300000 Floridians lose their healthcare due to Obamacare

And also Boards, I don't see anywhere where Obama says:  You can keep your plan, except if you sign up for a plan after March 2010 but before the law is implemented.

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Boards is trying to say that only those plans written since Obamacare passed are being dropped but I am doubtful that that is accurate.

Ding Ding Ding!

Do you know this to be a fact?

Well, do you agree that plans sold or existing prior to signing of the ACA are being grandfathered in?  

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-a-grandfathered-health-plan/

Healthcare.gov, lol.

If you are covered by a plan that existed March 23, 2010, your plan may be "grandfathered." 

You understand that "may" is different from "shall"?

How would I agree to any promise made by Obama when he's already broken promises?  I do think it's interesting that a promise, to you, isn't really a promise unless you read the very, very fine print that can't be seen with human eyes.  

There are companies dropping employees' hours because of Obamacare.  There are companies dropping spouses off plans because of Obamacare. There are hundreds of thousands of people being dropped from plans and coverage who very well remember Obama running all over the country back in 2009/2010 promising that people who have plans can keep them.  And again, I don't remember Obama putting conditions on his PROMISE.

Nekochan wrote:I do think it's interesting that a promise, to you, isn't really a promise unless you read the very, very fine print that can't be seen with human eyes.  

No. It's just a regular promise that makes sense to anyone with a very basic understanding of english.

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:I do think it's interesting that a promise, to you, isn't really a promise unless you read the very, very fine print that can't be seen with human eyes.  

No.  It's just a regular promise that makes sense to anyone with a very basic understanding of english.  

OK, you're a smart guy who has more than a basic understanding of English.  So you understand that "may" is different from "shall".

If you are covered by a plan that existed March 23, 2010, your plan may be "grandfathered." 

Nekochan wrote:OK, you're a smart guy who has more than a basic understanding of English.  So you understand that "may" is different from "shall".

Yep. If you have some piece of paper that you purchased in a back alley for $5 that says "Insirence Paulicee!!!1", yeah, that's probably not going to be grandfathered in. The "may" is added for the same reason that antibacterial hand lotion says it kills "99.99%" of all germs. There are always anecdotal cases that do not fit within the spirit of the law or product.

Actually, it looks like for most people today, "may" means "probably not". 

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/december/17/grandfathered-plans-faq.aspx

In 2013, 36 percent of those who get coverage through their jobs are enrolled in a grandfathered health plan, down from 48 percent in 2012 and 56 percent in 2011, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's most recent Employer Health Benefits Survey. (KHN is an editorially-independent program of KFF.) 
The survey also found that 54 percent of firms that offered health insurance reported that they offered at least one health care plan with grandfathered status, down from 58 percent of firms that did so in 2012 and 72 percent in 2011.
Fewer covered workers at large firms (200 or more workers) are enrolled in a grandfathered health plan than covered workers at smaller firms (30 percent vs. 49 percent).
More plans are expected to lose grandfathered status over time. 

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:OK, you're a smart guy who has more than a basic understanding of English.  So you understand that "may" is different from "shall".

Yep.  If you have some piece of paper that you purchased in a back alley for $5 that says "Insirence Paulicee!!!1", yeah, that's probably not going to be grandfathered in.  The "may" is added for the same reason that antibacterial hand lotion says it kills "99.99%" of all germs.  There are always anecdotal cases that do not fit within the spirit of the law or product.

Tell that to the 64%, today, who do not have grandfathered policies.

Nekochan wrote:Tell that to the 64%, today, who do not have grandfathered policies.

If they don't have a grandfathered policy, that means their policy didn't exist prior to the signing of the ACA, hence, Obama's comment didn't apply.  This is the case, given the fact that time moves forward.  

Obama's comment ->  Signing of the ACA -> New policy issued after the signing that isn't grandfathered

You would be very valuable to the administration as a translation czar... and you can do govt math. Nice fit.

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Tell that to the 64%, today, who do not have grandfathered policies.

If they don't have a grandfathered policy, that means their policy didn't exist prior to the signing of the ACA, hence, Obama's comment didn't apply.  This is the case, given the fact that time moves forward.  

Obama's comment ->  Signing of the ACA -> New policy issued after the signing that isn't grandfathered

Once again, you do understand that "may" is different from "shall"?   So what you say about policies being grandfathered prior to ACA is not accurate or true.   Furthermore, even as far back as 2011, more than 40% of plans weren't grandfathered, according to Kaiser.

