Why aren't Dems and Progressives going on OFFENSE on the INSURANCE COMPANIES for not complying?

[RBInMaine]

For Christ sake, this is what always happens. Instead of "apologizing" (though I know he was just saying he was feeling bad that some consumers were getting policy cancellations and it is a hassle), Obama should from the get-go have said, "No one would be getting a policy cancellation if the INSURANCE COMPANIES had brought the policies up to standards and they have had TONS of time to do it. Also, what the media isn't saying is that many of these companies cancelling certain policies, in the same letters, are offering policies that DO conform. Also, remember that people will be getting subsidies to buy new and BETTER plans either from the same company or on the exchange, and also remember that a good number of plans whose companies made just a few improvements to DID get grandfathered. Grandfathering did not require full compliance with all new standards, just a few of them."

IT IS THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, STUPID !

Jesus Christ, the one horrid thing about too many Dems/Progressives is they too often can't form a strong narrative and stick to it and hammer away at it. They bumble and fumble around on messaging like the blind leading the blind. (Although, they have done better in some recent campaigns. Obama last year did great defining the MittTwit. And they did great defining and bashing the Cooch-Hole in VA and D'Blasio did great messaging in his campaign in NYC. But now they have to learn how to do it with policy fights.)

[annabanana]

1. OH Kick fuckity kick kick kick kick!!!

No kidding. The insurance industry is the cranky bloodsucker messing up ALL the healthcare delivery in this Country!!

[RBInMaine]

2. If we had single payer we wouldn't have to worry about these SHITTY STUPID INSURANCE COMPANIES.

[TBF]

3. I agree RBInMaine -

eventually we have got to drag this country into the 21st century. There are programs in place - most notably Medicare or Tricare (there may be other federal policies) that could be the model for a new single payer health care system for this country. The profit motif in health care is killing us.

[Blaukraut]

29. Tricare is a great model because due to the ACA it now expanded to young adults

These under 26 year olds are paying much higher (but still affordable) premiums than their active duty or retired military parents. This expansion has to bring in more money than Tricare ever did, being a program designed to run at a constant deficit.

[TBF]

38. I know I was covered in college

under an earlier program called Champus. My dad is a 100% disabled war veteran and I believe we were covered until at least 21 - it may have been a little higher. I graduated at 21 and started working (yay - free health insurance back in the day!) so I never had to worry. I did get food poisoning once in college & ended up at student health and then in the hospital. It cost me a week of classes but my portion of medical bills were very minor.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. The policies only get grandfathered if they did not change

They changed because they were required to change and those changes necessitate higher prices because more coverage and high risk people are being added to the pool.

When the promises were made there was no caveat about only being able to keep policies that didn't change. The President said, "You can keep your policy, period." That is what has people angry. You aren't going to be able to convince them they didn't hear what they heard or that the regulations written made it impossible for those policies to be grandfathered.

If those policies are restored then the amount of money flowing into the cost share pool will take a substantial hit as the number and expense of claims begin to rise. That will jeopardize everybody's policies.

[pangaia]

16. My take is your are closer to reality in this case than the OP.

But, man, the whole thing is so screwed up and complicated I don't REALLY know what is going on.

On edit: I think you both have very valid points. But I still have no idea what really happened. It's all hidden in the great green fog.

[RBInMaine]

17. I agree a caveat should have been stated, and it should have been this:

"Anyone out there in the individual market will get to keep their current plans as long as the insurance companies make a few minor adjustments to improve the plans before the law is passed. (Don't forget, a small number of changes did have to be made to the grandfathered plans, but not as many as the required by new plans purchased AFTER the law was signed but prior to being implemented. That is how they were able to achieve grandfathered status.) Our goal is to make sure underinsured people have better plans without huge deductables and constant cost increases. Our goal is to not just make healthcare more affordable, but also BETTER."

Yup, I agree they fucked up their initial messaging and should have included the caveat. Remember, in stump speech messaging they are trying to water it down and simplify it. He was also trying to assure those in group, public, and employer plans, the vast majority of Americans, that few to no changes would be occurring in your plans; that there would be few to no disruptions. He was trying to punch home a blanket stump speech message when he should have been more nuanced and said, "For most of you, little to nothing will change. For some of you, you will get Medicaid or an an improved current individual plan, or a new individual plan that is good insurance with subsidies to help pay for it. We are going to get everyone covered and make sure insurance is BETTER."

