Looks like the Obama administration lied about keeping your health insurance. NBC news reported yesterday:
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.”
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. Article
19 comments:
Shocking.
I'm shocked.
SHOCKED, I tell you.
GASP! who dat lied ? Tell me it ain't so!
Just like Bush's "Read my lips" comment, Obama will deeply regret having made such a promise. How could he - or Senator Johnson with his new bill - force employers to keep the same health insurance for their employees or not drop it altogether? It's just another indicator of how gullible the voters have become that anyone would believe it in the first place.
Its too late for this to effect Obama. The MSM, the Supreme Court and the Congress have already been bought and paid for by George Soros. Regardless of whether or not Obama runs again ("what constitution??"), whoever Democrat runs will win. It will be blamed on the Republicans because they shut the gov't down and caused the premiums to go up. Welcome to the Fourth Reich!
I see your copy is the one that included all of the info.
NBC posted the article, pulled it, edited it, reposted it.
Before the article was pulled:
“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 the policy was significantly changed since that date—the deductible, co-ay, or benefits, for example—the policy would not be grandfathered.”
After the article was pulled, edited, then reposted, paragraph above was removed and replaced with:
“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 is 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.
NBC called it a publishing “glitch.”
Internet called them on it with cache pictures of each article and highlighting the publishing “glitch” that apparently changed the content.
IRS Bulletin That Shows Admin Knew You Couldn’t Keep Your Plan In 2010
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/10/28/exclusive-the-irs-bulletin-that-shows-admin-knew-you-couldnt-keep-your-plan-in-2010/
In the category of Too Little Too Late….
Cochran and Wicker now want to introduce a bill to delay Obamacare. And please look the other way when you see Americans for Tax Reform (“…Norquist has single-handedly tried to obliterate Cruz in nearly every outlet that has given him a microphone…. Norquist represents the past in which Republicans came to Washington vowing to change it only to be changed by it….. Norquist became one of the faces of the crony capitalism … He is a proponent of amnesty and immigration reform and has supported Boehner in budget negotiations…”)
Two others are pushing a ‘we want to keep our insurance’ bill. Empty language bills because they are tied directly to Obamacare definitions and are a temporary fix. But they put cute little short titles on them so you wouldn’t actually read the bill—but the title is just great. Hmmm, where have we heard that line of thinking before---no need to read it, just vote for it and we’ll find out what’s in it later.
Thanks so much to you boys who refused to defund Obamacare. It was in your hands and you turned away from us and instead chose to listen to your ‘bosses’. Its now close to 2 million people who have lost their insurance. Good job, boys. Enjoy that dinner tonight while you decide what fundraiser you want to go to next. This stuff doesn’t actually affect you, yall made certain of that.
“The difficulties that Americans are facing with the Obamacare website…” ARE YOU KIDDING ME? So, Americans don’t have any problem at all with Obamacare, its just the website?
There’s just no way to explain how much this pisses me off.
If you cut my arm off, left me to bleed to death on the floor, then came back a month later to offer me a band aid, expecting me to rise up and cheer for you. Yea, I think that about says it for me.
Weak and controlled. Good riddance.
Ryan Ellis, policy director for Norquist’s organization (Americans for Tax Reform): “I've gotta tell you, man, I'm starting to think these tea party activists are freaking retarded”
Norquist is working with left folks to try and take down anyone who doesn’t comply. He’s been called out for what he is and now he’s using the same old tactics to try and make sure you ‘freaking retarded’ folks shut up and do what he says.
And unfortunately for him, earlier in October it was exposed that “there’s a clip of Norquist at a meeting in Dearborn, Michigan in October 2011 put together between George Soros’ progressives or leftists, radicals, and the Islamists” on MuslimBrotherhoodInAmerica’s website.
Cochran, Wicker—you boys really picked a great guy to work with on this.
And, in what States are the insurance companies eliminating existing policies and replacing them with more expensive policies?
Something they've managed to get by with in some States on a regular basis anyway.
Where and when were the negotiations with the insurance industry supposed to take place?
You insist on State involvement in the process rather than federal regulation of the industry. Then,if your State drops the ball (either because their folks are too lazy or dumb to get it, or else don't care as long as the plan fails, or deluded themselves into thinking they could stop it( you shouldn't be surprised.
Where and when exactly did you think the competition between insurance companies and the opening up of the marketplace was going to happen?
When were the State's Insurance Commissioners going to see the cost comparisons being offerred if not in the creation of exchanges?
Who , save for the Insurance Commission , knew whether the required coverages created new coverage? I'm wondering if part of the resistance wasn't fear that citizens would figure out that some Insurance Commissions aided and abetted by legislators had screwed them over on coverage for decades.
Chaney gleaned it apparently as he tried to say, if not well, that creating an exchange would save the citizens money. But, rather than listen and give him a chance to flesh it out ( for us and maybe even his folks), shouting him down worked.
The public may not have read the bill but you can be damn sure that the industry had people reading the bill and lobbying sections of it.
The caveat, now explained by Sebelius, is that 'those who had employer plans that did not change would be able to stay on those plans'. Of course it was known that every plan would change following passage of the ACA.
Here's a parallel: I'm going to give ten of you a car to drive a hundred miles with this instruction; 'If you like the car you've driven, you will be able to keep it'. Aha...but, what I meant is, you can keep the car if it's just as it was when I let you drive it. Of course none will meet that definition since it was full of gas when you started the journey and now is not. So, you lose it.
Sebelius sez they will have it all worked out by the end of November. Ironic...that's Madison PD's target date for solving the death of the girl who was found in the woods.
If neither target is achieved, will Sebelius and the PD Chief resign?
