Bill Clinton Is Wrong. This Is How Obamacare Works.

[n2doc]

BY JONATHAN COHN

Bill Clinton has been one of Obamacare’s most effective advocates—the "Secretary of Explaining Things," as President Obama famously called him. But in a new interview already getting attention and sure to get more, Clinton didn't explain things very well. He made a statement that's likely to create some misimpressions about the possibilities of health care reform, while giving the administration and its allies yet another political headache. But maybe it's also an opportunity to have a serious conversation about the law's tradeoffs—the one that should have happened a while ago.

In the interview, with Ozy Media, the former president fielded a question about the health care law. “The big lesson,” he said, “is that we’re better off with this law without it.” He went on to put the technological problems of healthcare.gov into some perspective: Medicare Part D had similar problems, he noted, “and they fixed it.” And he made a plea with Republican lawmakers to stop blocking the expansion of Medicaid. Fine, fine, and fine.

But then Clinton made news. He said that some young people facing higher premiums under the new system should have the right to keep their old plans, even if it requires a change in the law. Clinton framed it carefully: He said specifically he had in mind only those young people whose incomes were higher than four times the poverty line, making them ineligible for subsidies. (That’s about $45,000 for a single adult.) But he also suggested it was a matter of principle, because those people had heard the vow that they could keep their plans: “I personally believe, even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got.”

Clinton’s statement makes it seem as if there is some simple way to let people keep their current plans—to avoid any disruption in the existing non-group market while still delivering the law’s benefits. As readers of this space know, no such magic solution exists. Broadly speaking, the Affordable Care Act seeks to make two sets of changes to what’s called the “non-group” market. It establishes a minimum set of benefits, which means everything from covering “essential” services to eliminating annual or lifetime limits on payments. At the same time, the law prohibits insurers from discriminating among customers: They can’t charge higher prices, withhold benefits, or deny coverage altogether to people who represent medical risks. They have to take everybody, varying price only for age (within a three-to-one ratio) and for tobacco use.

more

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115570/bill-clintons-obamacare-comments-are-wrong

[JaneyVee]

1. Good article. Un-cancelling plans would actually cause premiums to rise

At this point.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. There are only two kinds of people Bill has in mind:

1) middle and higher income young men with individual policies.
2) middle and higher income people whose current individual insurance is worthless.

Those are the only two groups whose insurance costs will go up meaningfully under ACA.

It really doesn't make that much difference except from a PR perspective. I doubt that doing this would jeopardize the finances of the system.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. Clinton knows all that.

He saw an opportunity to score a point for Hillary and he took it. I mean, why else would the "Secretary of Explaining Things" not explain why these people are having their policies cancelled?

[grasswire]

4. It sounded ignorant.

It's the first time I've ever heard Clinton sound out of it, or thoughtless.

I don't know if it's a political hit, as some say. I hope not.