Obama made a promise.  He told people that if they had a policy, they could keep it.  Period.  That's what he said--PERIOD.    He didn't put time conditions on it about the date they signed the policy.  There are hundreds of thousands of people now who are wondering why they're being dropped from their plans because they clearly heard Obama make his promise--PERIOD.  Maybe they don't have the basic understanding of English that you have, but they heard Obama tell them time and again that they could keep their plan...period.

You really should work for the Obama administration.

PkrBum wrote:You would be very valuable to the administration as a translation czar... and you can do govt math. Nice fit.

OMG...you had the same thought as me...Boards really should work for Obama!!  Then he could explain to the "simple" people why Obama didn't really promise them what they thought he promised them.

The problem is and has been that Rick Scott and the Florida legislature have refused to sign on and implement the ACA.

http://www.fcfep.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=294:a-closer-look-at-floridas-refusal-to-implement-the-affordable-care-act&catid=34:fcfep-publications&Itemid=207

(The above link is from 2011...Florida has had two years to prepare for the enactment of the ACA, but the governor and Republican legislators refused to do so. Now, those decisions are hurting consumers.)

------------

Democrats say Florida stripped insurance commissioner of power to set health plan rates
True


Florida lawmakers have left the state vulnerable to unreasonably high insurance premiums in an effort to undermine Obamacare, say the state’s U.S. House Democrats.

Gov. Rick Scott and the Legislature cynically stripped Florida of its ability to review rates for the law’s rollout, U.S. Rep. Ted Deutch writes in a letter signed by all 10 of the state’s Democratic representatives.

The letter, which appeals to the federal government to step in on Floridians’ behalf, blames a law Scott signed at the end of May for refusing to allow the state insurance commissioner to "negotiate lower rates with companies or refuse rates that are too high."

It asks the U.S. Health and Human Services Department to "protect Florida consumers — since Gov. Scott, the Florida Legislature and Insurance Commissioner (Kevin) McCarty will not."

Did the governor and state legislators prevent the insurance commissioner from negotiating lower rates and refusing high ones?

Deferring to the feds

Legislators faced a unique challenge during their 60-day session in 2013. Unlike many states that had laid groundwork to implement the Affordable Care Act since it became law in 2010, Florida had repeatedly refused — first challenging the constitutionality of the law, then waiting to see if a new president would offer a reprieve.

But with the law upheld by the Supreme Court and President Barack Obama back in office, the state was stuck. It had refused federal money to help with the transition. Now it was also running out of time.

A state Senate committee in 2013 said it sought a "rational, reasonable approach." State law needed an update to match federal requirements of the Affordable Care Act. The committee sought to do as little as possible.

"We want to make sure that we're in compliance, that we're doing what we're required to do," said Sen. David Simmons, R-Altamonte Springs, at a March committee meeting.

The Affordable Care Act assumed that states would continue to take a lead role in setting insurance rates, just as Florida had done in the past. It encouraged states to strengthen their rate-setting authority, offering millions of dollars in grant money to help. But it didn’t require that.

The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation faced a serious time-crunch to get up to speed on a host of new requirements under the law. Legislators offered a compromise. If the federal government wanted to impose new coverage requirements — well, it could set rates, too.

"Since the federal government is requiring these additional coverages that will cost more," said Sen. Joe Negron, Republican chair of the Affordable Care Act Committee, "then to me it makes sense for them to be responsible for approving rate increases that are certain to come."

Democrats on the committee agreed with this approach at its final meeting on March 18.

"I think we're going to find it's going to cost us a lot of money to set rates here in Florida," said Sen. Eleanor Sobel. "... I think we should rely on the federal government."

She expressed confidence the federal government would have a "greater wealth of knowledge."

"If we have concerns about the rates that the feds do set, then we should work with them," she said.

One hitch she didn’t mention: the federal government didn’t give itself rate-making authority.

What resulted was Florida Senate Bill 1842, which among other things, suspended for two years the requirement that insurers get state approval for rates for new plans — such as those that will appear on new marketplaces. Companies would still have to file rate changes with the state. But they could act on those changes without approval.

Sobel now says that wasn’t at all clear at the time.

The bill earned unanimous support from the Senate Appropriations Committee, then passed the Senate 28-8, mostly along party lines. Six senators voted after roll call, including Sobel, who changed her vote from yea to nay.

"I was reading very quickly. Then I realized this was something that was not good for the people of the state of Florida," she said.

The 78-36 House vote also mostly followed party lines, with a few Democratic supporters.

Gov. Scott expressed the same confidence that the federal government would step in.

When he signed the bill into law May 31, he wrote, "I support the Legislature's deference to the federal government. ... Rates for the new plans will be reviewed by the same federal government that will be enforcing and updating new rules and regulations throughout this very fluid and uncertain transition period."

