Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance

  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 28, 2013 11:19 PM GMT
    http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lit


    President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

    Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
    Advertise | AdChoices

    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.

    Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

    That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

    Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

    “This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.

    The White House does not dispute that many in the individual market will lose their current coverage, but argues they will be offered better coverage in its place, and that many will get tax subsidies that would offset any increased costs. “One of the main goals of the law is to ensure that people have insurance they can rely on – that doesn’t discriminate or charge more based on pre-existing conditions. The consumers who are getting notices are in plans that do not provide all these protections – but in the vast majority of cases, those same insurers will automatically shift their enrollees to a plan that provides new consumer protections and, for nearly half of individual market enrollees, discounts through premium tax credits,” said White House spokesperson Jessica Santillo.

    Individual insurance plans with low premiums often lack basic benefits, such as prescription drug coverage, or carry high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. The Affordable Care Act requires all companies to offer more benefits, such as mental health care, and also bars companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.

    Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked about the president’s promise that consumers would be able to keep their health care. “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.”

    Courtesy of Heather Goldwater

    Heather Goldwater, 38, of South Carolina, says that she received a letter from her insurer saying the company would no longer offer her plan, but hasn't yet received a follow-up letter with a comparable option.

    Other experts said that most consumers in the individual market will not be able to keep their policies. Nancy Thompson, senior vice president of CBIZ Benefits, which helps companies manage their employee benefits, says numbers in this market are hard to pin down, but that data from states and carriers suggests “anywhere from 50 to 75 percent” of individual policy holders will get cancellation letters. Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, who chairs the health committee of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, says that estimate is “probably about right.” She added that a few states are asking insurance companies to cancel and replace policies, rather than just amend them, to avoid confusion.
    Advertise | AdChoices

    A spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), an insurance trade association, also said the 50 to 75 percent estimate was consistent with the range they are hearing.

    Those getting the cancellation letters are often shocked and unhappy.

    George Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, said he was "perfectly happy" with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The "comparable" plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible.

    And the best option he’s found on the exchange so far offered a 415 percent jump in premium, to $948 a month.

    "The deductible is less," he said, "But the plan doesn't meet my needs. Its unaffordable."

    "I'm sitting here looking at this, thinking we ought to just pay the fine and just get insurance when we're sick," Schwab added. "Everybody's worried about whether the website works or not, but that's fixable. That's just the tip of the iceberg. This stuff isn't fixable."

    Heather Goldwater, 38, of South Carolina, is raising a new baby while running her own PR firm. She said she received a letter last July from Cigna, her insurance company, that said the company would no longer offer her individual plan, and promised to send a letter by October offering a comparable option. So far, she hasn't received anything.

    "I'm completely overwhelmed with a six-month-old and a business,” said Goldwater. “The last thing I can do is spend hours poring over a website that isn't working, trying to wrap my head around this entire health care overhaul."

    Goldwater said she supports the new law and is grateful for provisions helping folks like her with pre-existing conditions, but she worries she won’t be able to afford the new insurance, which is expected to cost more because it has more benefits. "I'm jealous of people who have really good health insurance," she said. "It's people like me who are stuck in the middle who are going to get screwed."

    Richard Helgren, a Lansing, Mich., retiree, said he was “irate” when he received a
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2013 11:26 PM GMT
    they didn't need those plans, they were horrible, ObamaCare is much better for them
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2013 1:06 AM GMT
    Nobody cares.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 29, 2013 1:39 AM GMT
    PrickleyHeat saidNobody cares.

    Obamacare(s)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2013 1:41 AM GMT
    PrickleyHeat saidNobody cares.


    Not yet, but they will when everyone is forced into this clusterfuck. And they will deserve it, too, because that's what you get when you keep voting for a socialist.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 29, 2013 1:47 AM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    PrickleyHeat saidNobody cares.


    Not yet, but they will when everyone is forced into this clusterfuck. And they will deserve it, too, because that's what you get when you keep voting for a socialist.

    At least the dems pay our bills on time! Those tea partiers want to turn us into a nation of deadbeats.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 29, 2013 1:51 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Blakes7 said
    PrickleyHeat saidNobody cares.


    Not yet, but they will when everyone is forced into this clusterfuck. And they will deserve it, too, because that's what you get when you keep voting for a socialist.

    At least the dems pay our bills on time! Those tea partiers want to turn us into a nation of deadbeats.


    Really, no budgets since Senate run by Democrats and Obama in office. That line only works on people who do not pay attention.

