Next week, Republicans will present a bill to restore health coverage to previous status.

[kentuck]

In other words, one more attempt to repeal Obamacare.

Democrats might go along with the idea of restoring all canceled policies to their previous status, due to political pressures? Would that be a mistake?

But if the folks want it, they might get it? The old saying, "Be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.

Eventually those that were canceled will see that they are paying for nothing and will switch to a more comprehensive plan at similar or lower prices.

Should the President and the Democrats make any concessions at all on the ACA legislation? Should they agree with the Republicans to add an amendment to the law, in regards to the canceled policies?

[JaneyVee]

1. Never trust a Republican.

[Thinkingabout]

2. I don't think this would be a good idea because those under insured and not insured

Will still be getting their health care on the backs of others. Probably the policies being canceled are junk and the insurance companies knows they do not pay. In the full implementation of ACA our coverage and premiums should be closer to the real cost of healthcare. When the savings are shown side by side I think Obamacare will be the winner.

[Tx4obama]

3. It will NOT happen. Some insurance companies have pulled out of some areas ...

... and they are NOT going to give folks policies that they've completely canceled and no longer offer anymore.

Government can not make insurance companies to give policies that they don't want to.

[B2G]

4. Isn't Mary Landrieu a cosponsor?

Other Dems are talking about this too.

[kentuck]

5. I think so.

Louisiana is a tough challenge for Mary Landrieu.

[B2G]

6. I don't think they're going to have a choice

If a policy was cancelled but they can't enroll, what will they do?

More importantly, will the insurance companies be able to reinstate those policies by Jan. 1? And contact everyone they sent cancellation letters to to see if they want to reinstate them?

This is turning into a cluster.

[kentuck]

7. And will the insurance roll back prices to last year's? Or to 2010?

And what will these policy holders be expecting from their previous policy? Same price?

[B2G]

8. I would think under the same terms as 2013

If they knew they were going to be cancelled, I doubt they worked up the 2014 numbers.

It's a mess.

[kentuck]

9. But didn't these folks receive huge increases last year?

Weren't they complaining about those before they got their cancellation letters??

[B2G]

10. I have no idea. I haven't heard anything about that.

Maybe you have?

[kentuck]

13. I have heard stories of premiums increasing by good amounts.

I don't know if it was "individual" policies or some other??

[B2G]

15. That complaint was about the replacement policies

they were being steered towards, not the cancelled ones.

[kentuck]

16. But they paid those higher premiums last year?

Or they would have been canceled at that time, right?

Then they got their cancellation notice or a huge increase in premium this year?

[B2G]

17. No.

They were cancelled because they violated the grandfather clause rules.

[kentuck]

22. I think the deficiency in the law ....

was that the "grandfather" rule was not clearly defined. Since these individual plans were written for only one year at a time, the insurance companies did not treat them the same as other policies. And they ran up the prices big time.

[Motown_Johnny]

11. Aren't most policies already "Grandfathered" in?

I am not against changing the date that policies were grandfathered in from 2010 to 12/31/2013.



That one change would make the "If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance" statement true.

Some insurance companies will still cancel policies, but that happens anyways. Changing that one date will allow us to show that we did everything possible to help people keep their plans.


People will end up changing policies anyways, some sooner than others but this change is forever. We can play the long game on this one. Eventually all the old policies will be replaced.



It will also force the (R)s into making a change to the law that isn't a repeal. Maybe that will get the ball rolling.

[B2G]

14. But those policies have already been cancelled

[kentuck]

19. I think the problem is because they are only written for one year at a time.

Normally, 40-50% canceled every year anyway, is my understanding.

[B2G]

20. Well that's true of all policies

You have to reenroll for employer based insurance too. Terms change every year.

[kentuck]

23. But the changes in employer plans are not so dramatic...

...that 40-50% cancel out each year.

[B2G]

25. The individual market is different

The customer base is completely different. Alot of folks buy these policies as a bridge between jobs because Cobra is so expensive. It's a far more transient market than employer based healthcare.

The issue with the grandfather clause is that policies couldn't have changed within very strict margins since 2010 and still qualify. An example is that if a copay went up more that $5 in the past 3 years, that plan wouldn't qualify to be grandfathered.

The grandfather rules are very strict and very narrow, which is why you're seeing estimates of 8 million or so policies being cancelled, about half of all in the individual market.

[kentuck]

32. Who is to blame...?

for this misunderstanding?

[B2G]

33. It's not a misunderstanding

It's how the law was written. Right or wrong, it's in there and was analyzed in 2010.

[kentuck]

36. Was it the grandfather clause?

And could they re-write it with some clarification that could resolve the canceled policy issue?

[B2G]

37. Probably, but

You know how fast things go in DC.

[Hoyt]

28. Cancelled as of December 31. So they could easily be uncanceled.

Not sure it's a good idea, but it could be done. I bet a bunch of the complainers would buy an exchange policy anyway now that they realize what a piece of crud they have.

[B2G]

30. Easily? No

They need to be reinstated. That requires system updates. Then they have to notify everyone who received a cancellation notice and see if they want their policy reinstated and then reenroll if they do.

All of this takes time which is rapidly sliping away.

[B2G]

18. About half of them qualified

Half did not.

[spanone]

12. hell, 'the folks', like me, don't know enough to wish for anything.

[Swede Atlanta]

21. I don't see this working.........

The whole premise of the ACA is that it is based on private insurance.....

The ACA states that any policy in effect in 2010 CAN continue to be offered after 2013 under a grandfather clause. It gives the insurer the option to continue to offer a policy that does not meet the new stricter minimums of the ACA.

Congress cannot mandate that a private insurer offer the same policy that was in effect in 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013 at the same price and under the same terms. That would meet a court challenge in a heartbeat.

So where does that leave us? The only other way to get around this would be to drop the minimum coverage provisions of the ACA. That would allow insurers to renew and issue new junk policies that are a ripoff for consumers. One can argue that policy holders should be able to buy whatever they want on the open market. The problem is when they ultimately need coverage and their policy doesn't cover their needs then those of us who are paying for decent coverage or obtain it through our employers foot the bill.

Hopefully this is rejected as a bad policy decision.

Another way to get there would be to clearly identify those who are subject to these cancellations and provide broader subsidies - i.e. cover the difference or a large part of the difference between what they were paying for a junk policy and an ACA minimum-coverage policy for up to 3-5 years - providing a transition period. I would prefer that approach.

[kentuck]

24. I tend to agree that this is the biggest challenge.

Attempting to join together a government program with the insurance marketplace. It's like mixing oil and water. It would have been easier and better to simply make it a government, single-payer program and not pollute it with profits and market incentives. They would call it socialism but it would work.

[Lex]

27. Apparently Germany has a fairly good system

that is like Obamacare, but the private insurance companies have heavy oversight from the government so they don't gouge/rip-off their insureds.

[Lex]

26. This is just for show

because it seems non-workable. Are the R's going to force the insurance companies to put policies back into effect? I doubt it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

31. Why that would be gubmint-run healthcare, wouldn't it????

I'm getting dizzy..........

[Lex]

34. Me too. First they were pissed off that people could sign up for Obamacare then

they were pissed off that people couldn't.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

35. Looking for ideological consistency and intellectual honesty among Republicans

is HARDER than trying to find a needle in a haystack

and you can quote me on that!!!

[bhikkhu]

29. Well, that sounds a bit like dictatorial government meddling in private business

...but if it saves people money, the repugs are welcome to lead the charge.