Obama Lifts Health Mandate for Those With Canceled Plans
Source: Bloomberg
Americans whose health plans are being canceled because their coverage doesn’t meet Obamacare rules will be exempt from the mandate that they carry insurance, under a change announced by the Obama administration.
Officials estimated the change will affect fewer than 500,000 people as a Dec. 23 deadline looms to purchase health policies to be eligible for coverage beginning Jan. 1. People losing coverage also will be eligible to buy high-deductible “catastrophic” insurance the law usually limits to those younger than age 30.
Insurers warned that the new exemptions, which would last a year and potentially longer for consumers granted hardship exceptions, risk destabilizing the new marketplaces if younger, healthier people who now carry cheap policies opt out of buying replacement coverage.
“This latest rule change could cause significant instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers,” Karen Ignagni, the president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s Washington lobby group, said in an e-mail from a spokesman.
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-20/obama-aides-say-more-to-gain-coverage-under-aca-than-canceled.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
mopinko
(69,994 posts)from day one?? come on.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)They probably did make the assumption that there would be pretty good competition in every state, and that would overcome the cancellation problem. If there are good choices on the exchange, then cancellation is not an issue because you would prefer the ACA policy.
The problem is that some of the states that are trying to sabotage the law have evidently made it easy for one or two companies to dominate, and this renders the exchange ineffective. This is the main thing that needs to be fixed. But there is no little tweak that will fix this. It seems to me the only thing that will force competition is competition. What we need is a change to the law that says in states where the policies are running 20% higher than the national average, there would be a public option available on the exchange. That would get the monopolists in line very quickly because the last thing they want to see is real competition from a public option.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Make up the rules as you go along. Take advantage of your opponent at every chance...
But please! Don't ensure equality before the law! That would be universal, single payer. We can't have that! EVERYbody says so (who doesn't live off wages or in a foreign country).
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Was lifted so should have the mandates on individuals. ..
Igel
(35,274 posts)Or just regulation that can be revised without the usual requirements for public comments and the like?
Usually laws include things like when they go into affect, requirements for revision--if not the legislative process. You don't want a law too burdensome to be implemented. But you also don't want one that basically allows fiat and whim to determine really important aspects of it.
This is a tax. Imagine a tax that was subject to having the President arbitrary decide to suspend when it suited him.
alc
(1,151 posts)I'd guess that on average they have less money than those who lost insurance. But it sounds like they still have the mandate.
How will Democarats respond if an R wins the presidency in 2016 and starts making up or changing ACA rules? The President does have LOTS of control over ACA regulations. But messing with specifics in the legislation - like dates -seems to be a precedent that the legislation is meaningless and it's a big playground where the President can do whatever he/she thinks is best. And another president may think it's best to drop all mandates, eliminate all subsidies, and allow any policy regardless of what is/isn't covered (for next year, then the one after, ...). I don't see any of those changes being fundamentally different than what Obama's been doing to the law.
Mass
(27,315 posts)Because they are not a constituency for the GOP and Dems do not care about them either.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)insurance to get it.
You know, subsidies, guaranteed issue, community rating, Medicaid expansion, etc.
"The Dems don't care about them either."
Fuck me the stupidity is strong.
Mass
(27,315 posts)Yes, they did things but they carefully avoided to upset insurance companies, so no public option, extension of Medicaid and ACA policies that are different from the one richer people will be able to afford on the private market, and often more limited in their network. So, yes, it is an improvement from the present situation, but those who benefit it the most in quality of care are middle class to upper middle class people who cannot be priced out of healthcare anymore because they are sick.
The lower half is not denied access, but offered access to only a subset of what richer people are offered.
This does not mean we need to gut this reform. It is still way better than the alternative (and yes, the GOP has one. It is just a bad one who covers less people and does not have community ratings, but we are too lazy to explain why and it will kick us in the chin someday). But this does not mean we should not be aware of what ACA has.
But I know, I am a stupid person because I expect politicians to talk to me as an adult, not somebody who will repeat their talking points.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Not a valid complaint against the ACA, certainly not evidence that Democrats don't care about people without insurance.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I wonder if it would have been better to put the 36 million under state medicaid programs. It might have solved the problem with little problems. Or just have the federal government put them on the federal program. Again easier. And this would be cheaper for the country too.
He's setting a dangerous precedent will all of these unauthorized changes.
Honestly, I don't see how this is legal.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)because unless you can get subsidies the cost is going to be over 8% of your income, which qualifies you for exemption.
So not that many will be paying the fine anyway. The problem is more people not being able to get insured for some reasonable percentage of income than the individual mandate.
Mass
(27,315 posts)President says you wont lose your plan (obviously wrong and he said as much in a couple of meetings).
Plans are cancelled (good and bad)
WH insists that everybody mush have insurance, but slowly gets part of the public out of the mandate.
Last category to be absolved are those people who lost their plans. They are told to buy useless barebone policies or no policies at all.
I will probably be attacked for writing this, but do we need a mandate or not? Do we need a useful insurance or not (a high deductible/high copay insurance will be useless if you need it).
More and more, single payer would have seemed a good idea,
forthemiddle
(1,375 posts)Remind me again what the Government shutdown was all about?
If the President can change all the rules, and all the effective dates willy nilly, what is to stop a Republican President, if elected in 2016 from just putting the whole thing on hold? He could just do it by changing the dates, and stating that he is just following President Obamas lead.
I don't like this one bit.
24601
(3,955 posts)individual mandates.
I recall it quite well given that I was furloughed. I remember also that although we were paid late, we received full pay for the time during which we were sent home. and that it was not legal to volunteer our services to our jobs while furloughed.
