Top Democrat says those aren't 'cancellation notices,' they're 'transitions'

[Gingersnap]

Top Democrat says those aren't 'cancellation notices,' they're 'transitions' into Obamacare
BY JOEL GEHRKE | OCTOBER 29, 2013 AT 1:53 PM

"If [the companies] changed [the insurance plans] then they have to notify the people who have to...
Insurance companies aren't sending out cancellation letters, they're helping people "transition" into Obamacare, according to a top Democrat.

"If [the companies] changed [the insurance plans] then they have to notify the people who have to have the opportunity to have another policy," said House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Sander Levin, D-Mich.

In fact, according to Levin, the "so-called cancellation notices" merely "help people transition to a new policy."

Levin cited comments made by Florida Blue CEO Patrick Geraghty, the insurance company executive who originally floated the "transitioning" talking point on Sunday's Meet the Press.

"We're not cutting people, we're actually transitioning people," Geraghty told NBC's David Gregory. "What we've been doing is informing folks that their plan doesn't meet the test of the essential health benefits, therefore they have a choice of many options that we make available through the exchange."

Geraghty's argument may exonerate Florida Blue, but the fig leaf doesn't cover Obamacare nearly as well as Levin suggested, given that "the test of the essential health benefits" comes from Obamacare and invalidated the previously acceptable insurance policies.

Newspeak strikes again.

Wash Ex

[Adam]

Unavailable for comment:

[Billy Jingo]

That's differently abled.

[Billy Jingo]

BTW, all of this cancellation stuff from insurance companies is starting to smell shysterish.

[Adam]

BTW, all of this cancellation stuff from insurance companies is starting to smell shysterish.

Why? The policies are now disqualified under Obamacare. That's the case with mine. IIUC, Lanie is in the same boat. I know several other people in meatspace that this is happening to.

This was a known, and indeed intentional consequence of Obamacare: your insurance isn't good enough, even if it's been serving you well and you're happy with it.




We warned about this back in '09 and 2010, but the Left just tut-tutted it and said "see? Obama has promised that you can keep your insurance if you like it!"

[Billy Jingo]

Why?

A healthy skepticism of certain types of businesses due to repeated interaction with them. Financial institutions are another type. Media as well.

.

Just think of it like your reaction to government and it might make more sense.

[Adam]

A healthy skepticism of certain types of businesses due to repeated interaction with them. Financial institutions are another type. Media as well.

.

Just think of it like your reaction to government and it might make more sense.

Well, OK, I can understand the skepticism part, but pretty much everyone, even Democrats, now agrees that there's a bunch of people out there whose insurance has been deemed insufficient under Obamacare. It's pretty clear that this is not apocryphal.

I suppose it's possible that insurance companies could be using that as an excuse, but that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense either, since they now have a federally-regulated maximum profit. If an insurance company pushed someone into a higher plan in order to make a higher profit, they're just going to have to give it back anyway, so it seems rather a pointless exercise.

[Billy Jingo]

Well, OK, I can understand the skepticism part, but pretty much everyone, even Democrats, now agrees that there's a bunch of people out there whose insurance has been deemed insufficient under Obamacare. It's pretty clear that this is not apocryphal.

I suppose it's possible that insurance companies could be using that as an excuse, but that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense either, since they now have a federally-regulated maximum profit. If an insurance company pushed someone into a higher plan in order to make a higher profit, they're just going to have to give it back anyway, so it seems rather a pointless exercise.

That's another thing. Weren't all plans grandfathered in if they were in place prior to the law going into effect (some time in 2010)?

[Adam]

That's another thing. Weren't all plans grandfathered in if they were in place prior to the law going into effect (some time in 2010)?

Not really. That was "grandfathering" in name only, because relatively few plans extend more than a couple of years. Many (most?) are done on an annual basis, and renewing them will not give them the "grandfather" shelter. This is why the IRS estimated that 80% of plans that were "grandfathered" as of May whatever it was, 2010, would not still be grandfathered by January 1, 2014 (I think those numbers are right; I'll go find the IRS document in a few minutes). And, they changed some of the "grandfathering" by fiat after the ACA was signed, as well, so that there is virtually no "grandfather" protection at all.