    Of the last 4/5 years the senate did not even go through the motions of passing its own budget. This year it passed a budget and wanted a Omnibus bill , in full knowledge that it would not pass.

    So how has the democrats payed its bills?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2013 2:08 AM GMT
    I love how it's perfectly acceptable to "pay bills" with borrowed money.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 29, 2013 2:10 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidI love how it's perfectly acceptable to "pay bills" with borrowed money.

    Better than defaulting. Ideally we would go back to having a surplus like in the Clinton years.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 29, 2013 2:15 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Blakes7 saidI love how it's perfectly acceptable to "pay bills" with borrowed money.

    Better than defaulting. Ideally we would go back to having a surplus like in the Clinton years.


    There was a surplus at the end of Clinton's Presidency. There were cuts in Defense and domestic spending and a economy that ticked up from the .com bubble.

    There is ZERO doubt, if he had a Democratic controlled House and Senate there wouldn't be any CLINTON SURPLUS. There is not 1 proposal from Congressional and Senate Democrats that any kind of serious reality of any balanced budget for anytime in the foreseeable future.

    There was no legitimate fear of default. We have continual income stream into the government.

    The history of our country is that when we have divided government we do the best. So hope for things to stay the same.
  • The_Guruburu

    Posts: 895

    Oct 29, 2013 2:18 AM GMT
    I don't want Romneycare/Obamacare, I want Universal Healthcare!
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 29, 2013 2:40 AM GMT
    The_Guruburu saidI don't want Romneycare/Obamacare, I want Universal Healthcare!


    why do you want universal care?
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 29, 2013 3:38 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    The_Guruburu saidI don't want Romneycare/Obamacare, I want Universal Healthcare!


    why do you want universal care?

    Because the alternative is that there is no universal health care.icon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2013 6:10 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Blakes7 said
    PrickleyHeat saidNobody cares.


    Not yet, but they will when everyone is forced into this clusterfuck. And they will deserve it, too, because that's what you get when you keep voting for a socialist.

    At least the dems pay our bills on time! Those tea partiers want to turn us into a nation of deadbeats.


    What world do you live in?

    You either don't understand anything about what you're talking about or you are stupider than a box of rocks.

    Please explain how you come to the conclusion that wanting a smaller streamlined government that costs less to operate, spends less, cutting spending, balancing the budget and paying off the debt we have already racked up is not wanting to pay our bills?

    Progressives/Liberals/democrats like you want to keep spending money we do not have, borrowing money that we have no way to pay back if we continue to do as you want,continue running the government with no budget and the spending restraints that result from a budget and continue to rack up deficits without regard to how or who will have to pay them.

    Like the saying goes: "there is no one blinder than the man who will not see"! Really , educate yourself on the issues and stop with the bullshit talking points you've been fed by someone else who, like you only uses their head to hold up their hair instead of thinking.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 29, 2013 6:28 AM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    HottJoe said
    Blakes7 said
    PrickleyHeat saidNobody cares.


    Not yet, but they will when everyone is forced into this clusterfuck. And they will deserve it, too, because that's what you get when you keep voting for a socialist.

    At least the dems pay our bills on time! Those tea partiers want to turn us into a nation of deadbeats.


    What world do you live in?

    You either don't understand anything about what you're talking about or you are stupider than a box of rocks.

    Please explain how you come to the conclusion that wanting a smaller streamlined government that costs less to operate, spends less, cutting spending, balancing the budget and paying off the debt we have already racked up is not wanting to pay our bills?

    Progressives/Liberals/democrats like you want to keep spending money we do not have, borrowing money that we have no way to pay back if we continue to do as you want,continue running the government with no budget and the spending restraints that result from a budget and continue to rack up deficits without regard to how or who will have to pay them.

    Like the saying goes: "there is no one blinder than the man who will not see"! Really , educate yourself on the issues and stop with the bullshit talking points you've been fed by someone else who, like you only uses their head to hold up their hair instead of thinking.

    The republican controlled Congress shut down the government over healthcare, threatening to default on our financial obligations. You don't cut spending by blowing off your mortgage and cutting the electricity... Unless your plan is to go bankrupt. Look what's happening in Detroit. They're screwing over their lenders and then some. It's tragic, pathetic, and desperate. It's what Romney recommended. Thank god he's not president!!! If the whole country went the way of Detroit it would be game over for the land of the free and the home of the brave. The tea party is dumber than a box of rocks and they'd rather ruin us than offer affordable healthcare to poor people. They are immoral and must be exposed to the public for being the scum of the earth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2013 6:39 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Blakes7 saidI love how it's perfectly acceptable to "pay bills" with borrowed money.

