing conspiracy theory — and the Obama administration itself is so busy defending the indefensible early failings of its signature program that it has barely tried to make this case. But there is a strong factual basis for such a charge.
From the moment the bill was introduced, Republican leaders in both houses of Congress announced their intention to kill it. Republican troops pressed this cause all the way to the Supreme Court — which upheld the law, but weakened a key part of it by giving states the option to reject an expansion of Medicaid. The GOP faithful then kept up their crusade past the president’s reelection, in a pattern of “massive resistance” not seen since the Southern states’ defiance of the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954.
The opposition was strategic from the start: Derail President Barack Obama’s biggest ambition, and derail Obama himself. Party leaders enforced discipline, withholding any support for the new law — which passed with only Democratic votes, thus undermining its acceptance. Partisan divisions also meant that Democrats could not pass legislation smoothing out some rough language in the draft bill that passed the Senate. That left the administration forced to fill far more gaps through regulation than it otherwise would have had to do, because attempts — usually routine — to re-open the bill for small changes could have led to wholesale debate in the Senate all over again.
But the bitter fight over passage was only the beginning of the war to stop Obamacare. Most Republican governors declined to create their own state insurance exchanges — an option inserted in the bill in the Senate to appeal to the classic conservative preference for local control — forcing the federal government to take at least partial responsibility for creating marketplaces serving 36 states — far more than ever intended.
Then congressional Republicans refused repeatedly to appropriate dedicated funds to do all that extra work, leaving the Health and Human Services Department and other agencies to cobble together HealthCare.gov by redirecting funds from existing programs. On top of that, nearly half of the states declined to expand their Medicaid programs using federal funds, as the law envisioned.
Then, in the months leading up to the program’s debut, some states refused to do anything at all to educate the public about the law. And congressional Republicans sent so many burdensome queries to local hospitals and nonprofits gearing up to help consumers navigate the new system face-to-face that at least two such groups returned their federal grants and gave up the effort. When the White House let it be known last summer that it was in talks with the National Football League to enlist star athletes to help promote the law, the Senate’s top two Republicans sent the league an ominous letter wondering why it would “risk damaging its inclusive and apolitical brand.” The NFL backed off.
The drama culminated on the eve of the open enrollment date of Oct. 1. Congressional Republicans shut down the government, disrupting last-minute planning and limiting the administration’s political ability to prepare the public for the likelihood of potential problems, because it was in a last-ditch fight to defend the president’s biggest legislative accomplishment.
“I think my Republican colleagues forget that a lot of people are enrolling through state exchanges, rather than the federal exchange,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) noted last week. “And if it wasn’t for the fact that many Republican governors, including my own,” failed to set up state exchanges, “then we wouldn’t be putting so much burden on the federal system.”
In fact, putting an excessive burden on the federal government was the explicit aim of the law’s opponents. “Congress authorized no funds for federal ‘fallback’ exchanges,” the Tea Party Patriots website noted as long ago as last December. “So Washington may not be able to impose exchanges on states at all.” The group went on to suggest that since Washington was not equipped to handle so many state exchanges, “both financially and otherwise — this means the entire law could implode on itself.”
..........
For months, the White House has hoped that every politician’s instinct to render effective constituent service would trump political resistance to the law among Republicans. Even that has proved doubtful. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) said last summer that his office would not provide assistance in signing up for the law. “Given that we come from Kansas,” he said, “it’s much easier to say, ‘Call your former governor,” meaning Sebelius. “You say, ‘She’s the one. She’s responsible.’’’
Obama himself has occasionally expressed frustration at the GOP’s implacable resistance to even the smallest gestures of cooperation on the law.
“In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, ‘You know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law.’ It has to do with, for example, are we able to simplify the attestation of employers as to whether they’re already providing health insurance or not. ‘It looks like there may be some better ways to do this. Let’s make a technical change to the law.’
“That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do,” the president said. “But we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare.’’
