PDA

View Full Version : How many people will have a gap in medical coverage?



genglandoh
11-12-2013, 10:27 AM
At first I did not think the Obamacare website problems were that big an issue.
I assumed that the tech guys would get it fixed with time.

But I forgot to think the problem all the way through.
We know
1. Millions of people are getting their health insurance cancelled.
2. The website is not working well and it is making it very hard to find out the Obamacare options.

The issue I see is many will have a gap in their coverage from the time being cancelled to getting new coverage.
This is a major problem for people who are on any kind of continuous medical treatment.

I have to wonder how many cancer patients or elderly people will have major problems.

Mrleft8
11-12-2013, 10:40 AM
Calling the toll free phone number works amazingly well, Graham, you ought to give it a try if you can't access the website...... Assuming of course that you need to access it because you are currently uninsured, and not just because you want to see if you can clog up the system just a little bit more....

TomF
11-12-2013, 10:41 AM
How many will have viable health insurance, who never had actual meaningful coverage before?

ccmanuals
11-12-2013, 10:49 AM
At first I did not think the Obamacare website problems were that big an issue.
I assumed that the tech guys would get it fixed with time.

But I forgot to think the problem all the way through.
We know
1. Millions of people are getting their health insurance cancelled.
2. The website is not working well and it is making it very hard to find out the Obamacare options.

The issue I see is many will have a gap in their coverage from the time being cancelled to getting new coverage.
This is a major problem for people who are on any kind of continuous medical treatment.

I have to wonder how many cancer patients or elderly people will have major problems.

If you wanted to get health care and had problems with the web site why wouldn't you just call them up. You get a real live person on the phone. Or you could just complain about the web site and do nothing and hope you don't get sick.

peb
11-12-2013, 11:00 AM
At first I did not think the Obamacare website problems were that big an issue.
I assumed that the tech guys would get it fixed with time.

But I forgot to think the problem all the way through.
We know
1. Millions of people are getting their health insurance cancelled.
2. The website is not working well and it is making it very hard to find out the Obamacare options.

The issue I see is many will have a gap in their coverage from the time being cancelled to getting new coverage.
This is a major problem for people who are on any kind of continuous medical treatment.

I have to wonder how many cancer patients or elderly people will have major problems.

Yes, this is a major risk of the system we have now. To those who say, use a phone, that is not working well now due to both limited personnel and SW problems at the call center sites. Their throughput is not nearly high enough to handle the number of people loosing coverage. The system was implemented such that the web-site would be the main exchange. As Obama said: it should be as easy as shopping online for a plane ticket.

If people are like me, their previous policy terminates on Dec 31, that means a new one needs purchased by then, not the March date we always are told is the deadline. If someone looses their coverage and qualifies for a subsidy to buy a new policy, they are in quite a bind.

peb
11-12-2013, 11:02 AM
The answer: millions fewer than the cancer patients or elderly people who up to now, had NO insurance.

Oh, so it just tough luck, if through no fault of your own, your existing and adequate policy is terminated and the government is not prepared to sell you a new one?

Libs are really cold, heartless people

ccmanuals
11-12-2013, 11:10 AM
Oh, so it just tough luck, if through no fault of your own, your existing and adequate policy is terminated and the government is not prepared to sell you a new one?

Libs are really cold, heartless people

We both know that the government is not selling policies. We also know that insurance companies in the past could not only raise rates at will but could cancel policies at will. What I don't understand is how can anyone blame the government for the bad behavior of insurance companies.

TomF
11-12-2013, 11:11 AM
Oh, so it just tough luck, if through no fault of your own, your existing and adequate policy is terminated and the government is not prepared to sell you a new one?

Libs are really cold, heartless peopleIs it "adequate" to meet actual risks? You sure?

In Canada, universal health insurance started because a Premier got tired of seeing people go bankrupt from medical costs - even people holding what they'd imagined were "adequate" private plans. Damned heartless, I agree. Even more heartless when a version of the program was picked up nationally.

Obama's ACA website has been a bust so far, I agree. That seems less "cold and heartless" and more poor implementation ... aided by the efforts of his adversaries where possible.

