White House knew in 2010 93 million to lose coverage

[Clocker]

According to Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/) (insert liberal attack on the messenger here), the administration published the estimate in the Federal Register on June 17, 2010. The article below says that it would occur by the end of 2013. Since then, the effective date of the employer mandate was delayed a year, so the major cancellations will now occur toward the end of 2014.

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.



See, this really is the most transparent administration in history. They put all that critical information right out there on page 34,552 of the Federal Register for everyone to see.

[TJDave]

But subsequent regulations from the Obama administration interpreted that provision so narrowly as to prevent most plans from gaining this protection.


The ONLY way the ACA has of succeeding is to get people in the pools. To that end, the administration will use any trick in the book.

[FantasticDan]

According to Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/) (insert liberal attack on the messenger here), the administration published the estimate in the Federal Register on June 17, 2010. The article below says that it would occur by the end of 2013. Since then, the effective date of the employer mandate was delayed a year, so the major cancellations will now occur toward the end of 2014.
Or not. :sleeping:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/01/2873941/obamacare-workers-cancel-health-plans/

[tucker6]

Or not. :sleeping:


So you'd rather live in ignorant bliss than to admit what is happening all around you? :faint: I mean, come on man. You can't really be dismissing every story that even the left leaning press is writing about Obamacare these days.

Edit to add a positive note that I am happy to see you are a gelding. Don't want the gene pool too messed up. :ThmbUp: :D

[dartman51]

So you'd rather live in ignorant bliss than to admit what is happening all around you? :faint: I mean, come on man. You can't really be dismissing every story that even the left leaning press is writing about Obamacare these days.

Edit to add a positive note that I am happy to see you are a gelding. Don't want the gene pool too messed up. :ThmbUp: :D

Well, you do know that LOVE IS BLIND. Dan and others, here, are so IN LOVE with the ONE, that they are too blind to see what's right in front of their face. :ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

Or not. :sleeping:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/01/2873941/obamacare-workers-cancel-health-plans/

The article cited here criticizes the Forbes article for its interpretation of the grandfather rules, and the impact of that interpretation on the estimates.

In fact, the Forbes article does not make make any estimate of canceled policies. It only reports the government's estimates, and explains how the government estimates were high because of the administration's changes to the grandfather rules, making them stricter than originally written.

The estimates are made by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) based on their interpretation of the grandfather rules. The Forbes article merely reports the CBO numbers.

[Clocker]

The ONLY way the ACA has of succeeding is to get people in the pools. To that end, the administration will use any trick in the book.

More unintended consequences. The vast majority of people who try to sign up for ObamaCare end up signing up for Medicaid.

Story here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/31/in-first-month-the-vast-majority-of-obamacare-sign-ups-are-in-medicaid/)

[Tom]

The ONLY way the ACA has of succeeding is to get people in the pools. To that end, the administration will use any trick in the book.
The ONLY way the NATION has of succeeding is to get the government to stop lying and trying to trick us.

[boxcar]

The ONLY way the ACA has of succeeding is to get people in the pools. To that end, the administration will use any trick in the book.

You meant to say any deceitful "trick", didn't you?

Boxcar

[mostpost]

More unintended consequences. The vast majority of people who try to sign up for ObamaCare end up signing up for Medicaid.

Story here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/31/in-first-month-the-vast-majority-of-obamacare-sign-ups-are-in-medicaid/)
That is not true. It is true that many more people are signing up for medicaid right now than are signing up on the exchanges. But it is not true that people try to sign up for Obamacare then decide medicaid is better.

You don't sign up for medicaid on the exchanges. You sign up on your states medicaid webpage. Those webpages have been operating for decades. If a person is eligible for medicaid the sign up process is pretty routine. On the other hand, we all know the problems the exchange websites have been having. (I think it's Republican sabotage.) So on the one hand we have a website that has been functioning for decades. On the other we have one which is barely functioning. Which do you think is going to sign up the most customers?

[rastajenk]

Republican sabotage?!?!


That's entertainment....that's good stuff :D

[Clocker]

You don't sign up for medicaid on the exchanges. You sign up on your states medicaid webpage.

You don't sign up for Medicaid on the federal exchange. But then you can't sign up for ObamaCare there either. I think you might be able to order a pizza there if you stay on long enough.

For those few states that operate their own exchanges, you can sign up for either private insurance or Medicaid on the same site. And on those web sites, the vast majority are signing up for Medicaid. This was shown in the Washington Post article I linked to in a previous post.