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/02 07:07:43
Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at Pubhammer, our friendly club in a pub at the Junction pub in Annerley (opposite Ace Comics), Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook group for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.
Pubhammer is Moving! Starting from the 25th of May we'll be gaming at The Junction pub (AKA The Muddy Farmer), opposite Ace Comics & Games in Annerley! Still Sunday nights from 6:30 in the Function room Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else!
Deborah Cavallaro is a hard-working real estate agent in the Westchester suburb of Los Angeles who has been featured prominently on a round of news shows lately, talking about how badly Obamacare is going to cost her when her existing plan gets canceled and she has to find a replacement.
She says she's angry at President Obama for having promised that people who like their health plans could keep them, when hers is getting canceled for not meeting Obamacare's standards.
"Please explain to me," she told Maria Bartiromo on CNBC Wednesday, "how my plan is a 'substandard' plan when ... I'd be paying more for the exchange plans than I am currently paying by a wide margin."
Bartiromo didn't take her up on her request. So I will.
The bottom line is that Cavallaro's assertion that "there's nothing affordable about the Affordable Care Act," as she put it Tuesday on NBC Channel 4, is the product of her own misunderstandings, abetted by a passel of uninformed and incurious news reporters.
I talked with Cavallaro, 60, after her CNBC appearance. Let's walk through what she told me.
Her current plan, from Anthem Blue Cross, is a catastrophic coverage plan for which she pays $293 a month as an individual policyholder. It requires her to pay a deductible of $5,000 a year and limits her out-of-pocket costs to $8,500 a year. Her plan also limits her to two doctor visits a year, for which she shoulders a copay of $40 each. After that, she pays the whole cost of subsequent visits.
This fits the very definition of a nonconforming plan under Obamacare. The deductible and out-of-pocket maximums are too high, the provisions for doctor visits too skimpy.
As for a replacement plan, she says she was quoted $478 a month by her insurance broker, but that's a lot more than she'll really be paying. Cavallaro told me she hasn't checked the website of Covered California, the state's health plan exchange, herself. I did so while we talked.
Here's what I found. I won't divulge her current income, which is personal, but this year it qualifies her for a hefty federal premium subsidy.
At her age, she's eligible for a good "silver" plan for $333 a month after the subsidy -- $40 a month more than she's paying now. But the plan is much better than her current plan -- the deductible is $2,000, not $5,000. The maximum out-of-pocket expense is $6,350, not $8,500. Her co-pays would be $45 for a primary care visit and $65 for a specialty visit -- but all visits would be covered, not just two.
Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile.
If she wanted to pay less, Cavallaro could opt for lesser coverage in a "bronze" plan. She could buy one from the California exchange for as little as $194 a month. From Anthem, it's $256, or $444 a year less than she's paying now. That buys her a $5,000 deductible (the same as she's paying today) but the out-of-pocket limit is lower, $6,350. Office visits would be $60 for primary care and $70 for specialties, but again with no limit on the number of visits. Factor in the premium savings, and it's hard to deny that she's still ahead.
Cavallaro told me a couple of things that are worth considering. First, what she likes about her current plan is that she can go to any doctor of her choice and any hospital. That's not entirely true, because her current plan with Anthem does favor a network. Plainly, however, it's broad enough to serve her purposes. She's concerned that the new plans will offer smaller networks, which is probably true, though it's not necessarily true that the new networks will exclude her favorite doctors, hospitals or prescription formularies.
She also mentioned that her annual income fluctuates. It can be substantially lower, or substantially higher, than it is this year. What if next year she earns too much to qualify for the subsidy? Also a fair point -- at her current income, the subsidy is worth more than $200 a month to her. But that's not the same as saying that "there's nothing affordable about the Affordable Care Act," because at her current income, the act is vastly more affordable to her than what she's paying now.
When she told Channel 4 that "for the first time in my whole life, I will be without insurance," it's hard to understand what she was talking about. (Channel 4 didn't ask.) Better plans than she has now are available for her to purchase today, some of them for less money.