OTOH, it does not seem heartless at all to require private insurers to offer only services which meet at least minimum standards of coverage. Or to require them to insure even people with pre-existing conditions. Or to take steps intended to greatly increase the number of citizens who actually have coverage at all.

Ask Mitt Romney if his reforms were cold and heartless.

Mrleft8
11-12-2013, 11:14 AM
"Let Him Die"

158
26
0
A debate question exposes the incoherence—and cowardice—of the Republican candidates' opposition to Obamacare.
By Jacob Weisberg
Republican presidential candidates Jon Huntsman, Herman Cain, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Gov. Rick Perry, Rep. Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum at the Sept. 12 debates Republican presidential candidates Jon Huntsman, Herman Cain, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Gov. Rick Perry, Rep. Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum at the Sept. 12 debates

Wolf Blitzer put a terrific question to Rep. Ron Paul at last night's CNN/Tea Party Express Republican debate in Tampa, Fla. What should happen, the moderator asked hypothetically, if a healthy 30-year-old man who can afford insurance chooses not to buy it—and then becomes catastrophically ill and needs intensive care for six months? When Dr. Paul ducked, fondly recalling the good old days before Medicare and saying that we should all take responsibility for ourselves, Blitzer pressed the point. "But, Congressman, are you saying the society should just let him die?" At that point, the rabble erupted in cheers and whoops of "Yeah!"
Jacob Weisberg Jacob Weisberg

Jacob Weisberg is chairman and editor-in-chief of The Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy. Follow him on Twitter.

Follow

This was indeed an appalling, mob-mentality moment—more medieval, even, than the crowd applauding Gov. Rick Perry for winning the death-penalty derby at the previous debate. What it clarified, however, was less the cruelty of the Tea Party crowd than the absurdity of the health-care positions of all of the Republican candidates. The GOP contenders relentlessly attack "Obamacare" as "socialized medicine." But they won't speak up for either of the other two choices available to them: the arguably more socialized system we have hitherto lived with or the Blitzer option of letting the uninsured die in the streets.

Let's walk through our options.

The first is a system with an individual mandate of the kind included in the Obama bill, or what Romney enacted in Massachusetts in 2006. Under this kind of system, individuals are not given a choice about whether to insure themselves. If they fail to meet the insurance requirement, they pay money, which you can call a fine or a tax, as you prefer. Under this alternative, the costs incurred by Blitzer's young man are not broadly socialized because they are covered by the fine on those who avoid signing up for insurance.

The second option is our current system, or other systems without mandates. In this universe, our hypothetical young man receives at least emergency care because hospitals are required to treat the urgently ill without regard for their ability to pay, thanks to a bill signed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. But the costs of his treatment are not absorbed by the hospitals. They are passed on to consumers, employers, and the government in the form of higher insurance premiums. One 2009 study estimated the cost absorbed by those who are insured for those who aren't at $1,100 per family. This is one of the ways in which the pre-Obama health care system is socialized—indirectly, inefficiently, and unfairly.

The third option is that of the Tampa Tea Party mob: Let the young man go to the devil. You can sugar-coat this, as Ron Paul tried to, by suggesting that private charity will step in to help. But we no longer have an extensive system of charity hospitals. If emergency rooms treat the uninsured, whether because of a legal requirement or because they are good Samaritans, they will be passing the bulk of the cost along to the rest of us—and we're back to our current system of socializing the costs of treatments for the uninsured.

Of the Republican candidates, only Romney clearly supports a version of the first choice: the mandate. To his credit, the bill Romney signed in Massachusetts has led to his state having the lowest percentage of uninsured people in the country. Where his current position falls into absurdity is in its race for a federalist life-raft. Romney now says that states should come up with their own systems, the way his did. But each state having its own health care system would be the bureaucratic nightmare to end all nightmares. And unless you believe all 50 states will embrace individual mandates (and many clearly will not), the costs produced by Blitzer's hypothetical young man will continue to be socialized in ways not strictly circumscribed by state borders.