TomCADem
(17,382 posts)...that it was in the millions. After all, for every person interviewed who gained insurance, Fox news would have 30 folks who claimed that they were harmed or had their insurance cancelled.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Imagine you are a young person who got cancelled because you only had a catastrophic plan. Then you got out and buy a compliant plan at twice the price. Now, those who waited get to buy their old plans and get to save money by not subsidizing the elderly and sick.
Follow the rules and get screwed over?
THis sucks.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)nothing stops people from trying to
negotiate a new plan to buy
Turbineguy
(37,291 posts)"....The administration will grant a “hardship exemption” from the law’s individual mandate, requiring the purchase of health insurance, to anyone who has had their prior coverage canceled and who “believes” that Obamacare’s offerings “are unaffordable.”..."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/20/utter-chaos-white-house-exempts-millions-from-obamacares-insurance-mandate-unaffordable-exchanges/
This exemption was obviously written for Fox News watchers and Forbers readers since it contains the word "believe". It doesn't actually have to be true, you just have to believe what the Anti-ACA propaganda tells you.
Most people (those who do not have 20 to 30 children) for whom "affordability" is an issue, can avail themselves of the subsidy. In my case the non-ACA-compliant plan which I was grandfathered into was over twice the cost of the new and much better compliant plan due to the subsidy. If I win the lottery, I will lose the subsidy. Then I will have to pay 62% more than I paid last year for my lousy high deductible plan.
As for "market stability", I think the premium costs will shake out in the downward direction. Interestingly enough, for my grandfathered plan had I opted to stay in, the premium would have stayed the same in 2014 as it was in 2013.
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)Does anyone actually expect millennials to be able to afford anything if they actually end up getting ill? If someone can't afford the premium for a decent plan, how can they afford to pay a high deductible? Basically another version of the "emergency room plan."
The Repugs don't have to repeal; Obama is doing a pretty good job of dismantling the law himself.
Adam-Bomb
(90 posts)The President is setting himself up for a SERIOUS smack down.
He's not the King of America.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)I doubt he really can legally delay the employer mandate, but who is going to sue? The companies sure aren't, and who else has the money and the standing?
Rstrstx
(1,399 posts)I thought the 24/7 "Obamacare is crap" news cycle was starting to wind down a bit, why on earth would they want to stir it up again? In reality I don't see the one-year delay as that big of a deal, the penalty for not being insured the first year is what, like $95?
Now the ability to let people over 30 purchase catastrophic may be kind of a big deal, might make a difference to some but here in TX the difference looks to be about $40-70/mo depending on your age. Generally not huge unless you're strapped and are using a subsidy to pay for a good part of your plan.
What I was really hoping to see was the ability to let low-income people in non-Medicaid states be able to buy on the federal exchange as if they were at 100% FPL. That would have made a huge difference to many, people who are falling in that doughnut hole of being too rich for Medicaid but not earning enough to qualify for a subsidy are the ones who are truly screwed.
No doubt the insurance companies are upset by all of this since they had priced their plans long ago, and I can see where the decisions being made out of the WH are being interpreted by many as an administration in disarray and panic mode. All I can see coming out of this is higher rates for 2015 that the insurance companies will blame on - what else - Obamacare. Only this time they might be right.
Mass
(27,315 posts)that another part of the population would see its mandate delayed by the White House.
Each of these delays has been attacked and each time, we act as if we were surprised.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)I have a feeling they are deliberately throwing the midterms.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)With the markets open, fewer and fewer will buy the crap plans. There will be no reason to.
24601
(3,955 posts)actuarial-based. Those higher than required premiums are needed to subsidize the policies for those who are older & less healthy. Why wouldn't those choosing no coverage and those experiencing higher than promised premiums take out their feelings in the 2014 elections?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)existing plans cancelled. That's not all or even most young people.
Further, you don't need to charge the younger folks extra because there are lots of them. The smart ones will get high end plans now so that that becomes a standard part of their budget planning. Some will go bronze and play the odds. And some of the more foolish will roll the dice and gamble everything. The numbers we're run expecting all if these approaches to be taken.
Oh, and the insurers WANT these folks and will now have to compete for their premium dollars.
24601
(3,955 posts)really, really want lots of people who, based on their health, pay more in premiums than they consume in health care services.
But yes, in order not to have to charge older/sicker people premiums based in their risk, you need low-risk people willing to buy into the pool rather than purchase a less costly policy (or no policy) that reflects their lower risk of needing more costly health-care services. Without them, policies for people judged likely to consume more services would be increasingly expensive.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)When I was young I had no insurance, and when I reach a point where I could afford it, I realized how just critical it was.
That's going to happen to a lot more young people now because there is some actual competition in this system. Insurers had set up defacto monopolies, and the ACA breaks that apart.
The insurers will fight the law, mainly trying to try and obtain wiggle room, but they'll also have to compete with each other again.
24601
(3,955 posts)granted from any of the ACA mandates. What will be the next waiver granted? Will it effectively delay the individual mandate until 2015?
More significantly, the precedent is being set that an administration has pretty much a blank check to waive whatever requirement ACA put on the books. Insurers would prefer a world that everyone pays them but intuition says they will settle for a country that requires such payments. What happens should a Republican President decline to renew Cadillac plan waivers (very big deal for major unions) and instead waives the individual mandate for everyone.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)OK, to qualify for an exemption to the individual mandate...
I have to have had (or not had)
health insurance that did (or didn't)
include maternity coverage for men
on (or before (or after)) these dates...
please be as specific as possible.
Tia .