The sad truth is that Cavallaro has been very poorly served by the health insurance industry and the news media. It seems that Anthem didn't adequately explain her options for 2014 when it disclosed that her current plan is being canceled. If her insurance brokers told her what she says they did, they failed her. And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down. They not only did her a disservice, but failed the rest of us too.
Inside the Fox News lie machine: I fact-checked Sean Hannity on Obamacare UPDATE I re-reported a Fox News segment on Obamacare -- it was appallingly easy to see how it misleads the audience
I happened to turn on the Hannity show on Fox News last Friday evening. “Average Americans are feeling the pain of Obamacare and the healthcare overhaul train wreck,” Hannity announced, “and six of them are here tonight to tell us their stories.” Three married couples were neatly arranged in his studio, the wives seated and the men standing behind them, like game show contestants.
As Hannity called on each of them, the guests recounted their “Obamacare” horror stories: canceled policies, premium hikes, restrictions on the freedom to see a doctor of their choice, financial burdens upon their small businesses and so on.
“These are the stories that the media refuses to cover,” Hannity interjected.
But none of it smelled right to me. Nothing these folks were saying jibed with the basic facts of the Affordable Care Act as I understand them. I understand them fairly well; I have worked as a senior adviser to a governor and helped him deal with the new federal rules.
I decided to hit the pavement. I tracked down Hannity’s guests, one by one, and did my own telephone interviews with them.
First I spoke with Paul Cox of Leicester, N.C. He and his wife Michelle had lamented to Hannity that because of Obamacare, they can’t grow their construction business and they have kept their employees below a certain number of hours, so that they are part-timers.
Obamacare has no effect on businesses with 49 employees or less. But in our brief conversation on the phone, Paul revealed that he has only four employees. Why the cutback on his workforce? “Well,” he said, “I haven’t been forced to do so, it’s just that I’ve chosen to do so. I have to deal with increased costs.” What costs? And how, I asked him, is any of it due to Obamacare? There was a long pause, after which he said he’d call me back. He never did.
There is only one Obamacare requirement that applies to a company of this size: workers must be notified of the existence of the “healthcare.gov” website, the insurance exchange. That’s all.
Next I called Allison Denijs. She’d told Hannity that she pays over $13,000 a year in premiums. Like the other guests, she said she had recently gotten a letter from Blue Cross saying that her policy was being terminated and a new, ACA-compliant policy would take its place. She says this shows that Obama lied when he promised Americans that we could keep our existing policies.
Allison’s husband left his job a few years ago, one with benefits at a big company, to start his own business. Since then they’ve been buying insurance on the open market, and are now paying around $1,100 a month for a policy with a $2,500 deductible per family member, with hefty annual premium hikes. One of their two children is not covered under the policy. She has a preexisting condition that would require purchasing additional coverage for $600 a month, which would bring the family’s grand total to around $20,000 a year.
I asked Allison if she’d shopped on the exchange, to see what a plan might cost under the new law. She said she hadn’t done so because she’d heard the website was not working. Would she try it out when it’s up and running? Perhaps, she said. She told me she has long opposed Obamacare, and that the president should have focused on tort reform as a solution to bringing down the price of healthcare.
I tried an experiment and shopped on the exchange for Allison and Kurt. Assuming they don’t smoke and have a household income too high to be eligible for subsidies, I found that they would be able to get a plan for around $7,600, which would include coverage for their uninsured daughter. This would be about a 60 percent reduction from what they would have to pay on the pre-Obamacare market.
Allison also told me that the letter she received from Blue Cross said that in addition to the policy change for ACA compliance, in the new policy her physician network size might be reduced. That’s something insurance companies do to save money, with or without Obamacare on the horizon, just as they raise premiums with or without Obamacare coming.
If Allison’s choice of doctor was denied her through Obamacare then, yes, she could have a claim that Obamacare has hurt her. But she’d also have thousands of dollars in her pocket that she didn’t have before.