The regulations made it impossible to grandfather most of those plans? Baloney. The whole problem is these FUCKING INSURANCE companies in the first place. I wish we could get into the 21st century and mothball the whole rotten, stinking, shitty insurance industry and go to single payer Medicare For All. It is the SHITTY INSURANCE COMPANY FUCKED UP SYSTEM THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH HEALTHCARE IN THIS COUNTRY. I know because I've been through some of it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. "'...Our goal is to not just make healthcare more affordable, but also BETTER.'"

If it were better people wouldn't be complaining; they'd be pleasantly surprised and saying as much.

We are up against the hard reality that people decide for themselves what is best for them for their circumstances. Saying they're being ripped off or they don't know a good deal when they see it or any other of the things that pass for excuse making won't assuage them it will only add insult to an already perceived injury.

The regulations made it impossible to grandfather most of those plans? Baloney. The whole problem is these FUCKING INSURANCE companies in the first place. I wish we could get into the 21st century and mothball the whole rotten, stinking, shitty insurance industry and go to single payer Medicare For All.

Yes, the regulations did create the phenomenon we're witnessing. The fact that you/I/we want a system without insurance is beside the point.

[RBInMaine]

44. Sorry, but you have stated some BS. People certainly want better plans, decent coverage, and not

SHIT insurance. Christ, so many of these people buy these crapola policies because it is ALL they can get, not what they "want". Give me a break. These SHITTY plans jack up costs all the time, don't cover diddly squat, and people think they are PURE SHIT as soon as they actually need to use them, then they are chucked off or jacked up out of sight when they make a claim. The system ALREADY was cancelling policies all the freaking time.

The provisions required by the ACA most certainly improve the plans, and you are knocking what hasn't been given sufficient time to flush out. It is very early on yet. There are thousands upon thousands of people out there who ARE pleased to be getting better insurance at a better deal, not to mention those who have gotten out of their SHITTY PLANS on their own to get better insurance at a better price in the new exchanges. Give it time.

But yeah, we do agree the whole SHITTY insurance company system should be SCRAPPED and replaced with REAL healthcare, which is Medicare For All. Simpler, cheaper, better for business, cradle to grave coverage. SCREW these insurance companies.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. I never came close to saying people want crappy insurance policies

That's you not reading beyond your own rhetoric.

I said, if the new policies were better for them and they saw value in the new coverage there wouldn't be a problem. But there is a problem, plenty of people are outraged by what is happening to their policies. To dismiss their concerns with some insulting, freshly-pulled-from-the-butt talking point without any knowledge of their circumstances, finances or value will only make their sense of outrage all the more pronounced. We do not get to veto their family decisions based on our sense of self-importance. God help us if they make their discontent felt at the ballot box.

[Walk away]

5. I think the effed up rollout has everyone hiding their heads.

People can't enroll or find out the facts about alternatives so it's hard to tell what's really wrong.

[AndyA]

6. I've been thinking the same thing as well

Also, WHY didn't Congress predict this might happen, and deal with it in the ACA? They could have subjected the insurance companies to fines for cancelling policies and not updating them--or something.

Single payer would have prevented this from happening, and should have been the goal from the beginning. But naturally, Congress has to take care of big business above all else.

I agree that the Dems should be framing this as "the big greedy death panel insurance companies are sticking it to the American people again--just like they have for decades..."

[WinkyDink]

7. I've been saying that from the git-go.

[boston bean]

8. People bought shit policies because that is what they could afford...

It's just not going to make a difference to some that they get a better policy.

I know it's a long game, but one should expect some push back.

Not everyone who had these plans get a subsidy and the increase in mandated cost for insurance is going to put an extra burden on them and their budget.

I know all the reasons they need the insurance and how it's better in the long run to have a better policy.

But these people are getting sticker shock. They didn't realize how expensive health insurance really is. They probably rarely used it due to the additional costs above and beyond the cheap premium, and they look at these new policies with high premiums and still big deductibles.....

This is going to be a tough nut to crack.

Insurance just shouldn't be this expensive..... Get them out of our lives please!

[RBInMaine]

18. THE PROBLEM IS THE FUCKING PRIVATE INSURANCE SYSTEM ! IT SUCKS !

[boston bean]

21. I can't tell if you are emphatically agreeing with me or if you are

emphatically disagreeing.

[RBInMaine]

23. I agree the insurance company system sucks and is really the root of all the problems we have ever

had with paying for healthcare in this country and is the reason why all this is so complicated and a cluster fuck. We should scrap it and go single payer, but that can't pass, at least anytime soon or as long as there are enough politicians bought and paid for by the insurance company racketeers.