Limits of federal authority

Here’s the thing: The federal government, even under the Affordable Care Act, can’t do what Insurance Commissioner McCarty can do.

Florida grants its insurance commissioner a range of powers. McCarty can negotiate lower rates with companies. He can refuse rates that the state determines to be too high.

The federal government can do neither of those things.

On July 31, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation released projected insurance premiums for policies that will be for sale on the new health insurance marketplaces launching in January 2014 — premiums it has no authority to review.

The state estimated rate increases in the individual market between 8 percent and 59 percent. (The federal government and consumer groups, we should note, dispute the state's projections, with one group suggesting they're inaccurately and irresponsibly high to discourage Floridians from participating in Obamacare.)

In a bulleted list, the office noted all of the ways the Affordable Care Act might be driving up costs.

It didn’t mention McCarty had no power to negotiate or refuse because of the new law.

And that matters. A Kaiser Family Foundation study in 2010 found that those states with robust authority to approve or disapprove rates were "able to extract significant reductions."

While Florida used the Affordable Care Act as a reason to reduce its rate oversight, most states used the law’s grants to boost theirs. North Carolina reduced a rate increase request with its new authority in 2010 that saved beneficiaries $14.5 million.

The Palm Beach Post noted that Maryland used its negotiating power to push rates for next year’s premiums down "by as much as a third" from what companies had proposed.

In the absence of oversight from Florida, the federal government does have some power to protect Florida consumers from outrageous rates — even if it can’t rescind them or otherwise impose penalties.

Chief is the new requirement that insurers must spend at least 80 percent or 85 percent of premiums on medical care, or pay rebates. So, if an insurer filed for a rate increase that granted it profits far beyond the benefits it offered, it would owe consumers a rebate the next year.

Second, it could refuse to let an insurer sell its product on Florida’s federally run marketplace. But not all insurance will be sold through the marketplace. Meanwhile, the process was supposed to rely on states’ determination of whether a rate was justified.

Lastly, it wields shame. If Florida doesn’t weigh in, the federal government will review any increase greater than 10 percent to evaluate whether it’s unreasonable — a designation the insurer will have to feature on its website.

Our ruling

A letter from Deutch and Florida’s U.S. House Democrats says that the governor and legislators refused to allow the state insurance commissioner to "negotiate lower rates with companies or refuse rates that are too high." They did precisely that, though they argued that the federal government could step in on Florida’s behalf. It turns out, that’s not how it works. Deutch’s claim about the state’s temporarily diminished powers is True.

FT, what your article tells me is that the entire law was screwed up from the very beginning.

Nekochan wrote:Once again, you do understand that "may" is different from "shall"?

No, I get it.  I actually already responded to the "may" "shall" thing.

Nekochan wrote:So what you say about policies being grandfathered prior to ACA is not accurate or true.   Furthermore, even as far back as 2011, more than 40% of plans weren't grandfathered, according to Kaiser.

You're misinterpreting what you posted.  Here again, a basic understanding of the english language is required.  Here is what you posted...

In 2013, 36 percent of those who get coverage through their jobs are enrolled in a grandfathered health plan, down from 48 percent in 2012 and 56 percent in 2011, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's most recent Employer Health Benefits Survey. (KHN is an editorially-independent program of KFF.) 

Now it's time to comprehend what this is saying.  Is this saying:

A)  Only 36% of plans issued prior to the signing of the ACA are eligible to be grandfathered.

B)  36% of people are enrolled in grandfathered plans.


You seem to be concluding A, though the correct interpretation is obviously B.  If someone didn't keep their plan and changed to a different plan that isn't grandfathered...well...then they no longer have their grandfathered plan.

I have a grandfathered data plan with AT&T.  In order for me to keep this grandfathered plan...cough...I have to keep it.  If I change to a different plan, well, I no longer have that grandfathered plan anymore. Further, it wouldn't be Obama's fault that I decided to change plans.

PkrBum wrote:You would be very valuable to the administration as a translation czar... and you can do govt math. Nice fit.

No need for you to worry about this, PkrBum. I realize this is all way over your head. You can still dance with snakes and speak in tongues should you ever require medical care. The invisible hand in the sky is still there to solve all of your problems. Don't worry. This is a "real world" discussion we are having here.

I keep hearing that it was a republican plan... maybe there's a reason they never forced it on the populace.

Not that it will matter in the long run... just another brick in the wall.

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Once again, you do understand that "may" is different from "shall"?

No, I get it.  I actually already responded to the "may" "shall" thing.