Finally, I called Robbie and Tina Robison from Franklin, Tenn. Robbie is self-employed as a Christian youth motivational speaker. (You can see his work here.) On Hannity, the couple said that they, too, were recently notified that their Blue Cross policy would be expiring for lack of ACA compliance. They told Hannity that the replacement plans Blue Cross was offering would come with a rate increase of 50 percent or even 75 percent, and that the new offerings would contain all sorts of benefits they don’t need, like maternity care, pediatric care, prenatal care and so forth. Their kids are grown and moved out, so why should they be forced to pay extra for a health plan with superfluous features?
When I spoke to Robbie, he said he and Tina have been paying a little over $800 a month for their plan, about $10,000 a year. And the ACA-compliant policy that will cost 50-75 percent more? They said this information was related to them by their insurance agent.
Had they shopped on the exchange yet, I asked? No, Tina said, nor would they. They oppose Obamacare and want nothing to do with it. Fair enough, but they should know that I found a plan for them for, at most, $3,700 a year, 63 percent less than their current bill. It might cover things that they don’t need, but so does every insurance policy.
It’s true that we don’t know for sure whether certain ills conservatives have warned about will occur once Obamacare is fully enacted. For example, will we truly have the same freedom to choose a physician that we have now? Will a surplus of insured patients require a scaling back (or “rationing,” as some call it) of provided healthcare services? Will doctors be able to spend as much time with patients? These are all valid, unanswered questions. The problem is that people like Sean Hannity have decided to answer them now, without evidence. Or worse, with fake evidence.
I don’t doubt that these six individuals believe that Obamacare is a disaster; but none of them had even visited the insurance exchange. And some of them appear to have taken actions (Paul Cox, for example) based on a general pessimistic belief about Obamacare. He’s certainly entitled to do so, but Hannity is not entitled to point to Paul’s behavior as an “Obamacare train wreck story” and maintain any credibility that he might have as a journalist.
Strangely, the recent shutdown was based almost entirely on a small percentage of Congress’s belief that Obamacare, as Ted Cruz puts it, “is destroying America.” Cruz has rarely given us an example of what he’s talking about. That’s because the best he can do is what Hannity did—exploit people’s ignorance and falsely point to imaginary boogeymen.
Seems like a bunch of people are misinformed or perhaps are deliberately misleading people.
Seaward wrote: I'm not wild about pointless obstructionism, but if we're now saying that some of it actually made a difference, then yay, Republicans.
I suppose making things worse is indeed 'making a difference', if that's your measuring stick.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/11/02 08:36:41
Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at Pubhammer, our friendly club in a pub at the Junction pub in Annerley (opposite Ace Comics), Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook group for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.
Pubhammer is Moving! Starting from the 25th of May we'll be gaming at The Junction pub (AKA The Muddy Farmer), opposite Ace Comics & Games in Annerley! Still Sunday nights from 6:30 in the Function room Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else!
Maddermax wrote: I suppose making things worse is indeed 'making a difference', if that's your measuring stick.
"Worse" is relative. I view another insanely expensive entitlement that it'll be impossible to wean the public off of once it gets going to be far worse than trying to sabotage a bad law.
And yeah, you can debunk some - though by no means anywhere near all, nor even most - of the individuals who've been interviewed. What you can't get around is that the money to pay for those subsidies is coming from somewhere, and the higher premiums to offset those lower ones are also coming from somewhere. In this case, it's the same place.
easysauce wrote: apparently a lot of hookers like obamacare. I can see having less declared income, and thus qualifying for subsidies, as a great attractor for black/grey market workers to enroll.
So the ACA is great if you haven't declared all your income and aren't being taxed on it?
easysauce wrote: apparently a lot of hookers like obamacare. I can see having less declared income, and thus qualifying for subsidies, as a great attractor for black/grey market workers to enroll.
So the ACA is great if you haven't declared all your income and aren't being taxed on it?
You should just legalize prostitution. It's been around since pre-history, and hasn't gone anywhere.
/Here in Australia we've gone a long way towards this (not far enough in every state, of course), and even have the Australia Sex Party (a political party, not the other sort ), representing sex workers.
Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at Pubhammer, our friendly club in a pub at the Junction pub in Annerley (opposite Ace Comics), Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook group for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.
Pubhammer is Moving! Starting from the 25th of May we'll be gaming at The Junction pub (AKA The Muddy Farmer), opposite Ace Comics & Games in Annerley! Still Sunday nights from 6:30 in the Function room Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else!
I'm in favour of legalizing prostitution and drugs, but not for the reason that it's been around since pre-history. We've been killing each other since then too and we tend to frown on homicide these days
But please don't try and tell me know wonderful the ACA is because people who aren't paying tax on undeclared income are getting subsidies. If these sex workers were paying taxes it may be a very different story for them.
Maddermax wrote: I suppose making things worse is indeed 'making a difference', if that's your measuring stick.
"Worse" is relative. I view another insanely expensive entitlement that it'll be impossible to wean the public off of once it gets going to be far worse than trying to sabotage a bad law.
And yeah, you can debunk some - though by no means anywhere near all, nor even most - of the individuals who've been interviewed. What you can't get around is that the money to pay for those subsidies is coming from somewhere, and the higher premiums to offset those lower ones are also coming from somewhere. In this case, it's the same place.
You're paying for those people anyway in various ways, through medical bankruptcies, emergency room use, lower tax receipts because of people who can't get treatment being unable to work, less worker flexibility and entrepreneurship because of people being afraid of changing jobs because of the expense and trouble of insurance on the individual market and so on. Single payer would be better still (or a public/private system like here in Australia), but you're not getting that because it's 'socialism'.
Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at Pubhammer, our friendly club in a pub at the Junction pub in Annerley (opposite Ace Comics), Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook group for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.
Pubhammer is Moving! Starting from the 25th of May we'll be gaming at The Junction pub (AKA The Muddy Farmer), opposite Ace Comics & Games in Annerley! Still Sunday nights from 6:30 in the Function room Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else!
I'm confused as to why so many people are finding their policies canceled by their insurers, then, forcing them to in fact not keep the plan they liked. Perhaps you could explain it to me.
Did those policies take effect prior to the passage of ACA, or after the fact?
As of now that isn't clear, as a lot of people seem to have trouble determining when their insurance policies take effect; an issue which transcends Obamacare.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Television host Pat Sajaktook to Twitter Wednesday afternoon to poke fun at Obamacare, saying that he’s considering a few rule changes at “Wheel of Fortune” to keep in line with the new law.
“Considering rule change for Wheel: If you like your vowels, you can keep your vowels,” he joked.
“A lot of confusion regarding new vowel policy. Guidelines are being written and will be posted online by November 31,” he added.
“Vowel Clarification: Ys will be covered if they meet minimum standards found in section XIV of guidelines,” the host continued. “Further clarification: Prices for vowels will go up for some, and you may be directed to other vowels. (Section XXVII.)”
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told Congress Wednesday that she is responsible for the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, but ultimately admitted after prodding by Rep. Greg Harper that the president is in charge of all government-run programs.
“I think it’s great that you’re a team player and taking responsibility,” said Mr. Harper, Michigan Republican. “It is the president’s ultimate responsibility, correct?”
“You clearly — whatever,” Mrs. Sebelius said. “Yes, he is the president. He is responsible for government programs.”
Mr. Sajak, and many other Twitter users, jumped on her “whatever” comment, and a new hashtag was born.
“Tired of all the questions. Everything will be clear when you read the guidelines. #Whatever!” the “Wheel” host wrote
dogma wrote: Did those policies take effect prior to the passage of ACA, or after the fact?
As of now that isn't clear, as a lot of people seem to have trouble determining when their insurance policies take effect; an issue which transcends Obamacare.
If they're being canceled, one must assume they were in effect at some point. Unless you're suggesting the hundreds of thousands of people receiving cancellation notices had not-as-yet-existent policies.
dogma wrote: Assuming "cancelled" is the correct term. In my experience people who make emotional claims about healthcare do not concern themselves with precision.