Jon Huntsman has moved from the first to the second category. In Utah, Huntsman preferred a plan with an individual mandate. But he lost that fight with his legislature. Without a mandate, his bill has been far less effective at covering the uninsured than the one in Massachusetts. Fourteen percent of Utah's population remains uninsured, compared with only 5 percent in Massachusetts. Huntsman touts his system as superior to Romney's because it has no mandate. But the real distinction is that in addition to not doing much for the uninsured, it continues to pass along their expenses to the rest of society.

Newt Gingrich's position is muddle and gibberish, if anyone even cares. Historically, Gingrich has supported an individual mandate. In May, he went on Meet the Press and told David Gregory that health insurance should be required, like automobile insurance. People should either buy it or "post a bond" (a version of a mandate). But then the right wing went nuts, and Gingrich posted a video saying, "I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone, because it is fundamentally wrong and, I believe, unconstitutional."

Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann seem to share some version of Ron Paul's libertarian position that death is a great instructor of personal responsibility. Details remain to be worked out around the disposal of corpses and the distribution of orphans. But, say what you will, theirs is not a socialist approach.

Jacob Weisberg is chairman and editor-in-chief of The Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy. Follow him on Twitter.

peb
11-12-2013, 11:18 AM
TomF, I had one of these deductible, no limit policies that was perfectly adequate for my family. And I can prove it. In 2009, went through a catastrophic illness in the family. I could not tell you the total medical bill, as I did not need to track it, but it was likely in the upper 6 figures.
At the end of the day, it covered everything it was supposed to ( and more actually).

The idea that most people who have been buying their own insurance were buying bad policies and leaving themselves at risk for bankruptcy is, to be perfectly honest, insulting. Liberal elitism at its worse.

genglandoh
11-12-2013, 11:24 AM
Yes, this is a major risk of the system we have now. To those who say, use a phone, that is not working well now due to both limited personnel and SW problems at the call center sites. Their throughput is not nearly high enough to handle the number of people loosing coverage. The system was implemented such that the web-site would be the main exchange. As Obama said: it should be as easy as shopping online for a plane ticket.

If people are like me, their previous policy terminates on Dec 31, that means a new one needs purchased by then, not the March date we always are told is the deadline. If someone looses their coverage and qualifies for a subsidy to buy a new policy, they are in quite a bind.

Thank you for understanding my point.

As I see it there are 2 groups of people in this bind.
1. Healthy people who can wait until the Government exchanges are working better.
This is a risk because you are hoping you do not get sick.
2. Unhealthy people who are on treatment today.
This is the group who are at great risk and will have a major problem.

Just to review the numbers.
4-5 Million people have gotten cancellation notices.
50,0000 people have signed up on the exchanges.

I am assuming the problems in signing up in the exchanges will be fixed with time.

TomF
11-12-2013, 11:24 AM
The idea that most people who have been buying their own insurance were buying bad policies and leaving themselves at risk for bankruptcy is, to be perfectly honest, insulting. Liberal elitism at its worse.Peb, the actual fact in Canada was that people were going bankrupt as a direct result of medical bills, despite having insurance they believed would cover them.

An actual fact about the US today is that medical costs are among the leading causes of bankruptcy, even for those with insurance they believe will cover them. I am very glad to hear that in your case, your insurance worked quite differently.

This is not Liberal elitism, it's just the numbers.

Soundbounder
11-12-2013, 11:29 AM
Lefty and Norman stole my thunder.

I love how those on the right are suddenly concerned with people having a gap in their medical coverage.
Shameless!

John Smith
11-12-2013, 11:41 AM
Yes, this is a major risk of the system we have now. To those who say, use a phone, that is not working well now due to both limited personnel and SW problems at the call center sites. Their throughput is not nearly high enough to handle the number of people loosing coverage. The system was implemented such that the web-site would be the main exchange. As Obama said: it should be as easy as shopping online for a plane ticket.

If people are like me, their previous policy terminates on Dec 31, that means a new one needs purchased by then, not the March date we always are told is the deadline. If someone looses their coverage and qualifies for a subsidy to buy a new policy, they are in quite a bind.

