50 to 100 million policies to be cancelled by ACA rules.

eohrnberger · Nov 21, 2013

TheDemSocialist said:
And how does all this somehow connect to "gov single payer healthcare"?

This response is not about that. Are you not claiming false conspiracy about the cancellations?

Obamacare was designed from the beginning to displace as many people's existing plans as possible and force them into compilant plans. There was no thought or consideration given to a transition period. Even when a Republican amendment was submitted for consideration which would gandfather more or strengthen the grandfathering, if was rejected flt out by 100% of the Democratic senators.

Furthermore, this mass cancellation was well known to Obama, the administration, and the Democrats well in advance, dispite the bald faced lies to the country to the contrary.

Vern · Nov 17, 2014

LowDown said:
That's if the ACA works as planned.

This is going to be fun and heart rending to watch at the same time.

:boohoo: :wow: opcorn2: :scared:

as per the link

"A new and independent analysis of ObamaCare warns of a ticking time bomb, predicting a second wave of 50 million to 100 million insurance policy cancellations next fall -- right before the mid-term elections. "

tragedy averted that was a close one. Cons, the conservative media wont stop lying to you until you stop listening.

LowDown · Nov 18, 2014

Vern said:
as per the link

"A new and independent analysis of ObamaCare warns of a ticking time bomb, predicting a second wave of 50 million to 100 million insurance policy cancellations next fall -- right before the mid-term elections. "

tragedy averted that was a close one. Cons, the conservative media wont stop lying to you until you stop listening.

Huh? The cancellations of employer sponsored health plans haven't even begun yet. (They were delayed by executive order.)

That drama has yet to be played out. The ACA will keep on giving and giving and giving the Democrats headaches. Ya gotta love it.

Vern · Nov 18, 2014

LowDown said:
Huh? The cancellations of employer sponsored health plans haven't even begun yet. (They were delayed by executive order.)

That drama has yet to be played out. The ACA will keep on giving and giving and giving the Democrats headaches. Ya gotta love it.

I don’t mean to quibble but what exactly is going to cause 50-100 million employee sponsored plans disappear?

Mycroft · Nov 18, 2014

Vern said:
I don’t mean to quibble but what exactly is going to cause 50-100 million employee sponsored plans disappear?

I find it freaking amazing that you would ask that question in response to a post that gives a link to an article that answers your question...not to mention the previous link that answered your question.

Did you even read the articles?

btw, it's "employer" sponsored plans...not "employee" sponsored plans...and it's 50-100 million policy cancellations. Just saying...

Vern · Nov 18, 2014

Mycroft said:
I find it freaking amazing that you would ask that question in response to a post that gives a link to an article that answers your question...not to mention the previous link that answered your question.

Did you even read the articles?

btw, it's "employer" sponsored plans...not "employee" sponsored plans...and it's 50-100 million policy cancellations. Just saying...

first let me apologize for the typo. Now that we've averted that crisis, I read both links. Neither was really clear about the mechanism that would cause employers to suddenly drop coverage only after it became law that they offer it. A simple explanation is all I ask. your "amazement" obviously means you understand perfectly, so can you explain it.

Mycroft · Nov 18, 2014

Vern said:
first let me apologize for the typo. Now that we've averted that crisis, I read both links. Neither was really clear about the mechanism that would cause employers to suddenly drop coverage only after it became law that they offer it. A simple explanation is all I ask. your "amazement" obviously means you understand perfectly, so can you explain it.

It's about the increased premiums the employers will have to pay when they are finally forced to provide Obamacare-compliant policies. For most of them, it'll be cheaper to just drop that benefit and send their employees to the exchanges where the employee will have to eat the increase. That's where the estimated 50-100 million policy cancellations come in. If you thought it was bad when people found out they couldn't keep their insurance if they liked their insurance last year...just wait till next year.

For other employers...if they continue to provide that benefit...the employee will see their share of the premium increase which will take a bite our of their income.

This employer mandate was supposed to take effect last year but Obama...knowing he was going to take a lot of political heat...delayed the employer mandate for a year. Early 2015 is when it hits.

There is a ray of sunshine, though. The Republicans want to remove the employer mandate from Obamacare. If they can do that...if Obama doesn't veto it...that will help. A lot of "ifs", but it could happen.

LowDown · Nov 18, 2014

Vern said:
first let me apologize for the typo. Now that we've averted that crisis, I read both links. Neither was really clear about the mechanism that would cause employers to suddenly drop coverage only after it became law that they offer it. A simple explanation is all I ask. your "amazement" obviously means you understand perfectly, so can you explain it.

