Why insurers are canceling millions under Obamacare
As the White House tries to fix its health care site, debate rages on about the ramifications of the Affordable Care Act. Do insurance companies bear responsibility for policy cancellations?
This post comes from Brianna Ehley at partner site The Fiscal Times.
Since Obamacare's troubled rollout on Oct. 1, more than 3.5 million Americans have received notices canceling their existing insurance policies next year. The reason -- their plans do not meet the new standards under the new health care law.
For most of these people, the cancellations have come as a shock, since President Obama has continuously assured Americans that if they liked their insurance polices, they could keep them.
Despite a wave of accusations that the president's statements were misleading, the White House has staunchly defended Obama's claims and says that insurance companies, not Obamacare, are to blame for the cancellation of millions of insurance plans.
Over the weekend, criticism of the Obamacare rollout reached a fever pitch, as congressional Democrats joined in the growing chorus of lawmakers calling for the law to be fixed. A group of 16 Senate Democrats -- vulnerable in the 2014 mid-term elections -- is especially nervous about the new law.
"The rollout of the new law was a disaster. The administration had three years to prepare," Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) told Reuters. "They clearly dropped the ball."
Still, the Obama administration and its allies are relentlessly defending Obamacare.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist who played a key role in shaping the health reform law, told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" said that the ACA isn’t responsible for kicking people off their insurance plans.
"The law does not say 'Sears, drop coverage!' Sears decides what's good for Sears," Emanuel, the brother of former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, said. "The insurance decides how to make money. When the private companies decide to drop an individual, you blame Obama. He isn’t responsible for that."
He pointed to a clause in the ACA that "grandfathers in" plans that don't meet the law's standards but were already purchased before it became law in 2010. Policy experts say that clause is too narrow.
Indeed, analysts say between 7 to 12 million people will be kicked off their current plans this year, according to The Washington Post.
For some, the change could be a matter of life and death. An essay in Monday's Wall Street Journal by Edie Littlefield Sundby describes how, as a stage-four cancer patient, she is losing not only her insurance policy, but access to the team of doctors who have kept her alive for the past seven years.
The plans under Obamacare's chopping block must have been purchased on or before 2010 on the individual market instead of through an employer or group. If no changes were made by the insurer or the consumer to the plan, the consumer would theoretically be "grandfathered in" and be able to keep her plan.
Obama refers to these as "cut-rate plans" offered by "bad-apple insurers."
Since changes are made to most plans every year; however, the "grandfather" clause really doesn't apply. This means people who liked purchasing scaled back coverage can't keep their plans. The whole idea of the provision was to make insurance coverage more robust, regardless of what people wanted or could afford.
Plans would now include 10 essential benefits, such as emergency services, prescription drugs, maternity coverage, and dental and vision care for children, among others. As The Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff notes, "There's not a whole lot of business sense for a managed care company in maintaining a health plan that doesn’t meet the health law's new requirements."
Insurance companies are required by law to notify individuals if their policy will be discontinued under the new law. They are also required to tell consumers about other options they still offer.
If individuals don't wish to buy a new plan through their former insurance provider, they have the option to buy insurance through the new online exchange (if they can get glitch-ridden Healthcare.gov to work). However, in order to get a plan that takes effect on Jan 1., consumers are required to enroll in the federal or state exchanges by Dec 15.
They can also buy plans outside the new marketplaces, as they have in the past.
Under the new law, people who wish to buy scaled back plans are likely to pay higher premiums, since they will be getting more benefits than they would have in the past. Still, some people -- who earn less than 400 percent of the federal poverty line, or $45,000 for an individual -- will qualify for a tax subsidy to purchase their plan.
More from The Fiscal Times:
- 15 awful things more popular than Congress
- How politics doomed Obamacare’s rollout
- What Obamacare ignores: Cutting health care costs
Freaky Eazaki came across like the angry little man he is during that interview. Defensive, rude and disingenuous. Blame the insurance companies because they complied with the law his boss and Pelosi cobbled together, that no one read. Then start the website before it has been properly tested, all this against the better advice of the consultants and programmers that have been over paid to put this together. Blame the citizens whose policies are being cancelled because they purchased "substandard" policies and lastly, blame the Republicans because they didn't support this catastrophe from the beginning.
My uncle was cancelled because he needed to have maternity in his plan to be compliant. My uncle is 62 years old.
The current administration will never admit they have mislead the American public. They are masters at deflecting any fault or potential wrong doing, The insurance companies are just the latest in a long list of scapegoats. The fact is this law was pushed hastily through while the democrats had a majority to achieve their socialist agenda. The current long list of problems proves it was never properly vetted for it's impact. I can only hope the American voter's will learn a lesson here.
They claim plans are grandfathered, but the rules are written so restrictively that it’s impossible to keep them. In addition to that it’s not cost effective to maintain plans that can’t be sold to new participants.
The administration is being disingenuous.
Lets see - under virtually dictatorial times (2009) the Democrats passed a law requiring all pizza businessess to offer more toppings on their pizzas and for less money (affordable). Furthermore, they grandfathered all existing pizza recipes so long as nothing changed, but as soon as you change one mushroom from the recipe you must buy the their gov't recipe forever more. And if you don't buy the new recipe, then you pay a small voluntary penalty for not buying pizza. So, they attempted to control our pizza behaviour and pizza spending habits by the authority vested in them AND gave no credibility to the existing pizza places experience and business savvy as to what the public wants and buys. The Government knows better - right. That is the ultimate in EGO and Arrogance.
Anybody with any business experience knows how difficult it is to create a profitable business and product to sell. THERE JUST ISN'T ANY WAY THAT OBAMA KNOWS HOW TO MAKE A BETTER PIZZA THAN PAPA JOHNS MUCH LESS TACKLE HEALTH CARE. OBAMCARE'S BUSINESS MODEL IS CLEARLY DESIGNED TO FAIL BY ITS OWN INEPT DESIGN.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
What is this "following the law" thing?......... My administration never presented an example like that.
Signed........ "Dear Leader"
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
ABOUT SMART SPENDING
LATEST BLOG POSTS
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
BLOGS WE LIKE
MUST-SEE ON MSN
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'