jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (25 posts)

5% Healthcare Plans Cancelled May Now Be Boosted to 71%

  1. GA Anderson profile image86
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    Is this a new "smoking gun" about Obamacare deception, or just more "right Wing" rhetoric?

    Is that 5% (5.7 to 9 million American plans) "you can not keep it!" number going to increase to include 80 million more American's employer group plans?

    After having to admit that almost all Americans with private healthcare plans will not be able to keep their plans. Pro-Obamacare folks began to push the point that they were only 5% of covered Americans. And that regardless of the administration's assurances, their pain was a small price to pay for the greater good. In other words - Too bad, so sad, suck it up!"

    Now, according to DOJ court documents filed this past October, the administration projected - back in 2010 - that as much as 66% of the small business employer provided group plans, and 45% of large business plans will not be grandfathered into the new ACA mandated coverage requirements.

    So apparently, the majority of the proclaimed "safe you-can-keep-it" employer provided insurance coverage plans will now have to "transition,"  (never use the word cancel!), into Obamacare Exchange coverages.

    Since the DOJ court document refers to a 2010 administration projection that this would happen, and  since this also makes it obvious that the recent administration claims that only 5% of American's plans would be affected were made with this knowledge...

    ...does this rise to the level of more deception?

    Or is this just more "right wing" smoke?

    ps. there are multiple sources for this, so if you don't like this link's authority, find your own to dispute it.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/36 … -disappear

    GA

    1. profile image0
      Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      GA - It seems that every day, if not every hour, we learn of more and more people within the administration that knew this would happen.  With that in mind, it would indicate a lot of lies were knowingly told, and information hidden.
      It is always interesting how percentages are used to minimize the impact of any statement being made.  If I say only 5% will be affected, no big deal.  But if I say 150 Million will lose their policies it is alarming.
      I have completely lost what little faith I had in this administration being able to do what we the people need done.

      1. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You are right that percentages can be misleading.

        Picking a number of Americans affected by the cancellation of private plans - 5 million to 15 million, depending on who is counting...

        and add the now revealed 80+ million American's employer plans...

        and suddenly that 5% turns into a majority...

        Then take the "misspoke or mistaken" explanation for "... you can keep it..." and add the documented 2010 knowledge otherwise...

        and you have... purposeful deception.

        hmmm... where have we heard that prediction before - right! The Republican Obamacare opposition - from Day 1.

        GA

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oops, back to the percentages used - 5% cancelled + 85% proclaimed safe = 90% American healthcare plans now in jeopardy.

          That is a large majority.

          GA

      2. gmwilliams profile image83
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Poolman, you are right.  Obama"care" will be a socioeconomic disaster and a timebomb.   Obama should have LEFT WELL ENOUGH alone.  This country is giong downhill...........FAST.

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Just goes to show how awful most plans were and why we need health legislation that most don't even meet the bare minimum.

      1. profile image0
        Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Josak - I think you are making an assumption with your last comment.  The new plans force people to pay for insurance coverage on things they don't even need.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Good to see you again Poolman.

          No they don't, the plans make you pay for national maternal care and the like not maternal care for yourself but that does not affect having to change plan since that is an add on regardless. Personally I have no problem with a small charge on my insurance to make sure babies and their mothers get appropriate medical care.

          What does affect changing plans are low limit coverage, exclusions on chronic illnesses etc.

          1. profile image0
            Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I would have much rather seen some kind of cafeteria style plan.  Everyone would buy the  necessary coverage for catastrophic medical coverage, and then select the individual parts that best suits their needs.  That would have been the fairest way for everyone.  The  poor would still get their subsides to cover the cost for them.

          2. profile image0
            Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I forgot, my minimum wage earning single neighbor just gave birth.  The pre-natal, delivery, and post-natal all paid for by the tax payers in Arizona.  Perhaps other states are different, but in Arizona mothers and children have always received free care, even if they are here illegally.  Does this not happen where you live?

            1. profile image83
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You're absolutely right.  This does happen in Arizona.  A good friend was transitioning between jobs when his first child was due.  He wanted to make payments, but the hospital pushed and pushed for him to have the state of Arizona pay his bills.  He qualified for a total freebee, because he didn't have insurance.  To the hospital's  dismay, he fought to actually pay over $10,000; there had been complications in the delivery.  He made payments. 

              There is something wrong with a system that encourages able and willing people not to pay their hospital bills.

              1. profile image0
                Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Some would have us believe there is no medical care available for child birth when the birth mother can't pay.  That is why even elderly women are required to pay for maternity care under Obamacare.  The care they pay for but will never use is to offset the costs for those who can't pay.  This is redistribution of wealth, not healthcare.

          3. profile image0
            SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No the plans make you pay for the " Essential Benefits" of which are neonatal care, maternity care, birth control, substance abuse, pediatric services and birth control. As the Essential Benefits are part of the law, they are not "add ons" and that is indeed why many of the plans are being cancelled.
            I'm sorry but it is beyond ridiculous that a post-menopausal woman be required to pay for maternity care, birth control, neonatal care and pediatric services. These are things she will never ever use in her lifetime and has already paid for in the past. Those things alone (though they do not encompass all of the essential benefits) add much more than a modest charge per month to insurance.

      2. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Josak, I am surprised to see you repeating the "awful ripoff substandard" policy line.

        If... we can agree that the coverage of pre-existing conditions stipulation was an industry changer, so is not really a fair measure to use for existing policies... then...

        What facts do you have that the cancelled policies were so bad?

        We have all heard anecdotal evidence otherwise, and I agree that information can be true or suspect.

        But... It is such a party line that it begs validation.