I fully expect if the website is not fully functional soon, some compromises will have to be made. One such compromise is your insurance company will HAVE to keep your old policy in place.

If you think the entire thing will be repealed because of this relatively small number of people with this problem, you're just wrong.

You're also losing credibility, as all the people I've seen tell us horror stories, once an honest reporter got involved, found better insurance a comparable, or lower, premium.

John Smith
11-12-2013, 11:45 AM
TomF, I had one of these deductible, no limit policies that was perfectly adequate for my family. And I can prove it. In 2009, went through a catastrophic illness in the family. I could not tell you the total medical bill, as I did not need to track it, but it was likely in the upper 6 figures.
At the end of the day, it covered everything it was supposed to ( and more actually).

The idea that most people who have been buying their own insurance were buying bad policies and leaving themselves at risk for bankruptcy is, to be perfectly honest, insulting. Liberal elitism at its worse.

And if your company decided to cancel you, or decides to cancel you, and your pre-existing condition prevents you from getting another policy, how would you feel?

John Smith
11-12-2013, 11:47 AM
I'd like to repeat something that seems to draw little response. Is it not the JOB of every elected official to help implement and enforce a LAW? Is it not likely that if all the elected people did the job they are supposed to do, the ACA would much more widely accepted and the websites functioning better?

Concordia 33
11-12-2013, 11:50 AM
I'd like to repeat something that seems to draw little response. Is it not the JOB of every elected official to help implement and enforce a LAW? Is it not likely that if all the elected people did the job they are supposed to do, the ACA would much more widely accepted and the websites functioning better?

Absolutely, but why cherry pick with that. Presidents (of both parties) have selectively enforced laws that were enacted. If a bill has been approved by the house and senate, shouldn't it be the President's job to enforce that law?

John Smith
11-12-2013, 11:55 AM
Absolutely, but why cherry pick with that. Presidents (of both parties) have selectively enforced laws that were enacted. If a bill has been approved by the house and senate, shouldn't it be the President's job to enforce that law?

It is the Executive Branch that enforces laws. Prosecutors, in enforcing laws, have some discretional leeway.

Pretty much all other elected people should be helpful in providing information about, and getting a law enforced.

Just as you can to go any congressional reps office and get help with any problems you may be having with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans benefits, etc. you SHOULD be able to go to any congressional rep's office and get honest data and help with the ACA. Would you disagree with that?

TomF
11-12-2013, 12:02 PM
...Just as you can to go any congressional reps office and get help with any problems you may be having with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans benefits, etc. you SHOULD be able to go to any congressional rep's office and get honest data and help with the ACA. Would you disagree with that?He will in 5 years, with just as much vigor as folks now wanting to ensure appropriate access to Medicare.

In a few years time, when some version of Universal Coverage is under discussion, the then Reps will be telling people to keep their hands off a program which will by then be fiercely embraced by the base.

genglandoh
11-12-2013, 12:16 PM
I think the problem was in the basic concept that people with policies that the Government decided are poor must be cancelled.

The way this was implemented was with the grandfather clause.
The details of the Grandfather clause was not part of the law it was created in a regulation (no congressional vote, no executive order) by the department of Health and Human Services.

So I would do the following to fix the problem.
1. Change the Grandfather Regulation to allow all existing programs.
I think because it is a regulation it can be changed.
This would stop any new people from getting cancelled.
It would also help Obama by supporting his statement that if you like you program you can keep it.
People would still have the option to move to the exchanges but it would be their option.
2. Work like **** to get the exchanges working.
This is the only solution for the people who already are cancelled.

See below for info.
Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance
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.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

ccmanuals
11-12-2013, 12:23 PM
The counter argument is why shouldn't the gov't in creating a health care reform law establish a basic minimum of coverage? That's what states do with auto insurance. By doing this doesn't this in fact create a consumer protection so you don't get ripped off by insurance companies?

TomF
11-12-2013, 12:27 PM
So if that were done, and all existing insurance policies were accepted ... what should happen when some of them turn out to provide no barrier to bankruptcy? That is, they turn out to NOT be actual insurance, as defined by the functioning of other "real" policies out there? Again, this isn't idle speculation - it's the history which prompted Canada's adoption of universal coverage.