9:48 am The employer plans should NOT have changed.
There is not one bit of new coverage under ACA that I didn't have plus better before.
There were all sorts of ways in creating the exchanges to protect the public from sleazy insurance companies.
Of course, some of you couldn't even listen to a Republican you elected whose job it was to put MS in the best position.
Nope...you, along with our legislature and Governor had to play Don Quixote or worse..." Don't worry Feel, our voters are too damn dumb to get it so when they are screwed by our insurance industry friends, we can blame the Democrats and get big time contributions for helping out our friends. Those fools believe everything we tell them".
2:43, you missed the latest whitehouse talking points, be careful what you say will and wont change.
SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN, EXPLAIN AGAIN WHY YOU DIDN’T DEFUND THIS
Gov't Document: Health Site Posed Security Risk
"WASHINGTON (AP) — An internal government memo obtained by The Associated Press shows administration officials were concerned that a lack of testing posed a "high" security risk for President Barack Obama's new health insurance website.
The Sept. 27 memo to Medicare chief Marylin Tavenner said a website contractor wasn't able to test all the security controls in one complete version of the system.
Insufficient testing "exposed a level of uncertainty that can be deemed as a high risk," the memo said.
The memo recommended setting up a security team to address risks, conduct daily tests, and a full security test within two to three months of going live."
I guess, maybe, since it didn't apply to you personally, it just didn't matter.
Many employer plans didn't cover killing unborn babies. Comrade Barry has mandated that every plan have Killing Unborn Baby coverage regardless the expense.
2:43; Do you really expect that some on this board will believe your bullshit? Of course you expected 'better' (your word) under the unaffordable ACA. You thought it would be cheap, free and offer you a ticket of some sort. I've yet to talk with a single soul who didn't favor it for personal, selfish reasons. What's yours?
No, it didn't apply to me. I am a responsible American and even when first married and struggling, we had good insurance. We love each other and want the other to be protected against disaster.
I don't think OTHERS ought to pay for my bad decisions.
Apparently, the rest of you are willing to gamble with my money and have for years and now you're whining because you have to have adequate coverage.
And, 4:04 pm you can hold that religious belief if you want, but many of your fellow Americans disagree so stop trying to impose your beliefs on me. I'm not making you or yours GET an abortion.
And, I actually want the children YOU have to be adequately insured even if you don't get a hoot!
5:16 pm I don't have to go on the website. I'm in the top 1%. I'm just sick of paying for YOU.
You are no different than a welfare queen to me. I have to pay for your poor choices in life. I am subsidizing you because you aren't valued enough by an employer for them to cover you.
And,4:04 pm, I don't want to pay for Viagra . I would be willing to pay for you to have a vasectomy or to have your tubes tied.
But, I realize that the trade off in a democratic republic that is a secular society I don't get to everything fit my denominational beliefs.
You 4:04 pm would be much happier in a Muslim country with no birth control, no abortion and where the religious beliefs of others aren't respected!
Really, 2:43? Anyone who expected the cost of insurance to go down under the ACA either is drinking the Democrat Kool Aid or doesn't understand how insurance works. If all we do is add in the parts we all know exist in the ACA that weren't in the insurance policies before - the ban on using a pre-existing condition to exclude someone from a policy and the expansion of children being able to stay on their parents' policy longer - then the cost has to go up to cover the increased risk. I'm no fan of insurance companies - or bankers, or lawyers, or government bureaucrats, or LSU, or lots of other things - but anyone with a lick of sense knew that their prices were going to rise, just like they've risen in all the years before the ACA. Add in the notion that the goal is to provide free or subsidized coverage to 30 million people who don't have coverage now and you get that much more of an increase. This shouldn't come as a surprise...
Two things
“Farm Bill” FYI because its being worked this week
Stimulus Bill = $787 Billion dollars
House Farm bill = $921 Billion ($725 Billion of that is food stamps)
Senate Farm bill = $955 Billion ($760 Billion of that is food stamps)
-Why keep calling it the “farm bill”.
-Why do they keep them together like this?
-If folks push to keep these issues together and hide the food stamp part under the umbrella name “farm bill”, then they are in direct agreement with Nancy Pelosi, who has fought to keep these issues tied together. Is your current senator/representative on the same side as Pelosi?
August 14, 2013: A united House Democratic Caucus sent Speaker John A. Boehner a letter this week urging him to include food stamp provisions in the final language of the farm bill
Obamacare
Rep. Ellmers (NC) questioned Sebelius about why Obamacare forces men to buy maternity coverage. Small businessman George Schwab saw his premiums increase by 400%. Part of the reason is that he is being forced to pay for maternity care. He and his wife are both 59 years old.
Ellmers: But men are required to purchase maternity coverage.
Sebelius: Well, an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not…
Ellmers: And that is why health care premiums are increasing, because we are forcing them to buy things that they will never need. Thank you.
Sebelius: The individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity care for their spouses and for their families, yes.
Ellmers: A single male, aged 32, does need maternity coverage. To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?
Once our policies get cancelled, our private information is thrown to the winds, Ocare website crashes and burns, we'll know that no matter what, its because YOU refused to stop these laws. Website up/website down, the laws are still on the books and you funded them.
I kept trying to figure out how you could be so dang stupid. Silly me, this was your intent from the beginning. How stupid I was to assume you had a different goal than Reid, McCain, Obama, and Pelosi.
Sebelius heard on open mike during testimony “don’t do this to me”
Interesting. Now you know what WE THE PEOPLE have been screaming at yall.
And in this instance, MS congressional members, we ‘didn’t build that’. You did. And you funded it.
Post a Comment