The law should have mandated improved insurance with no cost increases, the trade-off being more people in the market buying the policies.

As to the sticker shock, most will certainly get a subsidy, and base-level but compliant and improved insurance will be on the exchanges for nearly the same price, or in many cases for less as more and more people come in thus driving down prices. It is working well especially in the states with state-level exchanges. Look at the Massachusetts model. Where are the cries of "sticker shock"? Almost non-existent. I think you are overstating that.

Otherwise, we are in large agreement.

[christx30]

25. And there is the real problem that I see...

People bought shit policies because that is what they could afford...

So at that point, the insurance company has two options. Bring the plans up to code and raise the rates their customers are paying, or cancel the plan and make someone else the bad guy.
Who wants to write that letter?
"Starting January 1. 2013, the $50 per month plan that met your needs will go up to $100 per month and get a bunch of crap you do not want. You can stick with us or cancel and go with the state or federal exchange. There's no way around it. You are going to be paying more. You didn't want to eat EVERY night, did ya?"

[RBInMaine]

26. "Bunch of stuff you don't want"? BULLSHIT. They DID want it, but it wasn't offered or they

couldn't afford it. As if people didn't "want" better insurance that would actually insure them. BULLSHIT !

[christx30]

28. So a 68 year old retired couple

Now has to pay for coverage that includes contraception, maternity, and substance abuse treatment. Shit they don't need.
And there are many people out there that were actually happy with what they had. It met their needs. But fuck them, right? You know better than them.

[Chan790]

31. A 68-year old retired couple would be on Medicare...

with or without supplemental coverage.

Medicare has always covered pregnancy, has covered contraceptives almost since the advent of the birth-control pill (and before that for medical contraceptive devices such as diaphragms) and covers substance abuse treatment. 17% of people in the US aged 60 or older have a substance abuse problem and it is the fastest growing segment of the US population for substance abuse issues.

Some light reading:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3505129/
http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/ade60220.page

[RBInMaine]

47. Just think about how FULL OF HOLES your argument is:

First, they would be on Medicare (and S.S.) BOTH of which they get more out of than they paid into because THE YOUNGER GENERATIONS ARE PAYING FOR THEM, A GENERATIONAL CONTRACT. (Should the younger generations be saying, "Why should I pay for SS and Medicare for old people? What kind of shit is that?&quot

Next, we ALL pay for ALL kinds of things we don't use. Old people don't have kids in public schools, but they pay taxes for them so new workers can work in the economy and sustain them. We pay for the costs of child seat devices in cars, airbags, etc. etc. that we would never use so we ALL are safer. We ALL pay taxes for all sorts of things we NEVER personally use or need.

Please, enough of the LAME excuses for condoing SHITTY insurance policies with massive co-pays, huge deductables, and SHITTY coverage. GOOD for the ACA that some standards have been increased. GOOD ! Cherry pick if you want, but the system will be BETTER for it.

[99Forever]

9. No kidding.

Had some well intentioned poster yesterday lecturing me about how important it was that we counter the bullshit "Obama lied" garbage and convince people deadset against the ADA from the beginning, instead of going on the offensive and actually fighting fire with fire.

INSURANCE CORPORATIONS ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Last time liberals tried to stand up to the Insurance Companies we were told

to stop it because Obama felt the Insurance Companies 'deserve to profit' and he did so as they refused to so much as discuss any of the aspects of reform liberals and progressives actually supported. He promised a Pulic Option, then shit canned it and wagged finger at those who objected to it's demise.
I think the real question is why are the Moderate Centrists who insisted that this 'reform' was the best America is capable of not out passionately defending the for profit system they so strongly advocated in the past?

[Doctor_J]

11. our party logo should be a sniveling chicken instead of a donkey

Seriously, how can our representatives scold the insurance companies when they are going to need their cash for the campaign next year? Also the 3-year rollout was a bad idea. Should have given them 6 months and had a public option in place.

[JoeyT]

12. I wish they'd go on the offensive much more often,

but I'm not sure how they can on this issue. The only way would be to point out that the policies getting canceled are largely the kind of insurance that's great until you actually try to use it.

Attacking the insurance companies and pointing out how awful they are isn't going to work because "Insurance companies are terrible immoral monsters that would kill you for a nickel." is a bad way to go when the followup sentence is "And we've irrevocably chained every last one of you and every one of you that shall ever be to them.".