    Better than defaulting. Ideally we would go back to having a surplus like in the Clinton years.


    You just answered my earlier questions, now I know you have no clue what you are talking about, which translated into "stupider than a box of rocks".

    There would never have been a default on the U.S. debt. By law a default is illegal.
    The 14 amendment, to the U.S. Constitution makes that clear:
    "Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned."

    Had there been a default, it would have been the President who caused the default, which is unconstitutional! The Executive Office (the President) has the power to decide discretionary spending in the case of a government shutdown, but he can not, constitutionally, default on the debt and neither can congress!
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 29, 2013 6:42 AM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    HottJoe said
    Blakes7 saidI love how it's perfectly acceptable to "pay bills" with borrowed money.

    Better than defaulting. Ideally we would go back to having a surplus like in the Clinton years.


    You just answered my earlier questions, now I know you have no clue what you are talking about, which translated into "stupider than a box of rocks".

    There would never have been a default on the U.S. debt. By law a default is illegal.
    The 14 amendment, to the U.S. Constitution makes that clear:
    "Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned."

    Had there been a default, it would have been the President who caused the default, which is unconstitutional! The Executive Office (the President) has the power to decide discretionary spending in the case of a government shutdown, but he can not, constitutionally, default on the debt and neither can congress!

    So then Congress was just posturing?
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 29, 2013 6:58 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    shybuffguy said
    HottJoe said
    Blakes7 said
    PrickleyHeat saidNobody cares.


    Not yet, but they will when everyone is forced into this clusterfuck. And they will deserve it, too, because that's what you get when you keep voting for a socialist.

    At least the dems pay our bills on time! Those tea partiers want to turn us into a nation of deadbeats.


    What world do you live in?

    You either don't understand anything about what you're talking about or you are stupider than a box of rocks.

    Please explain how you come to the conclusion that wanting a smaller streamlined government that costs less to operate, spends less, cutting spending, balancing the budget and paying off the debt we have already racked up is not wanting to pay our bills?

    Progressives/Liberals/democrats like you want to keep spending money we do not have, borrowing money that we have no way to pay back if we continue to do as you want,continue running the government with no budget and the spending restraints that result from a budget and continue to rack up deficits without regard to how or who will have to pay them.

    Like the saying goes: "there is no one blinder than the man who will not see"! Really , educate yourself on the issues and stop with the bullshit talking points you've been fed by someone else who, like you only uses their head to hold up their hair instead of thinking.

    The republican controlled Congress shut down the government over healthcare, threatening to default on our financial obligations. You don't cut spending by blowing off your mortgage and cutting the electricity... Unless your plan is to go bankrupt. Look what's happening in Detroit. They're screwing over their lenders and then some. It's tragic, pathetic, and desperate. It's what Romney recommended. Thank god he's not president!!! If the whole country went the way of Detroit it would be game over for the land of the free and the home of the brave. The tea party is dumber than a box of rocks and they'd rather ruin us than offer affordable healthcare to poor people. They are immoral and must be exposed to the public for being the scum of the earth.


    3 times in the 80's the government was shutdown over Abortion. And FYI both Houses were under Democratic control. So what was the excuse then?

    I am not going to re argue the Shutdown, but simply the ACA was passed/amended as a budget bill. It as almost every type of law is a victim to budget appropriations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2013 6:59 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    shybuffguy said
    HottJoe said
    Blakes7 said
    PrickleyHeat saidNobody cares.


    Not yet, but they will when everyone is forced into this clusterfuck. And they will deserve it, too, because that's what you get when you keep voting for a socialist.

    At least the dems pay our bills on time! Those tea partiers want to turn us into a nation of deadbeats.


    What world do you live in?

    You either don't understand anything about what you're talking about or you are stupider than a box of rocks.

    Please explain how you come to the conclusion that wanting a smaller streamlined government that costs less to operate, spends less, cutting spending, balancing the budget and paying off the debt we have already racked up is not wanting to pay our bills?

    Progressives/Liberals/democrats like you want to keep spending money we do not have, borrowing money that we have no way to pay back if we continue to do as you want,continue running the government with no budget and the spending restraints that result from a budget and continue to rack up deficits without regard to how or who will have to pay them.

    Like the saying goes: "there is no one blinder than the man who will not see"! Really , educate yourself on the issues and stop with the bullshit talking points you've been fed by someone else who, like you only uses their head to hold up their hair instead of thinking.