Mainly because existing policies don't meet ACA requirements, so they will have to be replaced with more expensive policies with bigger deductables, unneeded coverage, etc.

Also, there is the fact that in many cases employers will drop health care plans because they have become too expensive. There is the possibility that they will go to part time workers if they can to avoid the requirment to carry health insurance.

I know that in my case the plan I have doesn't cover pedi health (I have no young children) or obstetical benefits (also not needed) so I will be losing it.

Vern · Nov 18, 2014

Mycroft said:
This employer mandate was supposed to take effect last year but Obama...knowing he was going to take a lot of political heat...delayed the employer mandate for a year. Early 2015 is when it hits.

ignoring the rest of the rhetoric in your post, lets focus on this part. The delay of the mandate was "baked in" to Fox's claim of "up to 100 million small and large business policies could be canceled next year".

"Though the administration describes these accounts as anecdotal -- and has already delayed the employer mandate by a year -- studies suggest otherwise. "

On a quick side note, CBO studies don't "suggest otherwise." So, can we file this claim with all the other conservative claims or do you want to hold off for now?

Vern · Nov 18, 2014

LowDown said:
Mainly because existing policies don't meet ACA requirements, so they will have to be replaced with more expensive policies with bigger deductables, unneeded coverage, etc.

Also, there is the fact that in many cases employers will drop health care plans because they have become too expensive. There is the possibility that they will go to part time workers if they can to avoid the requirment to carry health insurance.

I know that in my case the plan I have doesn't cover pedi health (I have no young children) or obstetical benefits (also not needed) so I will be losing it.

So you plus 99,999,999 equals 100 million.

Mycroft · Nov 18, 2014

Vern said:
ignoring the rest of the rhetoric in your post, lets focus on this part. The delay of the mandate was "baked in" to Fox's claim of "up to 100 million small and large business policies could be canceled next year".

"Though the administration describes these accounts as anecdotal -- and has already delayed the employer mandate by a year -- studies suggest otherwise. "

On a quick side note, CBO studies don't "suggest otherwise." So, can we file this claim with all the other conservative claims or do you want to hold off for now?

Forget the CBO. That's just a case of GIGO...and they've admitted that.

What I find interesting, though, is that you ignored the reason that a whole bunch of people are going to be ****ed over...thanks to Obamacare...when the reason I gave you was something YOU asked for! Why did you ask for information and then just ignore it?

btw, the reason Obama delayed the employer mandate was for political purposes...not because he cared about American citizens. He was worried about the 2014 election. Too bad the people saw through his tricks and shellacked the Democrats anyway.

Vern · Nov 18, 2014

Mycroft said:
Forget the CBO. That's just a case of GIGO...and they've admitted that.

sorry that's just another conservative lie you obediently believe. Now back to the thread topic. It was based on a fox "editorial" that claimed "a second wave of 50 million to 100 million insurance policy cancellations next fall -- right before the mid-term elections. " Your first attempt explain the lack of 100 million cancelations was that the employer mandate was delayed. That was baked into Fox's predictable and predictably false prediction.

So try to focus on what we are discussing. Can we file this claim with all the other conservative claims or do you want to hold off for now?

Mycroft · Nov 18, 2014

Vern said:
sorry that's just another conservative lie you obediently believe.

Sorry...not a lie...rather, something the CBO themselves has said. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Now back to the thread topic. It was based on a fox "editorial" that claimed "a second wave of 50 million to 100 million insurance policy cancellations next fall -- right before the mid-term elections. " Your first attempt explain the lack of 100 million cancelations was that the employer mandate was delayed. That was baked into Fox's predictable and predictably false prediction.

So try to focus on what we are discussing. Can we file this claim with all the other conservative claims or do you want to hold off for now?

Actually, the thread topic is based on studies done both before and after Obama delayed the employer mandate. If you had read the linked articles you would know this.

btw, Fox didn't do the studies...they just reported on them. Your attempt to shift the issue to them is nothing more than avoidance and deflection.

So...do you want to actually discuss the issue? Or do you want to hold off for now?

Greenbeard · Nov 18, 2014

Mycroft said:
It's about the increased premiums the employers will have to pay when they are finally forced to provide Obamacare-compliant policies.

LowDown said:
Mainly because existing policies don't meet ACA requirements, so they will have to be replaced with more expensive policies with bigger deductables, unneeded coverage, etc.

"Obamacare-compliant" and "ACA requirements" here essentially refers to the requirement that employers of a certain size offer plans that are at least as comprehensive as a bronze tier plan. Which, as folks now seem to realize, isn't all that high a bar.