[Adam]

Not really. That was "grandfathering" in name only, because relatively few plans extend more than a couple of years. Many (most?) are done on an annual basis, and renewing them will not give them the "grandfather" shelter. This is why the IRS estimated that 80% of plans that were "grandfathered" as of May whatever it was, 2010, would not still be grandfathered by January 1, 2014 (I think those numbers are right; I'll go find the IRS document in a few minutes). And, they changed some of the "grandfathering" by fiat after the ACA was signed, as well, so that there is virtually no "grandfather" protection at all.

Here:

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC News that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

Here:

The document addressed a rule in the law that states individual policies purchased on or before March 23, 2010 would be "grandfathered" -- or exempt from changes required under ObamaCare. However, the provision was changed so that plans that undergo "significant changes" could lose that special status.

Long, boring IRS document about how those "grandfathered" plans are going to lose their "grandfathered" status.

[Billy Jingo]

Not really. That was "grandfathering" in name only, because relatively few plans extend more than a couple of years. Many (most?) are done on an annual basis, and renewing them will not give them the "grandfather" shelter. This is why the IRS estimated that 80% of plans that were "grandfathered" as of May whatever it was, 2010, would not still be grandfathered by January 1, 2014 (I think those numbers are right; I'll go find the IRS document in a few minutes). And, they changed some of the "grandfathering" by fiat after the ACA was signed, as well, so that there is virtually no "grandfather" protection at all.

Now it sounds weird. If they weren't grandfathered in, why do they still exist? And if they were, why are they ending them?

This all sounds kinda hanky to me.

[Billy Jingo]

“Nothing in the Affordable Care Act forces people out of their health plans: The law allows plans that covered people at the time the law was enacted to continue to offer that same coverage to the same enrollees – nothing has changed and that coverage can continue into 2014,”

.

We are venturing into the difference between law and reality, here. The law would let you keep your plans but the reality is insurance companies wouldn't.

[gary m]

“Nothing in the Affordable Care Act forces people out of their health plans: The law allows plans that covered people at the time the law was enacted to continue to offer that same coverage to the same enrollees – nothing has changed and that coverage can continue into 2014,”

.

We are venturing into the difference between law and reality, here. The law would let you keep your plans but the reality is insurance companies wouldn't.

The law would let you keep your policy. It would not have considered it "qualified coverage" under terms of the Act and the IRS and HHS guidelines and interpretations of the Act.
My policy which was taliored to my needs and lifestyle did not include coverage for items which there was no conceivable way I would need such as my joked about hysterectomy or pre and post natal care coverage or that I would pay out of my pocket like substance abuse and psychiatric care or counselling.
ACA makes the policies be gender neutral and all inclusive including the items I mentioned.
So the law may have let me keep the coverage under some obscure section of the 2000 page document, but it would not have been considered an "approved" or "qualified" plan. So in the eyes of the government I would not have insurance coverage, putting me in the IRS penalty box as an ACA scofflaw.
Since the plan did not meet the ACA requirements and there is not much of a market for insurance coverage that does not meet the standard, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan dropped that plan from their list of offerings and required that I sign up for an ACA compliant plan when my previous policy expired in March 2013.

I guess you could technically say that the law did not make BCBS drop that policy that was not ACA compliant, just like the law says filing Federal tax returns is "voluntary", but that is a specious argument at best and fraudulent at worse.
It goes with the ever continuing administration policy of providing cover for Obama that would make John Gotti (the Teflon Don) jealous.

[scott]

BTW, all of this cancellation stuff from insurance companies is starting to smell shysterish.

So was this:

[Billy Jingo]

Yea. I never saw how he could promise that considering the actions insurance companies take. They can, and do, drop your doctor, or your doctor drop them, regardless of the ACA.