White lies and damn lies:

[hedgehog]

White lie " You'll be able to keep your current policy *"

*unless it isn't worth the paper it's written on, in which case you'll be offered an actual, decent helath insurance policy at a price you can afford.


Damn lies:

"Saddam has chemical, biological and nuclear weapons aimed at us."

"Don't worry about your student loan; you'll get a good job after graduation and pay it back quickly."

"Work for the city 20 years and you're guaranteed a good pension."

"Sure, the price of the house is steep, but with prices rising you'll be able to flip it at a profit in a few years!"

"Our pipelines are perfectly safe"

"Besides, we can always clean up any spills."

[Laelth]

1. You make a useful distinction.

No doubt Bush's lies are more dangerous and more deadly.

That said, I don't think the President lied. He said, "If you like your current insurance, you can keep it." The caveats he did not add are as follows: 1) unless your policy does not meet the requirements for minimum coverage under the ACA, and 2) unless your insurance company decides to gouge you and blames the ACA for it. The fallout from piss-poor insurance and corporate greed are what we're witnessing now.

I should add, however, that the whole "affordable" meme grates me. Most people who didn't buy insurance before the ACA didn't buy it because they couldn't afford it. The same is true now. Many people can not afford it, and the fact that many Republican governors have refused to expand Medicaid exacerbates this problem. It grates on me when Democrats harp on the "affordability" of insurance under the ACA. Many Americans can't pay their rent and their utilities, much less pay for insurance. There's nothing affordable about insurance under the ACA for those who can't afford necessities.

-Laelth

[unblock]

2. excellent point, but i maintain "you'll be able to keep your current policy" isn't even a white lie.

it's a statement that the government won't ban existing policies, which it didn't.

if anyone claims they were mislead and took it as an indicator that the government would guarantee what the private sector would do in the future, then they themselves are lying.

[Laelth]

4. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[Myrina]

3. What confuses me about that ...

.... I worked for an insurance company (in IT/Compliance) for 10 years.
It was an understanding that once products/policy lines are approved for sale in whatever state, an insurance company can't yank the coverage until the person either cancels or dies. They can stop selling it to new customers if it proves unpopular/unprofitable, but as long as ONE person is alive with POLICY ABC, the company has to service it.

So how can insurance companies now just cancel people's coverage & make them buy something else?

What did I miss?

[Laelth]

5. Interesting question.

I'd like an answer to it as well.



-Laelth

[Myrina]

6. The only thing I can think of is, if under ACA there's a caveat ...

... that lets them off the hook if the policies don't meet XYZ coverage requirements.

[Laelth]

7. I suspect you are right.

I must admit, however, that I am not sufficiently familiar with the ACA to confirm your suspicion.



-Laelth

[politicaljunkie41910]

8. It's my understanding that the Grandfather clause can be invoked as long as the insurance

company doesn't change anything. Any change, including an increase in premiums would cause the Grandfather Clause to be revoked. Now has anyone met an insurance company that couldn't resist a premium increase?

[Myrina]

9. Makes sense. Thanks ~