        I will give you my personal anecdotal evidence. I had a private family plan, (Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Maryland). I have received a cancellation notice.

        Since 2006 my plan covered:
        1. A serious necrotizing faceitis (sp? "Flesh Eating Disease") bout that included 5 surgeries, 17 days in intensive care, and home nurse care.

        2. Cancer treatment, (stage 1 cured, thankfully)

        3. A heart attack - hospital and out-patient care

        3. Prescription plan with a $10 and $20 co-pay

        4. Physical therapy coverage for my daughter's knee injury and rehabilitation - including medical devices (knee braces)

        I never ran into a "maximum" coverage ceiling, and my family deductible was $3500

        I was very very happy with my coverage.

        But, since I did not have maternity, pre-natel ect. coverage, (my wife and I are well beyond child bearing/rearing age, and I chose not to include mental health/drug rehab because that is/was not an anticipated need - my plan did not meet the "new" federal minimum mandate coverages.

        That does not make my policy a junk rip-off policy as portrayed by democrats trying to justify such cancellations.

        So where is your justification that my cancelled coverage was a junk rip-off policy?

        To-date: Since my cancellation does not take effect until Jan. 1, I have not yet signed up for a new plan, but... initial research looks like a comparable "Obamacare" plan would be a "gold" level plan at almost $300 more per month!

        And to make it easier for you, what is your description of the "junk rip-off" policies that you speak of?


        GA

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Off topic question - that $3500 "deductible".

          Is that figure what you must pay before the insurance pays a dollar, or is the maximum per year you will pay out of your pocket?  And is that per person (if family plan) or the whole family?  Every plan I ever had only had a deductible of $500 or less, although at one time $1,000 was optional.

          1. GA Anderson profile image86
            GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That was a yearly "out of pocket" deductible. My prescription and doctors visits co-pays were from day 1. All other expenses were an 80/20 split until my 20% reached the $3500 - then insurance paid 100%.

            My plan may have had a maximum coverage amount, but I don't know what it might have been, and through all the medical issues mentioned, I never reached it - if there was one.

            My plan was not atypical, and I cannot imagine it being classed as a junk plan by any "pre-obamacare mandates" measure.

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Gotcha.  I haven't had health insurance for some 18 years now, but always had a "deductible" that had to be paid before the 80% paid anything at all.  Usually between $250 to $500 per individual, with only two needing to be met each year per family.

              Then there was the out-of pocket maximum, which included everything I paid except drug co-pay.  That was typically 2,000 - $5,000 - when I had paid that much the 80% became 100% except for drug co-pays.

              So, given the effects of inflation over 20 years, you probably have a better plan that I did before it disappeared.  Of course, if we go back 40 years, my insurance paid for very nearly everything.  Two children, one immediately transferred to NICU and the biggest cost I had was new nightware for the wife.

              1. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Amazing how in this big global world of the internet we always stumble across folks with similar life experiences.

                My second daughter was also sent directly to NICU at Johns Hopkins Childrens, (Maryland), - helicoptered out at 4 hours old. Everything turned out fine, but I remember my anguish and anxiety when I reached her 2.5 hours later, (I had to drive), and saw her in the incubator with an IV coming out of her head!

                It freaked me out - even after a nurse explained that was a perfectly safe and typical place for IVs on newborns.

                My poor wife had to endure 3 more days separation before they released her to travel to hold her new child.

                But, back to the point, my "junk rip-off" insurance plan paid for it all.

                GA

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL  My second was born via section and I wondered when he was wrapped before being presented to Mama, but didn't say anything to avoid upsetting Mom.

                  Then left for the cafeteria for some lunch and when I came back my son was gone; transported to Richmond,Va to a top quality teaching hospital.  They needed me ASAP; a 2 hour drive later I walked into the NICU to find him filled with tubes and such, including that IV in the head.

                  After having the section, Mom didn't get to see her son again for over a week; Christmas went by with her barely able to get around home and son still in NICU.  And when she DID get there, she couldn't hold him, just hold his tiny hand through the hole in the incubator wall.

                  And all because he had inhaled amniotic fluid during the "birth" and wasn't breathing real well.  Weather was very bad and they didn't want to risk needing to move him and not being able to, so they moved him when they had the chance.  It wasn't really necessary - he would have been fine in Fredericksburg - but of course they didn't know that.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image86
                    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Different infant problem, and different cities (Salisbury, Md. to Baltimore. Md.), same mother's predicament - but same story!

                    That is wild.

                    GA

      3. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well, either that or an unrealistic concept of what "bare minimum" is.  When that "bare minimum" coverage needed by a 65 year old woman includes birth control, maternity care and neonatal care, it's just a wee bit beyond the minimum she needs.

        Of course, if the purpose/goal of Obamacare is to share the wealth rather than provide health insurance (and it is) then any idiot knew from the get go that most plans were below that mythical "minimum"

    3. tsadjatko profile image75
      tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Reality check - 5%? that was a lie right from the start. the number of people with private plans isn't 5% and never was - it is 8% which means instead of 15 million affected it is 25 million - nothing this administration says is the truth. When will people realize that?

    4. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well Pelosi was right we are now finding out what was in the ACA and what was not presented at the time. I still think this will become so distasteful that a compromise of a single payer payroll deduction will be forced through in the long run. One size does not fit all as we have been shown by this debacle.

      1. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately, (in my view), I also think a single payer system is a possibility. But I still remain hopeful that support for reworking Obamacare will be an option as more citizens become aware of its major issues..

        GA

  2. GA Anderson profile image86
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    Forgive me for pushing this with one last *bump, but I am surprised that the pro-obamacare folks let it pass.

    GA

 
working