HHS in 2010: 40-67% of those with individual insurance won't be able to keep it

[Brittain33]

What also happened here is that Obama tried to keep this promise by grandfathering in plans people belonged to before 2011, but the insurance companies gamed it by switching millions of people into "new, better" plans after that date and then using that as an excuse to drop them.

[Brittain33]

Oh no!  People are going to have to get (gasp) a different health insurance plan!  And, it's going to be cheaper and provide more comprehensive coverage and if I can't afford it, the government will help me pay?  What ever shall we do?

Where on earth do you get the idea what they'll find to replace their lost coverage with is cheaper?  You might want to read the article.

George Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, said he was "perfectly happy" with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The "comparable" plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible.

What did George Schwab find on the exchanges?

[Brittain33]

Oh no!  People are going to have to get (gasp) a different health insurance plan!  And, it's going to be cheaper and provide more comprehensive coverage and if I can't afford it, the government will help me pay?  What ever shall we do?

Where on earth do you get the idea what they'll find to replace their lost coverage with is cheaper?  You might want to read the article.

George Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, said he was "perfectly happy" with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The "comparable" plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible.

What did George Schwab find on the exchanges?

Something a hell of a lot better than his old policy, I'm sure. The idea that two olds were receiving adequate coverage for $228/mo is ludicrous.

Reading is fundamental!

Um, yeah, and the proposal from BCBS sent in a personal letter != what he would find if he went on the exchanges and searched, including if there's any subsidies for his income.

He'll be on Medicare in 3 years anyway. 

[Brittain33]

Is Ameriplan still legal?

[Brittain33]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-greta-van-susteren-out-journalisms-cbs-news-on-florida-womans-junk-insurance/

[Brittain33]

He found a plan for about $985 (if I remember correctly) and said it was "unaffordable." Well, if he can't afford it, then he surely qualifies for subsidies, and he and his wife won't be paying that full cost of $12k a year for the two of them. If he doesn't qualify, he's making a substantial amount of money and can afford it, and his previous plan was Ameriplan quality and wasn't going to cover his costs as a 62-year-old. BFD.

[Brittain33]

He found a plan for about $985 (if I remember correctly) and said it was "unaffordable." Well, if he can't afford it, then he surely qualifies for subsidies, and he and his wife won't be paying that full cost of $12k a year for the two of them. If he doesn't qualify, he's making a substantial amount of money and can afford it, and his previous plan was Ameriplan quality and wasn't going to cover his costs as a 62-year-old. BFD.

Translation: Liberals screwed Mr. Schwab out of $8640 and liberals don't give a sh**t.


I suppose that was the point.

[Brittain33]

Muon, interesting. If she doesn't qualify for subsidy, her income must be $70,000 a year or more, no? How much of that is annual interest from the nest egg (meaning a principal well over $1 million) and how much is his Social Security?

Definitionally, if she is not qualifying for subsidy, the "great expense" is within her range for the small number of years until she turns 65 and qualifies for Medicare.

This seems like a rather exceptional case that we can take at face value given the caveats that she can afford the hike in costs and it will only affect her until age 65, and then weigh against the millions and millions of people unable to buy individual insurance under the old regime because of cost, preexisting conditions, and failed markets who now enjoy meaningful health insurance.

[Brittain33]

Good point, my mistake is that I've applied a number for a family of 4 to an individual with a lower threshold.

Muon, interesting. If she doesn't qualify for subsidy, her income must be $70,000 a year or more, no? How much of that is annual interest from the nest egg (meaning a principal well over $1 million) and how much is his Social Security?

Definitionally, if she is not qualifying for subsidy, the "great expense" is within her range for the small number of years until she turns 65 and qualifies for Medicare.

This seems like a rather exceptional case that we can take at face value given the caveats that she can afford the hike in costs and it will only affect her until age 65, and then weigh against the millions and millions of people unable to buy individual insurance under the old regime because of cost, preexisting conditions, and failed markets who now enjoy meaningful health insurance.

To qualify for subsidies ones MAGI has to be less than 400% of FPL which is $45,960.  In this case perhaps she lives in a high cost area like the Greater NYC area so a MAGI of around $50K does not leave her with much money left for medical insurance. 

[Brittain33]

An excellent point made during the Congressional hearings is that new plans have consumer protections that the previous individual plans/Ameriplan-style benefits did not. The insurance plan that the 60+ woman has, if described accurately, certainly is a loser for the insurance company, and what is common among people who've been reporting plans lost is that her surgery that she believes to be "covered" may have incurred other costs, or complications, that would not have been covered at all, or a technicality could have caused them to drop insurance, with no recourse for her. She is a beneficiary of inefficient underwriting causing harm to the investors in the company or we don't have all the information about the policy's real worth; I assume a mix of both.

It is beyond question that a large number of people satisfied with their low-cost insurance have never made claims on it that could trigger ejection or denial that would have made them unsatisfied, the same way many homeowners are satisfied with their home insurance policy because they have never experienced a Katrina or Sandy, or even a break-in, and found out what they were really getting.

That said, in a country of several hundred million served by a diversity of insurance companies, I do believe that there are some people who will find that they are paying more for a plan with protections, some of which they don't need (hat tip to the pregnancy treatment) but others they had no idea they were lacking (the ejection from the planning, surprise costs.) A majority of these people will be able to afford the switch, but not without some cost.  

I do see uncomfortable shades of the discussion of muon's vote on another issue where the rare prospect of an unintended outcome (fraud in applying for a marriage license) is cited to justify denying benefits to a large number of people as the law intended, without weighing both the unintended harm and the benefit. I believe that if we are to govern a diverse, wealthy country with a range of views, it's not realistic to only make policy around the exceptions when the loss is not a grave constitutional infringement, i.e. the right to have a cheap, potentially defective insurance policy yielding to the requirement to by a more expensive, but banned-from-dumping-charges-on-the-public-purse approved policy. This is the same debate we have over auto safety, zoning laws, and many other policies, and America survives.

[Brittain33]

I'm sorry, are men required to get pregnancy coverage? Do men's policies cover obstetrician vistis, etc.? Speak more about that. Or is this just about the costs of pregnancy not accruing 100% to women per surcharges, but being shared among the pool of all people?

[Brittain33]

I support your decision to wait for more data, and I'm not totally surprised at the product produced by this process. Most of my surprise is at what happened technologically given the resources available. I and many other Pubs were willing to work with a plan like Wyden's at the beginning of 2009. Unfortunately Obama characterized that as "too radical" despite its bipartisan support.

No U.S. Senators were willing to work on a bipartisan plan or any plan for healthcare in 2009-2010, as shown by the lack of results or proposals from the bipartisan "gang" which negotiated through much of 2008. Robert Bennett did support the Wyden plan and is no longer a U.S. Senator as a result.

Given the pressure on U.S. Senators to conform and be whipped to filibuster on issues of major importance to the President (the stimulus, health care, immigration reform, and all judicial nominations) the dynamics of the Senate under current leadership foreclose compromise. It's unfortunate that your instincts and initiatives would not bear any fruit in the Senate, and it's inconceivable that a Republican U.S. senator could behave as you suggest.

[Brittain33]

Good article about how policyholders are being misled by their insurers about their options.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insurance-companies-misleading-letters-obamacare