If you use the term "crap policies"...

[Bfgrn]

You need an example of crap health insurance that someone is using the exchange to replace with something much much better at a very good price?

Here. You can pretend this isn't a good example:

Back in March, Consumer Reports published a study of many of these plans and placed them in a special category: "junk health insurance." Some plans, the magazine declared, may be worse than none at all.

Consumer Reports is right. Plans with monthly premiums in the two figures marketed to customers in their 30s, 40s, or even 50s invariably impose ridiculously low coverage limits. They've typically been pitched to people who couldn't find affordable insurance because of their age or preexisting conditions, or who were so financially strapped that they were lured by the cheap upfront cost.

"People buy a plan that's terrible," says Nancy Metcalf, CR's senior project editor for health, "and if they get sick, they don't even know they don't have insurance."

An example from CR: A plan costing $65 a month held by Judith Goss, 48, a Michigan department store employee. When Goss was diagnosed with breast cancer, she discovered the drawbacks of the policy's coverage limits of $1,000 a year for outpatient treatment and $2,000 for hospitalization -- barely enough to cover a day and half a Tylenol in the hospital. She delayed treatment, so her cancer got much worse before she finally opted for surgery. Those sorts of coverage limits are illegal come Jan. 1.

and this:

Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. (We mentioned the Barrette case on Tuesday.)

CR's Metcalf examined Barrette's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette's $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she's on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services -- and then only if her treatment is for "complications of pregnancy." Nothing for outpatient services.

"She's paying $650 a year to be uninsured," said an insurance expert Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, "she would have lost the house she's sitting in."

As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. (Or she will once the federal system gets running.) Metcalf estimated that she'll be eligible for "real insurance that covers all essential health benefits" for as little as $165 a month -- a higher premium than she's paying now, sure, but one that won't cost her her home.

Obamacare hysteria: Don't believe the canceled insurance hype - latimes.com

I've had Blue-Cross/Blue Shield, and I don't believe this crap for a second. They are one of the largest insurers in the country. I doubt that would be the case if people knew they got nothing when they filed a claim. I don't recall them offering any plan with the benefits described.

I'm aware of the phony "health plans" referred to in that article, I had client ask about them a couple of years back so I checked them out. You'll see emails and faxes for them, "Famly Health Coverage for $69 a Month!", and evidently a FEW people have fallen for them. I know I've gotten at least one fax at the office with one of these plans, a few weeks ago.

When I checked them out for my client, I called a few (I think three) doctors on the "network" and the their claims/billing people had never even heard of the plans. Not a big surprise, I had never heard of the companies offering them and I know that you simply cannot get real coverage for that price. Their websites lay claim to some vague set of "discounts" rather than co-pays and co-insurance, which says it all for someone who knows what to look for. They're pretty much a scam.

So yes, those few scam policies that naive people bought are "crap policies". However...

Very few people have fallen for this bullshit and bought these "policies". But what's happening here is that the Obamacare apologists are trying to pretend that these policies are the lion's share of the REAL policies having to be dropped by the REAL health insurance companies because of new regulations imposed by the ACA, and of course that's not true. I think they know that.

But as usual when it comes to trying to deal with partisan ideologues, I don't know if these people are just naive or simply parroting what MSNBC and the Huffington Post tells them without checking anything out. Either way, they are ideologically obligated to defend it somehow, and evidently they have decided that this is their best shot.

Okay, whatever.

.

Herein lies your problem and your ignorance: you are trying to paint 'REAL health insurance companies' as good actors in the marketplace. They are NOT. They are among the BIGGEST rip off artists. THEY are the ones fully controlled by Wall Street investors who punish any company that doesn't deny enough treatments...they operate REAL DEATH PANELS...

Judith Goss whose story is in the article had a plan offered by CIGNA.

I gave you the avenue to educate yourself. But just keep emoting...

 

[Mac1958]

I've had Blue-Cross/Blue Shield, and I don't believe this crap for a second. They are one of the largest insurers in the country. I doubt that would be the case if people knew they got nothing when they filed a claim. I don't recall them offering any plan with the benefits described.

I'm aware of the phony "health plans" referred to in that article, I had client ask about them a couple of years back so I checked them out. You'll see emails and faxes for them, "Famly Health Coverage for $69 a Month!", and evidently a FEW people have fallen for them. I know I've gotten at least one fax at the office with one of these plans, a few weeks ago.