The issue I really wanted to see them start hammering on was all the fits about healthcare.gov. How hard is it to say something to the effect of "Well, we're sorry for the delays and issues, but we didn't expect it to be as wildly popular as it is. Sometimes it seems like the entire country is trying to sign up at once. So much for the American people not wanting it."

[Sunlei]

13. almost like they are republican owned insurance companies & President O tries to get along friendly.

[ramapo]

14. Inadequate control and oversight

The insurance companies are, surprise surprise, taking every advantage.

Here in NJ, I am sorry to say, there is less choice of insurers. What is offered are almost exclusively HMOs and EPOs, two insurance company creations designed to limit choice and boost profits. In many cases the deductible is set at the maximum out-of-pocket. The drug plans suck.

Despite the fact that NJ has forbidden medical underwriting for many years, premiums are no lower and may in fact be a bit higher. I know they are in my particular case. The argument has been that the pool is small and distorted in the individual market so premiums must be higher than what exists in the group market. But that doesn't follow through here.

NJ had a rule that any company offering group policies also had to offer individual policies. No such rule exists in the ACA so United Health Care and Aetna pulled out of the state, waiting no doubt for conditions to become more profitable. In the meantime, less competition and less choice.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. That's the problem with the individual mandate to buy for profit products

One simply can not blame the very companies one is mandating every last American to do business with. Your OP is absurd. ACA is all about Insurance Companies being made a permanent and compulsory part of our health care system.

[RBInMaine]

20. The point of the OP is that the WHOLE story is not being told, and it is just fine to blame the

the insurance companies for refusing to update policies, and the insurance companies that are whining are not telling the whole story which is that they refused to update but at the same time, in many of these letters, are also offering new policies that do now comply.

I will agree Obama's messaging on this was flawed from the beginning as he should have included the caveats, and the law is flawed because it should have FORCED the fucking insurance companies to update the policies improving them completely or they would face massive fines that they could not pass on to consumers.

Make no mistake, I totally agree that the entire private for-proft FUCKED UP insurance system SUCKS and I strongly support going to a single payer system and getting these FUCKED UP insurance companies right out of it exept if people want to buy supplemental plans. Otherwise, take these assholes right out and go to Single Payer. But, that just couldn't pass, so we are stuck with this for now.

[Loudly]

19. It does no good to beat them up to try to change their behavior.

Instead, beat them up for a useful purpose: Turning the nation away from their business model and toward Medicare for All.

[Lifelong Dem]

22. Maybe a little of this

Lets face it, the media doesn't want the Dems to get the word out. Luckily ACA will automatically prove the Repubs wrong. With all the bashing on ACA the poll approvals for ACA have been going up.



Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:55 AM PST

Despite glitches at HealthCare.gov, despite a non-stop onslaught of news stories about cancellation letters and "Obamacare took my insurance away," yet another poll shows that Obamacare isn't losing support but in fact is gaining in popularity.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/06/1253569/-Poll-More-uninsured-view-Obamacare-nbsp-favorably

[Justice]

24. I keep asking that question; why don't they ask insurance companies?

[riqster]

27. Because too many of them would rather bash the Prexy and say "See? We were right and he was wrong."

Instead of using this opportunity to say "See? We were right, and you can't trust health insurance companies."

[Romulox]

34. We can't trust insurers...then why are we FORCED to do business with them???? nt

[Doctor_J]

48. we bashed the insurance companies before aca

Now the president has made them part of the government, so he gets some of the blame

[global1]

30. Could It Be That They Don't Want To Piss The Insurance Companies Off Because.....

they are looking for re-election monies from them. If they come down too hard on the insurance companies - that money would go to elect Rupugs instead.

IMHO - it's all about the money.

[boomersense]

32. I understand your point, and you could be right. But as far as depending on

insurance companies to do the right thing subsequent to a bargain for abiding by ACA, I don't know about that. Actually, I think it's more of a structural difficulty. It is now impossible in this country to determine fault for almost anything because of the instant Hate factor before problems are even discovered. I have listened to people on the radio talk about problems they have encountered. They seem very real. Is it possible that lower level offerings were not considered because the insurance companies wanted to take advantage of the start-up of the program to maximize profit?

[Romulox]

33. The President is FORCING us to do business with these bad actors. How can he criticize? nt

[cthulu2016]

36. Were the legally required to comply? No.

Your complaint is, when reduced to its real elements, that the insurers did not cancel policies two years ago, before the exchange existed instead of today... it makes no sense.