Who should pay for the cost of the care for these people? Currently, it's the taxpayer. Or nobody.

genglandoh
11-12-2013, 12:34 PM
The counter argument is why shouldn't the gov't in creating a health care reform law establish a basic minimum of coverage? That's what states do with auto insurance. By doing this doesn't this in fact create a consumer protection so you don't get ripped off by insurance companies?

No problem.

The Obamacare exchanges would have the new policies with the new level of coverage.
If in fact they are better and at a lower price then people would naturally move to these policies.

peb
11-12-2013, 12:37 PM
I fully expect if the website is not fully functional soon, some compromises will have to be made. One such compromise is your insurance company will HAVE to keep your old policy in place.

If you think the entire thing will be repealed because of this relatively small number of people with this problem, you're just wrong.

You're also losing credibility, as all the people I've seen tell us horror stories, once an honest reporter got involved, found better insurance a comparable, or lower, premium.

I never said that I think the whole thing would be repealed. All I have ever done is point out the obvious problems with the implementation of the law, and since last spring, all you guys have said is that it was fear-mongering, none of the bad predictions would come true. It was pointed out on this very forum that they were way behind during the summer. You guys laughed.

It was pointed out in September that the personal mandate would need to be delayed, which was again discounted as not going to happen. Now that will happen and it will just be a "compromise that has to be made".

We will not know, for quite sometime IMO, the extent that these roll out problems are due to poor execution or are an inevitable result of poorly written legislation.

TomF
11-12-2013, 12:44 PM
No problem.

The Obamacare exchanges would have the new policies with the new level of coverage.
If in fact they are better and at a lower price then people would naturally move to these policies.Again, what happens when someone finds out the hard way that their coverage isn't written the way Peb's was?

Who pays for the coverage then, when the insurance they thought would cover them ... doesn't? Do they just go bankrupt?

ccmanuals
11-12-2013, 12:45 PM
No problem.

The Obamacare exchanges would have the new policies with the new level of coverage.
If in fact they are better and at a lower price then people would naturally move to these policies.

We agree. Good. The problem is as I see it though is a lot of people don't believe their lying eyes. :)

peb
11-12-2013, 04:13 PM
Again, what happens when someone finds out the hard way that their coverage isn't written the way Peb's was?

Who pays for the coverage then, when the insurance they thought would cover them ... doesn't? Do they just go bankrupt?

TomF, you act as if there was no legal basis, regulation, or contract law in place before. The simple fact is, there were only 2 or 3 variables one needed to understand:

The deductible, per person, pet family
The split % in care until the deductible was met
The max out of pocket yearly expense
The max payment per lifetime ( it wasn't expensive to make this unlimited)

Find out the hard way? What are you taking about. My out of pocket expenses cam in around 2 grand under the advertised rate. It could have been 2k worse that year. Not going to drive anyone to bankruptcy

TomF
11-12-2013, 04:16 PM
Peb, the facts are simply that even among those with what they consider to be good medical insurance, medical costs are the largest cause of bankruptcy in the US. Somehow, the existing provisions aren't cutting it for many policy holders, to say nothing of the millions without any insurance.

As I said in an earlier post, I'm glad that your insurance was written in a way that it provided what your family needed. Unfortunately, it is far from always the case.

What would you propose for people who find themselves in that situation?

ccmanuals
11-12-2013, 04:16 PM
TomF, you act as if there was no legal basis, regulation, or contract law in place before. The simple fact is, there were only 2 or 3 variables one needed to understand:

The deductible, per person, pet family
The split % in care until the deductible was met
The max out of pocket yearly expense
The max payment per lifetime ( it wasn't expensive to make this unlimited)

Find out the hard way? What are you taking about. My out of pocket expenses cam in around 2 grand under the advertised rate. It could have been 2k worse that year. Not going to drive anyone to bankruptcy

I think the bankruptcy part came after the insurance company would deny your catastrophic claim due to a preexisting condition like measles in the 2nd grade.