When I checked them out for my client, I called a few (I think three) doctors on the "network" and the their claims/billing people had never even heard of the plans. Not a big surprise, I had never heard of the companies offering them and I know that you simply cannot get real coverage for that price. Their websites lay claim to some vague set of "discounts" rather than co-pays and co-insurance, which says it all for someone who knows what to look for. They're pretty much a scam.

So yes, those few scam policies that naive people bought are "crap policies". However...

Very few people have fallen for this bullshit and bought these "policies". But what's happening here is that the Obamacare apologists are trying to pretend that these policies are the lion's share of the REAL policies having to be dropped by the REAL health insurance companies because of new regulations imposed by the ACA, and of course that's not true. I think they know that.

But as usual when it comes to trying to deal with partisan ideologues, I don't know if these people are just naive or simply parroting what MSNBC and the Huffington Post tells them without checking anything out. Either way, they are ideologically obligated to defend it somehow, and evidently they have decided that this is their best shot.

Okay, whatever.

.

Herein lies your problem and your ignorance: you are trying to paint 'REAL health insurance companies' as good actors in the marketplace. They are NOT. They are among the BIGGEST rip off artists. THEY are the ones fully controlled by Wall Street investors who punish any company that doesn't deny enough treatments...they operate REAL DEATH PANELS...

Judith Goss whose story is in the article had a plan offered by CIGNA.

I gave you the avenue to educate yourself. But just keep emoting...

You know nothing of my opinions of insurance companies, or of our health care system, or of what I'd like to see, yet you continue to make simplistic partisan assumptions. And looking at your post, you are the one who is "emoting".

Looking at your other posts, it's also clear that having a mature, honest, civil discussion with you simply isn't going to happen.

So, please find yourself a rightwing partisan ideologue with whom you can trade simplistic assumptions, namecalling and personal insults, thanks. I'm not going to continue this.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm aware of the phony "health plans" referred to in that article, I had client ask about them a couple of years back so I checked them out. You'll see emails and faxes for them, "Famly Health Coverage for $69 a Month!", and evidently a FEW people have fallen for them. I know I've gotten at least one fax at the office with one of these plans, a few weeks ago.

When I checked them out for my client, I called a few (I think three) doctors on the "network" and the their claims/billing people had never even heard of the plans. Not a big surprise, I had never heard of the companies offering them and I know that you simply cannot get real coverage for that price. Their websites lay claim to some vague set of "discounts" rather than co-pays and co-insurance, which says it all for someone who knows what to look for. They're pretty much a scam.

So yes, those few scam policies that naive people bought are "crap policies". However...

Very few people have fallen for this bullshit and bought these "policies". But what's happening here is that the Obamacare apologists are trying to pretend that these policies are the lion's share of the REAL policies having to be dropped by the REAL health insurance companies because of new regulations imposed by the ACA, and of course that's not true. I think they know that.

But as usual when it comes to trying to deal with partisan ideologues, I don't know if these people are just naive or simply parroting what MSNBC and the Huffington Post tells them without checking anything out. Either way, they are ideologically obligated to defend it somehow, and evidently they have decided that this is their best shot.

Okay, whatever.

.

Herein lies your problem and your ignorance: you are trying to paint 'REAL health insurance companies' as good actors in the marketplace. They are NOT. They are among the BIGGEST rip off artists. THEY are the ones fully controlled by Wall Street investors who punish any company that doesn't deny enough treatments...they operate REAL DEATH PANELS...

Judith Goss whose story is in the article had a plan offered by CIGNA.

I gave you the avenue to educate yourself. But just keep emoting...

You know nothing of my opinions of insurance companies, or of our health care system, or of what I'd like to see, yet you continue to make simplistic partisan assumptions. And looking at your post, you are the one who is "emoting".

Looking at your other posts, it's also clear that having a mature, honest, civil discussion with you simply isn't going to happen.

So, please find yourself a rightwing partisan ideologue with whom you can trade simplistic assumptions, namecalling and personal insults, thanks. I'm not going to continue this.

.

I did...

 

[Bfgrn]

Obamacare’s Three Per Cent

About eighty per cent of Americans are more or less left alone by the health-care act—largely people who have health insurance through their employers. About fourteen per cent of Americans are clear winners: they are currently uninsured and will have access to an affordable insurance policy under the A.C.A.