Other changes to employer-sponsored plans made by the law have already gone into effect. Anyone not in a grandfathered plan (and even some who are) already has a plan that meets all the ACA's requirements. Some of the main ones:

ACA Provision Relevant to Employer-Based Coverage	Applies to:	In Effect?
Elimination of: lifetime limits annual limits rescissions pre-existing condition exclusions Extension of coverage to dependents up to age 26 Provide standardized summary of benefits and coverage	All plans (even grandfathered)	Yes (implemented for plans years beginning after 9/23/10)
Requirements around nondiscrimination, appeals, coverage of preventive care, emergency services, choice of primary care provider, coverage of treatments provided as part of a clinical trial, reporting on quality and wellness programs; and cost-sharing limits (no out-of-pocket limits greater than the HDHP/HSA threshold in 2014, then indexed differently).	All non-grandfathered plans	Yes, for non-grandfathered plans
Offer essential health benefits	Only fully insured plans	Yes (all non-grandfathered commercial policies)
Limit on deductible: no higher than $2,000 for an individual, $4,000 for a family	Only fully insured small group	Repealed
Offer minimum essential coverage: At least 60% actuarial value (bronze-plan level) Affordable (self-only premiums < 9.5% employee income)	Employers with more than 50 employees	No--delayed (note: this is the employer mandate)

Unless you think 100 million people in employer-based plans don't have even a bronze-level of coverage (which, spoiler alert, is patently absurd--the average employer-based plan has an actuarial value in the gold to platinum range), I don't know what great upheaval you're expecting.

Mycroft · Nov 18, 2014

Greenbeard said:
"Obamacare-compliant" and "ACA requirements" here essentially refers to the requirement that employers of a certain size offer plans that are at least as comprehensive as a bronze tier plan. Which, as folks now seem to realize, isn't all that high a bar.

Other changes to employer-sponsored plans made by the law have already gone into effect. Anyone not in a grandfathered plan (and even some who are) already has a plan that meets all the ACA's requirements. Some of the main ones:

ACA Provision Relevant to Employer-Based Coverage Applies to: In Effect?
Elimination of:

lifetime limits

annual limits

rescissions

pre-existing condition exclusions

Extension of coverage to dependents up to age 26

Provide standardized summary of benefits and coverage All plans (even grandfathered) Yes (implemented for plans years beginning after 9/23/10)
Requirements around nondiscrimination, appeals, coverage of preventive care, emergency services, choice of primary care provider, coverage of treatments provided as part of a clinical trial, reporting on quality and wellness programs; and cost-sharing limits (no out-of-pocket limits greater than the HDHP/HSA threshold in 2014, then indexed differently). All non-grandfathered plans Yes, for non-grandfathered plans
Offer essential health benefits Only fully insured plans Yes (all non-grandfathered commercial policies)
Limit on deductible: no higher than $2,000 for an individual, $4,000 for a family Only fully insured small group Repealed
Offer minimum essential coverage:

At least 60% actuarial value (bronze-plan level)

Affordable (self-only premiums < 9.5% employee income)

Employers with more than 50 employees No--delayed (note: this is the employer mandate)

Unless you think 100 million people in employer-based plans don't have even a bronze-level of coverage (which, spoiler alert, is patently absurd--the average employer-based plan has an actuarial value in the gold to platinum range), I don't know what great upheaval you're expecting.

shrug...

I didn't conduct the studies. Places like American Enterprise Institute, Kaiser Family Foundation, S&P Capital IQ and even the US government did, though, and they all have bad news for the American people.

Vern · Nov 19, 2014

Mycroft said:
Sorry...not a lie...rather, something the CBO themselves has said. Look it up if you don't believe me.

a conservative once again posts “prove my claim”. everybody drink.

Actually, the thread topic is based on studies done both before and after Obama delayed the employer mandate.

mmm , the title of the thread is

50 to 100 million policies to be cancelled by ACA rules.

And the basis of the thread was the Fox “article” based on one study (not studies) from the “American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.” And that study (not studies) clearly stated “a second wave of 50 million to 100 million insurance policy cancellations next fall -- right before the mid-term elections. “ If you had read the linked article you would know this.

btw, Fox didn't do the studies...they just reported on them. Your attempt to shift the issue to them is nothing more than avoidance and deflection.

So...do you want to actually discuss the issue? Or do you want to hold off for now?

this is odd. I am discussing the thread issue. the issue is yet another ridiculous claim about Obamacare trumpeted in the conservative media. I simply pointing out that it yet another ridiculous claim about Obamacare trumpeted in the conservative media that turned out to be false. If you had read my posts you would know this.