On the other hand, we all know the problems the exchange websites have been having. (I think it's Republican sabotage.)

That would be website, singular. As in the federal website. The websites in those states that are running their own exchanges seem to be working fine. And they are signing up a few folks for insurance and bunches for Medicaid.

There does seem to be a problem with this website, though, because your link to the site proving your claim of Republican sabotage did not appear in your post. :p

[mostpost]

You don't sign up for Medicaid on the federal exchange. But then you can't sign up for ObamaCare there either. I think you might be able to order a pizza there if you stay on long enough.

For those few states that operate their own exchanges, you can sign up for either private insurance or Medicaid on the same site. And on those web sites, the vast majority are signing up for Medicaid. This was shown in the Washington Post article I linked to in a previous post.



That would be website, singular. As in the federal website. The websites in those states that are running their own exchanges seem to be working fine. And they are signing up a few folks for insurance and bunches for Medicaid.

There does seem to be a problem with this website, though, because your link to the site proving your claim of Republican sabotage did not appear in your post. :p
I just said that to mess with your mind. ;)

[incoming]

[/B]
I just said that to mess with your mind. ;)


Oh No!!!! I think he is out of "lipstick." :kiss: :kiss:

[Saratoga_Mike]

That is not true. It is true that many more people are signing up for medicaid right now than are signing up on the exchanges. But it is not true that people try to sign up for Obamacare then decide medicaid is better.

You don't sign up for medicaid on the exchanges. You sign up on your states medicaid webpage. Those webpages have been operating for decades. If a person is eligible for medicaid the sign up process is pretty routine. On the other hand, we all know the problems the exchange websites have been having. (I think it's Republican sabotage.) So on the one hand we have a website that has been functioning for decades. On the other we have one which is barely functioning. Which do you think is going to sign up the most customers?

Of course Medicaid enrollment is higher - it's FREE!!!

[Tom]

Day One - 6 people signed up.
More people have walked on the moon!

[fast4522]

Ya, and they are singing about it on award shows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR3_mM4bpCY

[Tom]

This out today - they tested the website the day before they rolled it out and it crashed with just a few thousand people.


Duh????

[classhandicapper]

I think we need 2 systems in this country.

1. A means tested single payer system (combined medicare/medicaid) whose quality is a notch below what you can get in private insurance. It will be funded by taxes. But by the strictest of laws, spending can never exceed a certain % GDP and/or certain % of all tax revenues (something along those lines).

Everyone is eligible at varying levels of reimbursement depending on your means. All you have to do is sign up.

2. A less regulated private market where people can choose from a variety of superior plans with various deductibles, co pays, a menu of what they want to be covered for and what they don't want to be covered for, choice of doctors etc...

[tucker6]

I think we need 2 systems in this country.

1. A means tested single payer system (combined medicare/medicaid) whose quality is a notch below what you can get in private insurance. It will be funded by taxes. But by the strictest of laws, spending can never exceed a certain % GDP and/or certain % of all tax revenues (something along those lines).

Everyone is eligible at varying levels of reimbursement depending on your means. All you have to do is sign up.

2. A less regulated private market where people can choose from a variety of superior plans with various deductibles, co pays, a menu of what they want to be covered for and what they don't want to be covered for, choice of doctors etc...
Isn't one a form of medicaid and two a form of medicare? I know it isn't an exact match, but it was the first thing I thought when I read your post.

[classhandicapper]

Isn't one a form of medicaid and two a form of medicare? I know it isn't an exact match, but it was the first thing I thought when I read your post.

No.

The first one is a single payer system that combines medicare and medicaid into one system (to save administrative costs) and catches any existing gaps in those systems. It's the dream system of the left, except that since I know it will eventually sink into an abyss of political patronage, incompetence, corruption, runaway spending etc... I put extremely hard caps on the spending relative to GDP and tax revenue.

The second would be a lot like we have now, except you would be free to buy policies across state lines, there would no regulation on what must be in the policy, etc... There could even be exchanges. I have no fundamental problem with exchanges as long at they are formed via the private sector and there are no penalties if you choose to self insure.

IMO, many people only need insurance for hospital and other catastrophic health care issues. They should pay for routine doctors visits, small tests and procedures etc... out of pocket in return for much cheaper premium costs. They should not have to pay abortions, viagra for seniors, birth control, cosmetic surgery, and a wide variety of other things unless they actually want it.