But much of the current controversy involves the six per cent of Americans who buy their own health care on the individual market, which the A.C.A. has dramatically reformed. Gruber argued that half of these people (three per cent of all Americans) will have little change to their polices. “They have to buy new plans, but they will be pretty similar to what they had before,” he said. “It will essentially be relabeling.”

The other half, however, also three per cent of the population, will have to buy a new product that complies with the A.C.A.’s more stringent requirements for individual plans. A significant portion of these roughly nine million Americans will be forced to buy a new insurance policy with higher premiums than they currently pay. The primary reason for the increased cost is that the A.C.A. bans any plan that would require a people who get sick to pay medical fees greater than six thousand dollars per year. In other words, this was a deliberate policy decision that the White House and Congress made to raise the quality—and thus the premiums—of insurance policies at the bottom end of the individual market.

“We’ve decided as a society that we don’t want people to have insurance plans that expose them to more than six thousand dollars in out-of-pocket expenses,” Gruber said. Obama obviously should have known that his blanket statement about “keeping what you have” could not apply to this class of policyholders.

Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Obamacare's Three Per Cent : The New Yorker

 

[daveman]

Funny how Foxnews had no problem using the example of Ms. Barrette above, when they thought it worked for the Obama haters,

and funny how it was posted by rightwingers on this forum,

and funny how you didn't refer to it as one of a tiny few examples when it was being misrepresented as a case of someone being harmed by Obamacare.

You massive twat.

So...you got nothin'.

By the way, you babbling, fool, I've never referenced Ms. Barrette.

You referenced her in your post above, claiming her case was one of a tiny few examples.

The poster I responded to, btw, was ASKING for examples.

And you found...two.

And the proof that these two examples are representative of the millions of people who stand to lose the coverage that Obama said they could keep is STILL not forthcoming.

You fail. Just like always.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obamacare’s Three Per Cent

About eighty per cent of Americans are more or less left alone by the health-care act—largely people who have health insurance through their employers. About fourteen per cent of Americans are clear winners: they are currently uninsured and will have access to an affordable insurance policy under the A.C.A.

But much of the current controversy involves the six per cent of Americans who buy their own health care on the individual market, which the A.C.A. has dramatically reformed. Gruber argued that half of these people (three per cent of all Americans) will have little change to their polices. “They have to buy new plans, but they will be pretty similar to what they had before,” he said. “It will essentially be relabeling.”

The other half, however, also three per cent of the population, will have to buy a new product that complies with the A.C.A.’s more stringent requirements for individual plans. A significant portion of these roughly nine million Americans will be forced to buy a new insurance policy with higher premiums than they currently pay. The primary reason for the increased cost is that the A.C.A. bans any plan that would require a people who get sick to pay medical fees greater than six thousand dollars per year. In other words, this was a deliberate policy decision that the White House and Congress made to raise the quality—and thus the premiums—of insurance policies at the bottom end of the individual market.

“We’ve decided as a society that we don’t want people to have insurance plans that expose them to more than six thousand dollars in out-of-pocket expenses,” Gruber said. Obama obviously should have known that his blanket statement about “keeping what you have” could not apply to this class of policyholders.

Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Obamacare's Three Per Cent : The New Yorker

Except those 80% are seeing increased premiums and/or loss of insurance through their employers.
Those going on Obamacare are paying more and getting less. The Bronze plans have, what?, 10k deductibles. So there goes the 6k figure. It's a lie.
You aren't very good at critical thought, are you?

 

[daveman]

Funny how Foxnews had no problem using the example of Ms. Barrette above, when they thought it worked for the Obama haters,

and funny how it was posted by rightwingers on this forum,

and funny how you didn't refer to it as one of a tiny few examples when it was being misrepresented as a case of someone being harmed by Obamacare.

You massive twat.

So...you got nothin'.

By the way, you babbling, fool, I've never referenced Ms. Barrette.

Well, actually you have, about 5 days ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8068055-post58.html

See, it's that kind of shameless, outright, and easily provable LYING that so clearly and unequivocally separates you from those of us with integrity.

Then I made a mistake, and I apologize.

That's what people with integrity do.

When was the last time you apologized for being wrong, Integrity Boi?

