Obama Knew Millions Would Lose Insurance Due To ObamaCare.

I'm doing an in-house presentation on it Thursday, purely technical. Just running through numbers in such in how it is laid out, I don't see how it will work.

Example. In 2014, the absolute maximum penalty a person would have to pay for not having insurance is $285. Now, if I currently have no insurance or a catastrophic plan, it makes no sense that I would pay large premiums for most of which I'd not use. Now, that amount eventually gets higher, but it's still going to be cheaper to not be insured.

Of course, this also includes that technically, the only way that this can be collected as of today is if you are owed a refund on your tax return.

 

The below pretty much sums up how I've felt about this administration and the support it continues to get from the public for a while now.

 

None of this is new. Many insurance coverages were constructed so the provider could drop you if anything too expensive came up. Happened all the time. Those plans are no longer legal. The "great" "Cadillac" insurance plans were only great for as long as they were honored. I know it is Obama-bashing season year round, but the previous health care system was rigged to take your money and leave you whenever possible. That helps keep prices down!

 

The company that did the website was fired by the Canadian government for poor performance. Getting fired by Canada is like getting Ghandi to throw a punch.

 

Insurance should discriminate and charge more based on pre-existing conditions.

 

and here we go

 

Surely even you can't defend the guy? Surely.

 

I don't think that's at all what this article is saying. It's saying that the Administration knew, for a fact, that when they were advertising that if one "liked your current plan, you could keep it", they knew for 100% fact that wasn't true. That's the point of the article.

 

They knew that insurance companies constantly change their rates/plans? Damn, you nailed them.

 

So when someone gets a serious diagnosis, they should be priced right out of their coverage? Then what is insurance for? The diagnosis?

 

Surely even you wouldn't go on a witch hunt while turning a blind eye towards the previous broken system.

 

And where has the first quote, regarding grandfathering in, been stated by anyone who supported this overhaul prior to today?

In the same time period that "you can keep your x,y,z," has a caveat ever been mentioned as well? No. That is the issue.

'"Nothing in the Affordable Care Act forces people out of their health plans: The law allows plans that covered people at the time the law was enacted to continue to offer that same coverage to the same enrollees – nothing has changed and that coverage can continue into 2014,” she said.'

This is both technically true and absolutely false. The ACA may not say it, but the DHHS does. The law may allow for the bolded, but it would be something along the lines of a safe harbor provision, and would have to be tested.

If someone wants to be discriminated or charged more based on a per-existing condition, and they choose to do this, then what is the problem? This is the problem with the last bolded part. If you tell me I can choose to keep my insurance, and the provision that it will charge more if I have a pre-existing condition, I don't need you to wipe that policy. Simply requiring that all new policies cannot charge more is enough. Because when I get a condition, I can change insurance. In other words, you are forcing people out of policies because of a protection they don't need. The new policy already has that protection. If I want to keep an old policy, it doesn't matter if it has a provision that can charge more, because I can drop them later when they go to raise my premium. But I can keep my low premium for now!

 

Is this system better?

 

I'm honestly surprised that IP is completely ignoring the point

 

Not worth my time to respond to that.

 

That would not fit my definition of "pre-existing".

 

Like you know what you are talking about.........

 

It has fit the insurance companies' definition for decades. Stories abound. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=insurance+dropped+after+diagnosis

 

If you'd read the article rather than be an Obama sheep, you'd learn that they knew that they knew that 70% of people's insurance plans, as they existed at the time the Administration was espousing this, would be cancelled because they didn't meet the "minimum coverage requirements of the ACA." Not that the insurance companies later changed them. They knew what they were saying was false when they said it. There's not much spin that can be done to this, IP.

 

The ole refrain on every topic I engage in. Poster A is an expert, IP's argument is thus invalid (despite any number of supporting evidence)