David G
11-12-2013, 04:22 PM
As with most of the FrightNight tactics fomented by the lying, cynical right for the idiot right... this one is likely bootless.

I do get tired of the lies, the empty threats, and the scare tactics:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/04/bogus-obamacare-victim-converted/

peb
11-12-2013, 04:42 PM
I think the bankruptcy part came after the insurance company would deny your catastrophic claim due to a preexisting condition like measles in the 2nd grade.

What a joke. In this state it was pretty much the case that the insurance co had one shot at underwriting the policy. The only way the state insurance board would side with the insurance co if it was demonstrably true that someone had lied on an application.

TomF
11-12-2013, 04:43 PM
Apparently 2M Americans are expected to be bankrupted by medical bills this year; about 20% of Americans will encounter medical bills they can't pay off within one year. Not only those without insurance either.

It seems odd, Peb, that you're persisting in deriding these numbers, yet you call Liberals cold hearted.

peb
11-12-2013, 04:46 PM
I read about one guy who was denied coverage because he had acne as a kid, and had used Acutane to treat it.

Except the people who don't have the two grand. A remarkable number of working people live paycheck to paycheck.

Learn to follow a conversation norm. The issue being discussed is not denial if a policy due to précis ting condition, the issue is if we were smart enough to know if a policy was adequate or not.

As to your second paragraph, again, the max out if pocket should be enough to know if one can deal with an illness.

TomF
11-12-2013, 04:53 PM
Learn to follow a conversation norm. The issue being discussed is not denial if a policy due to précis ting condition, the issue is if we were smart enough to know if a policy was adequate or not...Should people with IQs under 120 or so not be entitled to fair health insurance too?

peb
11-13-2013, 10:03 AM
What percentage of the population IS smart enough to know that... and what do you do about the ones who arent... and whose bad judgment just raises the costs for everyone?

.

This is one of the big differences (maybe the most important one) between political liberals and conservatives. To the question "can I afford a maximum out-of-pocket of X?", a very basic personal finance question, liberals actually believe that the average person on the street is not smart enough to figure it out. Hence, the government has to be a nanny state and make some of our most basic decisions for us.
It is a view of people/society that I find quite horrible. I think there is no end to the danger that exists when society is structured in such a way that assumes there are a few smart people, and a mass of stupid people, and hence, the smart people have to have all of the control.
Both TomF and Norman have amply demonstrated it on this thread, and of course it goes a long ways towards explaining their adoration of Obama, who exemplifies the "I am the smartest person in the room" complex.

TomF
11-13-2013, 10:23 AM
What TomF's "amply demonstrated" is that there are many examples, both historical and current, of people going bankrupt because they have no medical insurance, or the medical insurance they have does not do what they were led to believe. Despite being able to ask/answer the "very basic personal finance question" you've described.

We have many examples, both historical and current, of insurance policies being written in such a way to disproportionately benefit the insurance company at the expense of the individuals who thought they were buying protection. In some cases, the business model depends on the wording being intentionally opaque.

It frequently takes someone with legal expertise to hash such things out - which the average person in the street does not have. This is why minimum requirements on insurance policies are a good idea, if you are to have private insurance. And why every developed nation except yours has gone to some version of public insurance, or a hybrid.

genglandoh
11-13-2013, 11:02 AM
If you wanted to get health care and had problems with the web site why wouldn't you just call them up. You get a real live person on the phone. Or you could just complain about the web site and do nothing and hope you don't get sick.

Do you really think this is helpful calling people too stupid to use the phone?

The facts are that people included the 50,000 trained navigators are having trouble signing up for Obamacare.

50,000 trained navigators, a website, a phone number with live people and we only got 50,000 signed up in the first month.

ccmanuals
11-13-2013, 03:56 PM
Do you really think this is helpful calling people too stupid to use the phone?

The facts are that people included the 50,000 trained navigators are having trouble signing up for Obamacare.

50,000 trained navigators, a website, a phone number with live people and we only got 50,000 signed up in the first month.

do you really think it's helpful to only point out problems and never solutions?

genglandoh
11-13-2013, 07:06 PM
do you really think it's helpful to only point out problems and never solutions?