 

[Bfgrn]

Obamacare’s Three Per Cent

About eighty per cent of Americans are more or less left alone by the health-care act—largely people who have health insurance through their employers. About fourteen per cent of Americans are clear winners: they are currently uninsured and will have access to an affordable insurance policy under the A.C.A.

But much of the current controversy involves the six per cent of Americans who buy their own health care on the individual market, which the A.C.A. has dramatically reformed. Gruber argued that half of these people (three per cent of all Americans) will have little change to their polices. “They have to buy new plans, but they will be pretty similar to what they had before,” he said. “It will essentially be relabeling.”

The other half, however, also three per cent of the population, will have to buy a new product that complies with the A.C.A.’s more stringent requirements for individual plans. A significant portion of these roughly nine million Americans will be forced to buy a new insurance policy with higher premiums than they currently pay. The primary reason for the increased cost is that the A.C.A. bans any plan that would require a people who get sick to pay medical fees greater than six thousand dollars per year. In other words, this was a deliberate policy decision that the White House and Congress made to raise the quality—and thus the premiums—of insurance policies at the bottom end of the individual market.

“We’ve decided as a society that we don’t want people to have insurance plans that expose them to more than six thousand dollars in out-of-pocket expenses,” Gruber said. Obama obviously should have known that his blanket statement about “keeping what you have” could not apply to this class of policyholders.

Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Obamacare's Three Per Cent : The New Yorker

Except those 80% are seeing increased premiums and/or loss of insurance through their employers.
Those going on Obamacare are paying more and getting less. The Bronze plans have, what?, 10k deductibles. So there goes the 6k figure. It's a lie.
You aren't very good at critical thought, are you?

Link?

 

[The Rabbi]

Obamacare’s Three Per Cent

About eighty per cent of Americans are more or less left alone by the health-care act—largely people who have health insurance through their employers. About fourteen per cent of Americans are clear winners: they are currently uninsured and will have access to an affordable insurance policy under the A.C.A.

But much of the current controversy involves the six per cent of Americans who buy their own health care on the individual market, which the A.C.A. has dramatically reformed. Gruber argued that half of these people (three per cent of all Americans) will have little change to their polices. “They have to buy new plans, but they will be pretty similar to what they had before,” he said. “It will essentially be relabeling.”

The other half, however, also three per cent of the population, will have to buy a new product that complies with the A.C.A.’s more stringent requirements for individual plans. A significant portion of these roughly nine million Americans will be forced to buy a new insurance policy with higher premiums than they currently pay. The primary reason for the increased cost is that the A.C.A. bans any plan that would require a people who get sick to pay medical fees greater than six thousand dollars per year. In other words, this was a deliberate policy decision that the White House and Congress made to raise the quality—and thus the premiums—of insurance policies at the bottom end of the individual market.

“We’ve decided as a society that we don’t want people to have insurance plans that expose them to more than six thousand dollars in out-of-pocket expenses,” Gruber said. Obama obviously should have known that his blanket statement about “keeping what you have” could not apply to this class of policyholders.

Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Obamacare's Three Per Cent : The New Yorker

Except those 80% are seeing increased premiums and/or loss of insurance through their employers.
Those going on Obamacare are paying more and getting less. The Bronze plans have, what?, 10k deductibles. So there goes the 6k figure. It's a lie.
You aren't very good at critical thought, are you?

Link?

Google is your Friend

 

[Bfgrn]

So...you got nothin'.

By the way, you babbling, fool, I've never referenced Ms. Barrette.

Well, actually you have, about 5 days ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8068055-post58.html

See, it's that kind of shameless, outright, and easily provable LYING that so clearly and unequivocally separates you from those of us with integrity.

Then I made a mistake, and I apologize.

That's what people with integrity do.

When was the last time you apologized for being wrong, Integrity Boi?

People with integrity don't beat their chest. Now it is just a tactic.

 

[Bfgrn]

Except those 80% are seeing increased premiums and/or loss of insurance through their employers.
Those going on Obamacare are paying more and getting less. The Bronze plans have, what?, 10k deductibles. So there goes the 6k figure. It's a lie.
You aren't very good at critical thought, are you?

Link?

Google is your Friend

Translation: Rabbi has NOTHING. Can't back up his emote. Just parroting faux news lies again...

 

[daveman]

Obamacare’s Three Per Cent

About eighty per cent of Americans are more or less left alone by the health-care act—largely people who have health insurance through their employers. About fourteen per cent of Americans are clear winners: they are currently uninsured and will have access to an affordable insurance policy under the A.C.A.