    The republican controlled Congress shut down the government over healthcare, threatening to default on our financial obligations. You don't cut spending by blowing off your mortgage and cutting the electricity... Unless your plan is to go bankrupt. Look what's happening in Detroit. They're screwing over their lenders and then some. It's tragic, pathetic, and desperate. It's what Romney recommended. Thank god he's not president!!! If the whole country went the way of Detroit it would be game over for the land of the free and the home of the brave. The tea party is dumber than a box of rocks and they'd rather ruin us than offer affordable healthcare to poor people. They are immoral and must be exposed to the public for being the scum of the earth.


    Like I just pointed out, You have no clue what you are talking about. The "Republicans" couldn't threaten to default, it isn't possible. The President would have been the one who defaulted by ordering that the service on the debt not be paid.
    On average the federal government takes in $204 billion/month. The service on the National debt is around $20 billion/month (actually just over $18 billion). There would have been no reason for a default, unless the President declined to prioritize spending, which I've already shown would be illegal.

    You really should educate yourself better if you want to engage and be taken seriously.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2013 7:04 AM GMT
    The_Guruburu saidI don't want Romneycare/Obamacare, I want Universal Healthcare!


    Could you show me in the U.S. Constitution where "Universal Healthcare" is an enumerated "right" ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2013 7:09 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    musclmed said
    The_Guruburu saidI don't want Romneycare/Obamacare, I want Universal Healthcare!


    why do you want universal care?

    Because the alternative is that there is no universal health care.icon_idea.gif


    Could you show me in the U.S. Constitution where it specifically layout that a responsible citizen should lawfully be made to carry the burdens of the irresponsible choices made in life by other citizens?
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 29, 2013 7:13 AM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    HottJoe said
    musclmed said
    The_Guruburu saidI don't want Romneycare/Obamacare, I want Universal Healthcare!


    why do you want universal care?

    Because the alternative is that there is no universal health care.icon_idea.gif


    Could you show me in the U.S. Constitution where it specifically layout that a responsible citizen should lawfully be made to carry the burdens of the irresponsible choices made in life by other citizens?

    Yeah, only irresponsible people are poor or have pre existing conditions.icon_rolleyes.gif

    I don't think you could be bigger scum if you tried.

    Btw, do all of your employees have healthcare, or does working for you put them in the irresponsible category?
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 29, 2013 7:16 AM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    HottJoe said
    shybuffguy said
    HottJoe said
    Blakes7 said
    PrickleyHeat saidNobody cares.


    Like I just pointed out, You have no clue what you are talking about. The "Republicans" couldn't threaten to default, it isn't possible. The President would have been the one who defaulted by ordering that the service on the debt not be paid.
    On average the federal government takes in $204 billion/month. The service on the National debt is around $20 billion/month (actually just over $18 billion). There would have been no reason for a default, unless the President declined to prioritize spending, which I've already shown would be illegal.

    You really should educate yourself better if you want to engage and be taken seriously
    .


    Honestly if one read the mainstream media above the fold in early October you could draw that conclusion. But the history of shutdowns is a story that is much different and of course against the agenda of the President.

    Several things did happen that are different than prior political run-ins since 2008.
    1) Obama's political acumen was exposed to be nonexistent. Simply he has NO relationships that are meaningful since he came to Washington.
    2) As in the sequester scare, nothing big or disastrous happened as had been threatened.
    3)Obamas Presidency is over, he is in a caretaker position now. Nothing, NOTHING will happen for him politically. Expect not 1 vote for a piece of legislation, confirmation of a judge / cabinet appointee.
    4) Media seem to wake up after the shutdown, something did happen, it may have been the question about the NIH and helping 1 kid with cancer. But it happened and its measurable.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 29, 2013 7:20 AM GMT
    Musclemed sounds like a broken record.

    The voters like Obama, even though bitter members of Congress won't be his friend or sit with him during lunch.

    (grow up!)
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 29, 2013 7:36 AM GMT
    HottJoe saidMusclemed sounds like a broken record.

    The voters like Obama, even though bitter members of Congress won't be his friend or sit with him during lunch.

    (grow up!)


    Well Hottjoe, welcome back, read a few of the threads were even democrats complain about how there is NO OUTREACH by this President. Something that our government requires by design. If people do not negotiate there is no compromise.

    He surrounds himself with sycophants, and apparently the latest defense for incompetence is that no one is bothering to inform the President.

    As for voters "liking" Obama , he has a sub 50% approval since the 3rd quarter of his Presidency. Hardly "liking".