I give my solution in post #24


I think the problem was in the basic concept that people with policies that the Government decided are poor must be cancelled.

The way this was implemented was with the grandfather clause.
The details of the Grandfather clause was not part of the law it was created in a regulation (no congressional vote, no executive order) by the department of Health and Human Services.

So I would do the following to fix the problem.
1. Change the Grandfather Regulation to allow all existing programs.
I think because it is a regulation it can be changed.
This would stop any new people from getting cancelled.
It would also help Obama by supporting his statement that if you like you program you can keep it.
People would still have the option to move to the exchanges but it would be their option.
2. Work like **** to get the exchanges working.
This is the only solution for the people who already are cancelled.

See below for info.
Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance
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.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

John Smith
11-13-2013, 07:11 PM
Let's see if I get this right. Thanks to Obamacare, people are having policies cancelled because those policies don't meet the minimum standards of the ACA. Prior to the ACA people were having the policies cancelled because they got sick and needed them.

And we're supposed to believe this is worse, why?

genglandoh
11-13-2013, 07:18 PM
Let's see if I get this right. Thanks to Obamacare, people are having policies cancelled because those policies don't meet the minimum standards of the ACA. Prior to the ACA people were having the policies cancelled because they got sick and needed them.

And we're supposed to believe this is worse, why?

The insurance policies that are being cancelled are not junk policies.
They are policies that the Government does not like.

Here are some examples of people who are active in the health system.
They should know if their insurance is junk or not and they liked their insurance.
But that does not matter their programs are being cancelled.

1. A retired Nurse
Colorado Woman Who Championed Obamacare Loses Insurance Plan
Wagner and her husband retired early. She was a nurse for 35 years and championed Obamacare, until she received a letter from her insurance company saying it was canceling her policy.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/11/0...nsurance-plan/ (http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/11/08/colorado-woman-who-championed-obamacare-loses-insurance-plan/)

2. A seven year stage-4 cancer survivor
You Also Can't Keep Your Doctor
I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I'll live.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...71710423780446 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446)

3. Another nurse who has been battling cancer for 6 years
Cancer patient: I'm losing my insurance
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101170381

Shang
11-13-2013, 07:35 PM
At first I did not think the Obamacare website problems were that big an issue.
I assumed that the tech guys would get it fixed with time.

But I forgot to think the problem all the way through.
We know
1. Millions of people are getting their health insurance cancelled.
2. The website is not working well and it is making it very hard to find out the Obamacare options.

The issue I see is many will have a gap in their coverage from the time being cancelled to getting new coverage.
This is a major problem for people who are on any kind of continuous medical treatment.

I have to wonder how many cancer patients or elderly people will have major problems.

Why are you pretending that you care about anyone who might be having difficulties signing up for health care?
It is perfectly obvious that you do not.
Clearly you are not signing up yourself, nor do you have any friends or relatives who are in this situation.
Presumably you will say or do anything you can to oppose the president.
You are a fraud.

genglandoh
11-13-2013, 07:47 PM
Why are you pretending that you care about anyone who might be having difficulties signing up for health care?
It is perfectly obvious that you do not.
Clearly you are not signing up yourself, nor do you have any friends or relatives who are in this situation.
Presumably you will say or do anything you can to oppose the president.
You are a fraud.

You are completely wrong about me.

Please reread my posts and you will see.
1. I gave Obama a pass on the website problems
2. I point out the people who are on treatment today are at the greatest risk
3. I gave my solution to the problem
This solution even helps Obama

George Jung
11-13-2013, 07:55 PM
I wonder if Scot would consider implementing some sort of limit on how many identical threads any one person can start here; ol 'Dutch' is outdoing himself! Cut it out!

Cuyahoga Chuck
11-13-2013, 08:59 PM
Lefty and Norman stole my thunder.

I love how those on the right are suddenly concerned with people having a gap in their medical coverage.
Shameless!

And the Righties ignore the fact that in excess of 50% of all bankrupcies are caused by catastrophic medical bills.