But much of the current controversy involves the six per cent of Americans who buy their own health care on the individual market, which the A.C.A. has dramatically reformed. Gruber argued that half of these people (three per cent of all Americans) will have little change to their polices. “They have to buy new plans, but they will be pretty similar to what they had before,” he said. “It will essentially be relabeling.”

The other half, however, also three per cent of the population, will have to buy a new product that complies with the A.C.A.’s more stringent requirements for individual plans. A significant portion of these roughly nine million Americans will be forced to buy a new insurance policy with higher premiums than they currently pay. The primary reason for the increased cost is that the A.C.A. bans any plan that would require a people who get sick to pay medical fees greater than six thousand dollars per year. In other words, this was a deliberate policy decision that the White House and Congress made to raise the quality—and thus the premiums—of insurance policies at the bottom end of the individual market.

“We’ve decided as a society that we don’t want people to have insurance plans that expose them to more than six thousand dollars in out-of-pocket expenses,” Gruber said. Obama obviously should have known that his blanket statement about “keeping what you have” could not apply to this class of policyholders.

Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Obamacare's Three Per Cent : The New Yorker

Per the Administration itself, Gruber is wrong:

Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Forbes

But Carney’s dismissal of the media’s concerns was wrong, on several fronts. Contrary to the reporting of NBC, the administration’s commentary in the Federal Register did not only refer to the individual market, but also the market for employer-sponsored health insurance.

Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act contains what’s called a “grandfather” provision that, in theory, allows people to keep their existing plans if they like them. But subsequent regulations from the Obama administration interpreted that provision so narrowly as to prevent most plans from gaining this protection.

“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

Another 25 million people, according to the CBO, have “nongroup and other” forms of insurance; that is to say, they participate in the market for individually-purchased insurance. In this market, the administration projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individually-purchased plans would lose their Obamacare-sanctioned “grandfather status” and become illegal, solely due to the fact that there is a high turnover of participants and insurance arrangements in this market. (Plans purchased after March 23, 2010 do not benefit from the “grandfather” clause.) The real turnover rate would be higher, because plans can lose their grandfather status for a number of other reasons.

How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.​

Get it? The Admin itself says up to 51% of those covered by their employers will lose coverage. So who's lying...the Administration, or the Administration?

 

[mudwhistle]

Junk health insurance
Stingy plans may be worse than none at all
Consumer Reports magazine: March 2012

It might seem to be health insurance, if you don’t look too closely, and most people don’t. The premiums are surprisingly affordable. And so millions of unemployed people, service industry workers, and those taken in by fast-talking telemarketers sign up. They may think they’re insured—until they have a medical problem and find out that their coverage is as skimpy as a hospital gown.

The Affordable Care Act was supposed to usher in a new era of consumer-friendly health care. For instance, insurers are no longer allowed to put outrageously low limits on the amount they pay out for medical care in a year or lifetime.

While millions of Americans have benefited from that and other reforms, many are still prey to the kind of skimpy “junk” plans the new law was designed to eliminate. Some plans, known as mini-meds, are operated by employers and brand-name insurance companies with special dispensation from the federal government. Others, such as health discount cards and fixed benefit indemnity plans, from companies you’ve probably never heard of, are so meager that regulators don’t consider them to be health insurance at all—though that’s frequently not clear to consumers. And some of the companies operate one step ahead of the law.

Cheap Health Insurance - Consumer Reports

Just like they tried to cover up how few were enrolling, they are also trying to cover up how few of the cancelled policies were what they called junk policies.

Honestly, how can you still trust these lying assholes after this?

WTF is wrong with you??

Hundreds of thousands of BlueCross BlueShield members had their policies cancelled. Is Blue Cross selling junk policies????

 

[mudwhistle]

Obamacare’s Three Per Cent

About eighty per cent of Americans are more or less left alone by the health-care act—largely people who have health insurance through their employers. About fourteen per cent of Americans are clear winners: they are currently uninsured and will have access to an affordable insurance policy under the A.C.A.

But much of the current controversy involves the six per cent of Americans who buy their own health care on the individual market, which the A.C.A. has dramatically reformed. Gruber argued that half of these people (three per cent of all Americans) will have little change to their polices. “They have to buy new plans, but they will be pretty similar to what they had before,” he said. “It will essentially be relabeling.”