[L0oniX]

37. Progressives? We're only here because we have no alternartive?

We wanted single payer ...the corporatists wanted something else?

[Savannahmann]

39. Trivia Question

When were the requirements for the ACA compliant policies finalized?

Answer? http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/us-usa-irs-obamacare-idUSBRE97Q10T20130827

August 27th, 2013. Now imagine you are a company, say GM. You are planning your fall line up of cars, but you know that new regulations are coming out. You have to have the new items in place in your cars by January one, but until you know what form those new rules will take, you can't install the equipment, or estimate what the car will cost with the new equipment.

The insurance was the same. They didn't know how much the policies would cost, because they didn't know what would be required. Some of the mandates were and still are undergoing court challenges. Some were not finalized until the last minute. So how do you design a policy that is in compliance with regulations that aren't even written? Answer is you can't. You can't obey a law that you don't know about, and the most asinine of answers that ignorance is no excuse is called asinine for a reason. If you don't know what the rules are, especially if they aren't written yet, you can't play fair.

I don't blame the insurance companies much more than usual. But for this one I'm afraid I have to say that your argument is a little weak, because you can't review existing policies, and create new compliant policies, until the rules for those policies with all the required coverage is finalized.

Now, there are over 10,000 pages of regulations associated with the ACA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/how-many-pages-of-regulations-for-obamacare/2013/05/14/61eec914-bcf9-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_blog.html

How long would it take a lawyer to read those pages, and create rules for the company to follow? How many lawyers would it take to tell the rest of us who speak English not legalese what it all means? It would take me the better part of a year to read that much, figure a couple months if it was something I could do full time and was supplied with reading glasses and an unlimited supply of Tylenol for the headaches associated with reading all that nonsense for hours a day every day.

But would I be able to remember it all? Doubtful that I'd be able to recall exactly more than a fraction of the documents. Generally speaking, a few readings would get me familiar.

So I think we have to give the Insurance Companies credit in this, they managed to get compliant plans ready on the day of rollout.

Yes, I still think they're greedy bastards who will screw the average person the first chance they get. But part of my personality quirk is that I only blame people for what they can actually be responsible for. I don't blame President Obama for starting the drone crap, I blame him for continuing it. I don't blame President Obama for passing the PATRIOT ACT. I blame him for signing the reauthorization. I hope you understand where I am coming from, and now I invite everyone to flame away.

[TheKentuckian]

40. Blame for not complying? You would think non - compliance would have penalties

Blame is pointless here because it is inevitable that pointing a finger will leave four pointing a you.

You claimed they were reformed, so reformed that is not only acceptable but a positive to mandate the populace into a forced customer relationship with them but yet at the first sign of failure to abide by the law all the government can do is whine about it and assign blame.

That sounds way past lame and pretty fucking stupid. We failed to actually reform the system and have really only papered over the existing nightmare with a few pay to play enhancements meant to appeal to covered folks, a key to the treasury to make up the difference between what the cartel demands and what folks can squeeze out of a rock, and dibble dabble patchwork of schemes intended to increase coverage while leaving every existing profit center in place and the cartel as our gatekeeper.

[RC]

42. That is the the ACA in a nutshell

We failed to actually reform the system and have really only papered over the existing nightmare with a few pay to play enhancements meant to appeal to covered folks, a key to the treasury to make up the difference between what the cartel demands and what folks can squeeze out of a rock, and dibble dabble patchwork of schemes intended to increase coverage while leaving every existing profit center in place and the cartel as our gatekeeper.

Marching in place will get you nowhere. And that is what the ACA is doing. Instead of marching forward to Single Payer, Universal Health Care, we instead got some body putty and a new coat of cheap paint.

[libdem4life]

41. Insurers do nothing of any value, other than shuffle paper and take a big cut of the proceeds.

That's all the government does too pretty much, but without the large financial cut, and they've got the hang of it through Medicare. I'm hoping someone is starting to put that plan together right now. Putting the insurance companies on notice that this is likely their best and last offer from an exhausted public and a frustrated President.

[Enthusiast]

43. Insurers remove their cut of free money.

Hey, you can't beat free money. It's one hell of a gig if you can get it.

[libdem4life]

45. Yes, just more paper pushing...bank deposits and spreadsheets and all. Missed that boat, to be sure.

[bvar22]

46. It is hard to publicly criticize the Industry...

... that you just handed $BILLIONS$ per year in subsidies.