Mycroft · Nov 19, 2014

Vern said:
a conservative once again posts “prove my claim”. everybody drink.

mmm , the title of the thread is

50 to 100 million policies to be cancelled by ACA rules.

And the basis of the thread was the Fox “article” based on one study (not studies) from the “American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.” And that study (not studies) clearly stated “a second wave of 50 million to 100 million insurance policy cancellations next fall -- right before the mid-term elections. “ If you had read the linked article you would know this.

this is odd. I am discussing the thread issue. the issue is yet another ridiculous claim about Obamacare trumpeted in the conservative media. I simply pointing out that it yet another ridiculous claim about Obamacare trumpeted in the conservative media that turned out to be false. If you had read my posts you would know this.

Watching you go through your contortions...your whirling dervish spinning...to do everything you can to avoid addressing those millions of people who are about to be upset because of Obama's lies. That's the second best thing about this thread.

Knowing that there are a lot of people around here who will honestly put the people ahead of the callous uncaring attitude of Obamacare, Obama...and his supporters. That's the best thing about this thread.

btw, the CBO thing...it's already been discussed to death in other threads. I'm not asking you to "prove my claim". I don't care if you do or not. I'm simply stating a fact. What's telling is that you haven't demanded that I "prove my claim". You just deny it. So it goes.

LowDown · Nov 19, 2014

Greenbeard said:
"Obamacare-compliant" and "ACA requirements" here essentially refers to the requirement that employers of a certain size offer plans that are at least as comprehensive as a bronze tier plan. Which, as folks now seem to realize, isn't all that high a bar.

Other changes to employer-sponsored plans made by the law have already gone into effect. Anyone not in a grandfathered plan (and even some who are) already has a plan that meets all the ACA's requirements. Some of the main ones:

ACA Provision Relevant to Employer-Based Coverage Applies to: In Effect?
Elimination of:

lifetime limits

annual limits

rescissions

pre-existing condition exclusions

Extension of coverage to dependents up to age 26

Provide standardized summary of benefits and coverage All plans (even grandfathered) Yes (implemented for plans years beginning after 9/23/10)
Requirements around nondiscrimination, appeals, coverage of preventive care, emergency services, choice of primary care provider, coverage of treatments provided as part of a clinical trial, reporting on quality and wellness programs; and cost-sharing limits (no out-of-pocket limits greater than the HDHP/HSA threshold in 2014, then indexed differently). All non-grandfathered plans Yes, for non-grandfathered plans
Offer essential health benefits Only fully insured plans Yes (all non-grandfathered commercial policies)
Limit on deductible: no higher than $2,000 for an individual, $4,000 for a family Only fully insured small group Repealed
Offer minimum essential coverage:

At least 60% actuarial value (bronze-plan level)

Affordable (self-only premiums < 9.5% employee income)

Employers with more than 50 employees No--delayed (note: this is the employer mandate)

Unless you think 100 million people in employer-based plans don't have even a bronze-level of coverage (which, spoiler alert, is patently absurd--the average employer-based plan has an actuarial value in the gold to platinum range), I don't know what great upheaval you're expecting.

No, there's more to it than that. Even the bronze plans include a lot of extra coverage that will cost people more. If you are so stinking rich that you don't need to worry about the expense I guess it would explain you being so glib about it. People who get thrown out onto the exchange will also enjoy having to pay for their insurance with after tax money since the IRS is threatening to fine any employer $36,000 who attempts to subsidize that insurance with before tax money.

Vern · Nov 19, 2014

Mycroft said:
Watching you go through your contortions...your whirling dervish spinning...to do everything you can to avoid addressing those millions of people who are about to be upset because of Obama's lies. That's the second best thing about this thread.

mmmm, ignoring your CBO deflections, I think we are almost on the same page here. I’m not avoiding “those millions of people who are about to be upset because of Obama's lies”. I’m simply pointing out that this “claim” was supposed to have happened already. If you had read the article you would know this. So the logical conclusion is that the conservative study (not studies) was wrong at best.

Now focus. don’t whine about the CBO. Don’t claim it was “studies”. don’t whine about me.

imagep · Nov 19, 2014

TheDemSocialist said:
"American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank".
So you are telling me that 1/3 of Americans are going to loose their healthcare? :roll:

Assumably many of those policies are family policies that cover more than one person, so it's more like 100% of us will lose our coverage (if it was true).

imagep · Nov 19, 2014

Vern said:
first let me apologize for the typo. Now that we've averted that crisis, I read both links. Neither was really clear about the mechanism that would cause employers to suddenly drop coverage only after it became law that they offer it. A simple explanation is all I ask. your "amazement" obviously means you understand perfectly, so can you explain it.