The other half, however, also three per cent of the population, will have to buy a new product that complies with the A.C.A.’s more stringent requirements for individual plans. A significant portion of these roughly nine million Americans will be forced to buy a new insurance policy with higher premiums than they currently pay. The primary reason for the increased cost is that the A.C.A. bans any plan that would require a people who get sick to pay medical fees greater than six thousand dollars per year. In other words, this was a deliberate policy decision that the White House and Congress made to raise the quality—and thus the premiums—of insurance policies at the bottom end of the individual market.

“We’ve decided as a society that we don’t want people to have insurance plans that expose them to more than six thousand dollars in out-of-pocket expenses,” Gruber said. Obama obviously should have known that his blanket statement about “keeping what you have” could not apply to this class of policyholders.

Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Obamacare's Three Per Cent : The New Yorker

Per the Administration itself, Gruber is wrong:

Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Forbes

But Carney’s dismissal of the media’s concerns was wrong, on several fronts. Contrary to the reporting of NBC, the administration’s commentary in the Federal Register did not only refer to the individual market, but also the market for employer-sponsored health insurance.

Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act contains what’s called a “grandfather” provision that, in theory, allows people to keep their existing plans if they like them. But subsequent regulations from the Obama administration interpreted that provision so narrowly as to prevent most plans from gaining this protection.

“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

Another 25 million people, according to the CBO, have “nongroup and other” forms of insurance; that is to say, they participate in the market for individually-purchased insurance. In this market, the administration projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individually-purchased plans would lose their Obamacare-sanctioned “grandfather status” and become illegal, solely due to the fact that there is a high turnover of participants and insurance arrangements in this market. (Plans purchased after March 23, 2010 do not benefit from the “grandfather” clause.) The real turnover rate would be higher, because plans can lose their grandfather status for a number of other reasons.

How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.​

Get it? The Admin itself says up to 51% of those covered by their employers will lose coverage. So who's lying...the Administration, or the Administration?

There was a reason why Obama decided to push back the mandate on business group plans. He knew that most would would get a cancellation letter. Imagine the anger directed towards him personally when roughly 50 million Americans discover they don't have any health insurance anymore, thanks to Obamacare.

Maybe he can push it off till after the election.

Isn't this what Ted Cruz tried to stop? Isn't this why we had a shutdown? Ted Cruz was trying to stop Obama from taking away our health care insurance, and all he got was demonized for it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Obamacare’s Three Per Cent

About eighty per cent of Americans are more or less left alone by the health-care act—largely people who have health insurance through their employers. About fourteen per cent of Americans are clear winners: they are currently uninsured and will have access to an affordable insurance policy under the A.C.A.

But much of the current controversy involves the six per cent of Americans who buy their own health care on the individual market, which the A.C.A. has dramatically reformed. Gruber argued that half of these people (three per cent of all Americans) will have little change to their polices. “They have to buy new plans, but they will be pretty similar to what they had before,” he said. “It will essentially be relabeling.”

The other half, however, also three per cent of the population, will have to buy a new product that complies with the A.C.A.’s more stringent requirements for individual plans. A significant portion of these roughly nine million Americans will be forced to buy a new insurance policy with higher premiums than they currently pay. The primary reason for the increased cost is that the A.C.A. bans any plan that would require a people who get sick to pay medical fees greater than six thousand dollars per year. In other words, this was a deliberate policy decision that the White House and Congress made to raise the quality—and thus the premiums—of insurance policies at the bottom end of the individual market.

“We’ve decided as a society that we don’t want people to have insurance plans that expose them to more than six thousand dollars in out-of-pocket expenses,” Gruber said. Obama obviously should have known that his blanket statement about “keeping what you have” could not apply to this class of policyholders.

Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Obamacare's Three Per Cent : The New Yorker

Per the Administration itself, Gruber is wrong:

Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Forbes

But Carney’s dismissal of the media’s concerns was wrong, on several fronts. Contrary to the reporting of NBC, the administration’s commentary in the Federal Register did not only refer to the individual market, but also the market for employer-sponsored health insurance.

Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act contains what’s called a “grandfather” provision that, in theory, allows people to keep their existing plans if they like them. But subsequent regulations from the Obama administration interpreted that provision so narrowly as to prevent most plans from gaining this protection.