These aren't one or two individuals.
These are companies confirming they've sent out hundreds of thousands of cancellation notices.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If these sex workers were paying taxes it may be a very different story for them.
Well - they are paying at least some taxes. As you doubtlessly have discovered firsthand by now, one cannot live in America and not pay any taxes at all, sales tax at a bare minimum - and there is no reason to think that they are not filing federal income taxes.
Probably, uh, not payroll tax though.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If these sex workers were paying taxes it may be a very different story for them.
Well - they are paying at least some taxes. As you doubtlessly have discovered firsthand by now, one cannot live in America and not pay any taxes at all, sales tax at a bare minimum - and there is no reason to think that they are not filing federal income taxes.
the point about the sex trade workers, and not only them, but every black/grey market worker and person with a preexisting condition is clamoring for OB care,
making it a system that will have far too many people using the insurance, with out enough "young and healthies" paying in to support it.
thats why it will collapse, and actually be detrimental.
cant half arse it, gotta go 1 payer like canada (preferred), or stick with all private(lesser of two evils).
this frankenstein OB care will just have the worst from both worlds.
These are companies confirming they've sent out hundreds of thousands of cancellation notices.
Ok, I'll drop my contention regarding the use of the term "cancelled" and go back to my original point:
Did these policies take effect before or after the passage of ACA? If before, they are grandfathered. If after, they are not. This should surprise absolutely no one.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
These are companies confirming they've sent out hundreds of thousands of cancellation notices.
Ok, I'll drop my contention regarding the use of the term "cancelled" and go back to my original point:
Did these policies take effect before or after the passage of ACA? If before, they are grandfathered. If after, they are not. This should surprise absolutely no one.
Policies passed before are not automatically "grandfathered". If I had bought a policy in 2009, and then they policy ended up changing because of the law, and new requirements it put in place, that policy I bought is no longer grandfathered.
If you had read anything in the last couple of weeks, this would be clear.
None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.
If you had read anything in the last couple of weeks, this would be clear.
I have read many things over the last few weeks because it is my job to do so.
This...
But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.
...basically means that insurance providers are not legally required to offer certain coverage options due to "grandfathering", but that a person who holds a policy that is not consistent with the requirements of the ACA will not be subject to legal punishment.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
According to Carney, it's the insurance companies responsibility. Same link I included above.
“What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage, minimum services that every insurance plan has to provide,” Carney said. “So it's true that there are existing healthcare plans on the individual market that don't meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act.”
At any rate, the "grandfather" claim was a lie. Sure SOME plans are grandfathered. But as we're seeing, millions, possibly the majority that were promised to, weren't.
At any rate, the "grandfather" claim was a lie. Sure SOME plans are grandfathered. But as we're seeing, millions, possibly the majority that were promised to, weren't.
Well, no, we're seeing many insurance providers end the provision of certain plans. The "grandfather" claim pertains only to the action of the state itself regarding plans that were held prior to 3-23-2010.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Doesn't change the fact that it's a lie. The administration knew - we've got documents saying this - that hundreds of thousands of people would be losing their policies at the start of the individual mandate. As far as the employer mandate goes, well...there's a reason they pushed it until after the midterms.
Seaward wrote: Doesn't change the fact that it's a lie. The administration knew - we've got documents saying this - that hundreds of thousands of people would be losing their policies at the start of the individual mandate. As far as the employer mandate goes, well...there's a reason they pushed it until after the midterms.
It's like the house is burning down around people and they can't be convinced to leave it.
Seaward wrote: Doesn't change the fact that it's a lie. The administration knew - we've got documents saying this - that hundreds of thousands of people would be losing their policies at the start of the individual mandate.
Yes, it did, but I don't see how that makes a claim regarding state action pertaining to a particular group of health plans a lie.
What was said was not a lie, however lots of people seem to feel like they were lied to; something which is problematic for many reasons.
Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else! 
), representing sex workers.