Because conservatives say so. That's why.

And they are always correct, gold is now $5000 an oz, oil is $500 a barrel, the value of the dollar has collapsed, unemployment is going up, the lfpr is dropping like a rock, and we are having hyper inflation.

imagep · Nov 19, 2014

Mycroft said:
It's about the increased premiums the employers will have to pay when they are finally forced to provide Obamacare-compliant policies. For most of them, it'll be cheaper to just drop that benefit and send their employees to the exchanges where the employee will have to eat the increase. That's where the estimated 50-100 million policy cancellations come in. If you thought it was bad when people found out they couldn't keep their insurance if they liked their insurance last year...just wait till next year.

For other employers...if they continue to provide that benefit...the employee will see their share of the premium increase which will take a bite our of their income.

This employer mandate was supposed to take effect last year but Obama...knowing he was going to take a lot of political heat...delayed the employer mandate for a year. Early 2015 is when it hits.

There is a ray of sunshine, though. The Republicans want to remove the employer mandate from Obamacare. If they can do that...if Obama doesn't veto it...that will help. A lot of "ifs", but it could happen.

It's ALWAYS been cheaper for employers to NOT provide insurance.

imagep · Nov 19, 2014

LowDown said:
Mainly because existing policies don't meet ACA requirements, so they will have to be replaced with more expensive policies with bigger deductables, unneeded coverage, etc.

Also, there is the fact that in many cases employers will drop health care plans because they have become too expensive. There is the possibility that they will go to part time workers if they can to avoid the requirment to carry health insurance.

I know that in my case the plan I have doesn't cover pedi health (I have no young children) or obstetical benefits (also not needed) so I will be losing it.

Higher deductibles should bring the prices down, not up. Unneeded coverage costs the insurance ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, because if it is unneeded, then there are no extra expenses to pay out (if you don't have children, then you won't be taking them to the doc will you?).

Perotista · Nov 19, 2014

LowDown said:
That's if the ACA works as planned.

This is going to be fun and heart rending to watch at the same time.

:boohoo: :wow: opcorn2: :scared:

what I have learned a long time ago nothing ends up being the panacea one side says it will be and it doesn't come close to the doom and gloom the other side says will happen. The truth is usually in the middle. But so far I think the ACA has been on the down side, closer to doom and gloom than to a panacea, but not coming close to the actual gloom and doom predicted.

But the bottom line is as long as the law is hurting more people than helping, it needs to go.

More Still Say Health Law Has Hurt Instead of Helped Them

And as far as public opinion:

As New Enrollment Period Starts, ACA Approval at 37%

Shouldn't any law dealing with health care go by the adage of do not harm, not do double harm?

LowDown · Nov 19, 2014

imagep said:
Higher deductibles should bring the prices down, not up. Unneeded coverage costs the insurance ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, because if it is unneeded, then there are no extra expenses to pay out (if you don't have children, then you won't be taking them to the doc will you?).

Higher deductions should result in lower costs, and a bronze plan costs less than a silver plan. But both cost significantly more than the plans they replaced.

To be fair I will point out that the cost of medical insurance was going up at a pretty rapid rate well before the ACA went into effect. The test will be in whether cost control measures in the ACA can bring the rate of increase down. It think so far the results are mixed, but it is probably too soon to tell. If people are not happy with their plans with their narrow networks and difficulty accessing care then politics will intervene and produce changes in the law that result in higher expenses, just like it did with Medicare.

I think that there is no avoiding increases in costs of orders of magnitude. It happens with every health program the government comes up with. The VA was supposed to be only for combat veterans and only to treat the wounds and diseases they got while serving. Now it's a comprehensive health care system for anyone who ever served taking care of all of their health care problems. Medicare was originally only supposed to cover hospital expenses back when those expenses were a lot lower in real terms (anyone remember $5 a day for a hospital stay?), and when people over 65 were a smaller group relative to the rest of the populatioin, and we all know what became of Medicare. And woe betides any politician who talks about cutting either one!

50 to 100 million policies to be cancelled by ACA rules.

back from Vegas

Curmudgeon

back from Vegas

Genius is where you find it.

back from Vegas

Genius is where you find it.

Curmudgeon

back from Vegas

back from Vegas

Genius is where you find it.

back from Vegas

Genius is where you find it.

Genius is where you find it.

back from Vegas

Genius is where you find it.

Curmudgeon

back from Vegas

Villiage Idiot

Villiage Idiot

Villiage Idiot

Villiage Idiot

Curmudgeon