“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

Another 25 million people, according to the CBO, have “nongroup and other” forms of insurance; that is to say, they participate in the market for individually-purchased insurance. In this market, the administration projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individually-purchased plans would lose their Obamacare-sanctioned “grandfather status” and become illegal, solely due to the fact that there is a high turnover of participants and insurance arrangements in this market. (Plans purchased after March 23, 2010 do not benefit from the “grandfather” clause.) The real turnover rate would be higher, because plans can lose their grandfather status for a number of other reasons.

How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.​

Get it? The Admin itself says up to 51% of those covered by their employers will lose coverage. So who's lying...the Administration, or the Administration?

Avik Roy? This guy is a political hack. Roy is, as usual, completely full of crap. What the administration was saying is that the estimates were simple: the plans don't meet coverage standards, so they are getting replaced and won't be grandfathered. Roy counts that as "canceled".

 

[daveman]

Well, actually you have, about 5 days ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8068055-post58.html

See, it's that kind of shameless, outright, and easily provable LYING that so clearly and unequivocally separates you from those of us with integrity.

Then I made a mistake, and I apologize.

That's what people with integrity do.

When was the last time you apologized for being wrong, Integrity Boi?

People with integrity don't beat their chest. Now it is just a tactic.

In post #132, I proved you wrong.

But you will not apologize. You will not even acknowledge it. You will instead continue to screech at people for not believing Obama's lies.

Guaranteed.

 

[Bfgrn]

Junk health insurance
Stingy plans may be worse than none at all
Consumer Reports magazine: March 2012

It might seem to be health insurance, if you don’t look too closely, and most people don’t. The premiums are surprisingly affordable. And so millions of unemployed people, service industry workers, and those taken in by fast-talking telemarketers sign up. They may think they’re insured—until they have a medical problem and find out that their coverage is as skimpy as a hospital gown.

The Affordable Care Act was supposed to usher in a new era of consumer-friendly health care. For instance, insurers are no longer allowed to put outrageously low limits on the amount they pay out for medical care in a year or lifetime.

While millions of Americans have benefited from that and other reforms, many are still prey to the kind of skimpy “junk” plans the new law was designed to eliminate. Some plans, known as mini-meds, are operated by employers and brand-name insurance companies with special dispensation from the federal government. Others, such as health discount cards and fixed benefit indemnity plans, from companies you’ve probably never heard of, are so meager that regulators don’t consider them to be health insurance at all—though that’s frequently not clear to consumers. And some of the companies operate one step ahead of the law.

Cheap Health Insurance - Consumer Reports

Just like they tried to cover up how few were enrolling, they are also trying to cover up how few of the cancelled policies were what they called junk policies.

Honestly, how can you still trust these lying assholes after this?

WTF is wrong with you??

Hundreds of thousands of BlueCross BlueShield members had their policies cancelled. Is Blue Cross selling junk policies????

Links? WHY don't you faux news parrots ever provide them?

 

[daveman]

Obamacare’s Three Per Cent

About eighty per cent of Americans are more or less left alone by the health-care act—largely people who have health insurance through their employers. About fourteen per cent of Americans are clear winners: they are currently uninsured and will have access to an affordable insurance policy under the A.C.A.

But much of the current controversy involves the six per cent of Americans who buy their own health care on the individual market, which the A.C.A. has dramatically reformed. Gruber argued that half of these people (three per cent of all Americans) will have little change to their polices. “They have to buy new plans, but they will be pretty similar to what they had before,” he said. “It will essentially be relabeling.”

The other half, however, also three per cent of the population, will have to buy a new product that complies with the A.C.A.’s more stringent requirements for individual plans. A significant portion of these roughly nine million Americans will be forced to buy a new insurance policy with higher premiums than they currently pay. The primary reason for the increased cost is that the A.C.A. bans any plan that would require a people who get sick to pay medical fees greater than six thousand dollars per year. In other words, this was a deliberate policy decision that the White House and Congress made to raise the quality—and thus the premiums—of insurance policies at the bottom end of the individual market.

“We’ve decided as a society that we don’t want people to have insurance plans that expose them to more than six thousand dollars in out-of-pocket expenses,” Gruber said. Obama obviously should have known that his blanket statement about “keeping what you have” could not apply to this class of policyholders.

Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Obamacare's Three Per Cent : The New Yorker

Per the Administration itself, Gruber is wrong:

Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Forbes

But Carney’s dismissal of the media’s concerns was wrong, on several fronts. Contrary to the reporting of NBC, the administration’s commentary in the Federal Register did not only refer to the individual market, but also the market for employer-sponsored health insurance.

Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act contains what’s called a “grandfather” provision that, in theory, allows people to keep their existing plans if they like them. But subsequent regulations from the Obama administration interpreted that provision so narrowly as to prevent most plans from gaining this protection.

“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

Another 25 million people, according to the CBO, have “nongroup and other” forms of insurance; that is to say, they participate in the market for individually-purchased insurance. In this market, the administration projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individually-purchased plans would lose their Obamacare-sanctioned “grandfather status” and become illegal, solely due to the fact that there is a high turnover of participants and insurance arrangements in this market. (Plans purchased after March 23, 2010 do not benefit from the “grandfather” clause.) The real turnover rate would be higher, because plans can lose their grandfather status for a number of other reasons.

How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.​

Get it? The Admin itself says up to 51% of those covered by their employers will lose coverage. So who's lying...the Administration, or the Administration?

Avik Roy? This guy is a political hack. Roy is, as usual, completely full of crap. What the administration was saying is that the estimates were simple: the plans don't meet coverage standards, so they are getting replaced and won't be grandfathered. Roy counts that as "canceled".

Your source, Gruber, is a paid Obamacare toady. Not at all credible, especially since my article references what the Admin itself put into the Federal Register.

You lose.

But anyway, thanks for proving me right. You screeched at me for not believing Obama's lies.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

.

Yeah, I tried on a different thread to get some examples. ANY examples.

Given the amount of people losing their coverage, there must be a ZILLION examples. Because surely these folks wouldn't just be throwing that argument around without plenty of facts to back it up in a transparent attempt to divert from the fact that Obama lied to our faces about his signature legislation.

Weird, huh?

.

You need an example of crap health insurance that someone is using the exchange to replace with something much much better at a very good price?

Here. You can pretend this isn't a good example:

Back in March, Consumer Reports published a study of many of these plans and placed them in a special category: "junk health insurance." Some plans, the magazine declared, may be worse than none at all.

Consumer Reports is right. Plans with monthly premiums in the two figures marketed to customers in their 30s, 40s, or even 50s invariably impose ridiculously low coverage limits. They've typically been pitched to people who couldn't find affordable insurance because of their age or preexisting conditions, or who were so financially strapped that they were lured by the cheap upfront cost.

"People buy a plan that's terrible," says Nancy Metcalf, CR's senior project editor for health, "and if they get sick, they don't even know they don't have insurance."

An example from CR: A plan costing $65 a month held by Judith Goss, 48, a Michigan department store employee. When Goss was diagnosed with breast cancer, she discovered the drawbacks of the policy's coverage limits of $1,000 a year for outpatient treatment and $2,000 for hospitalization -- barely enough to cover a day and half a Tylenol in the hospital. She delayed treatment, so her cancer got much worse before she finally opted for surgery. Those sorts of coverage limits are illegal come Jan. 1.

and this:

Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. (We mentioned the Barrette case on Tuesday.)

CR's Metcalf examined Barrette's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette's $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she's on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services -- and then only if her treatment is for "complications of pregnancy." Nothing for outpatient services.

"She's paying $650 a year to be uninsured," said an insurance expert Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, "she would have lost the house she's sitting in."

As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. (Or she will once the federal system gets running.) Metcalf estimated that she'll be eligible for "real insurance that covers all essential health benefits" for as little as $165 a month -- a higher premium than she's paying now, sure, but one that won't cost her her home.

Obamacare hysteria: Don't believe the canceled insurance hype - latimes.com

There were thousands of different types that weren't equal in coverage. You had choices. Now you don't. Were you forced to buy those plans? No, you weren't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So...you got nothin'.

By the way, you babbling, fool, I've never referenced Ms. Barrette.

Well, actually you have, about 5 days ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8068055-post58.html

See, it's that kind of shameless, outright, and easily provable LYING that so clearly and unequivocally separates you from those of us with integrity.

Then I made a mistake, and I apologize.

That's what people with integrity do.

When was the last time you apologized for being wrong, Integrity Boi?

A sincere apology is not delivered with a ration of shit included.