Nekochan wrote:So what you say about policies being grandfathered prior to ACA is not accurate or true.   Furthermore, even as far back as 2011, more than 40% of plans weren't grandfathered, according to Kaiser.

You're misinterpreting what you posted.  Here again, a basic understanding of the english language is required.  Here is what you posted...

In 2013, 36 percent of those who get coverage through their jobs are enrolled in a grandfathered health plan, down from 48 percent in 2012 and 56 percent in 2011, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's most recent Employer Health Benefits Survey. (KHN is an editorially-independent program of KFF.) 

Now it's time to comprehend what this is saying.  Is this saying:

A)  Only 36% of plans issued prior to the signing of the ACA are eligible to be grandfathered.

B)  36% of people are enrolled in grandfathered plans.


You seem to be concluding A, though the correct interpretation is obviously B.  If someone didn't keep their plan and changed to a different plan that isn't grandfathered...well...then they no longer have their grandfathered plan.

I have a grandfathered data plan with AT&T.  In order for me to keep this grandfathered plan...cough...I have to keep it.  If I change to a different plan, well, I no longer have that grandfathered plan anymore.   Further, it wouldn't be Obama's fault that I decided to change plans.

I didn't mis-interpret.   36% of people, today, are in grandfathered plans.  64% are NOT.  I'm pretty sure that is what I said.  But if that is not how it appears, I agree that the answer is: B.

 Now, where I think you mis-interpret this is your thinking that only people who changed plans/bought into new plans since ACA/2010 are the people who are not in grandfathered plans.  Your thinking on this would mean that over 60% of policies in place today are people who are new to their policies since 2010.  Do you believe this?    I believe the fact is actually this:  Many pre-ACA policies either didn't qualify to be grandfathered in the first place (the "may" part) and still others have changed their plans in such a way since 2010 so that they no longer qualify to be grandfathered.  And that leaves out a lot of people from being grandfathered in their plans.  And these people had little/no choice about that.  So what you said about plans existing before ACA being grandfathered is not true for many plans, and not just a few.

As for Healthcare.gov, don't believe the shop and browse price that it quotes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57608843/healthcare.gov-pricing-feature-can-be-off-the-mark/

(CBS News) CBS News has uncovered a serious pricing problem with HealthCare.gov. It stems from the Obama administration's efforts to improve its health care website. A new online feature can dramatically underestimate the cost of insurance.

The administration announced it would provide a new "shop and browse" feature Sunday, but it's not giving consumers the real picture. In some cases, people could end up paying double of what they see on the website, CBS News' Jan Crawford reported Wednesday on "CBS This Morning."

That would again play into teo's thread that the system is trying to capture verifiable info w gates prior to releasing info.

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:I do think it's interesting that a promise, to you, isn't really a promise unless you read the very, very fine print that can't be seen with human eyes.  

No.  It's just a regular promise that makes sense to anyone with a very basic understanding of english.  

Why is it so hard for you to simply say that President Barack Hussein Obama lied like a rug about ObamaCare knowing full well that if he told the truth he'd never win the election?

This is a SNAFU of epic proportions. They need 30 million people to sign up for it too be economically feasible.

Now they're circling the wagons around President Obama. Sebelius is now saying that President Obama did not know that the system DID NOT WORK. They tested it weeks before it going on line and it CRASHED with only several hundred people trying to log on.

Nekochan wrote:FT, what your article tells me is that the entire law was screwed up from the very beginning.

The implementation of any sweeping legislation such as this obviously can be subject to successful sabotage. We see that our honorable governor sworn to serve and protect Floridians has done just that. We may have to pay more in premiums because of him and the FL legislature, obviously controlled by the GOP. They screwed it up.
Thanks.

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Boards is trying to say that only those plans written since Obamacare passed are being dropped but I am doubtful that that is accurate.

Ding Ding Ding!

Do you know this to be a fact?

Well, do you agree that plans sold or existing prior to signing of the ACA are being grandfathered in?  

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-a-grandfathered-health-plan/

Only those which meet the government mandates.

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Tell that to the 64%, today, who do not have grandfathered policies.

If they don't have a grandfathered policy, that means their policy didn't exist prior to the signing of the ACA, hence, Obama's comment didn't apply.  This is the case, given the fact that time moves forward.  

Obama's comment ->  Signing of the ACA -> New policy issued after the signing that isn't grandfathered

You're a true Kool Aid aficionado.

Even Jay Carney, the White House spokesman in case you're unaware, quit answering questions from the journalists. He walked out again. It is good that you are wiser and better informed than him. Maybe you could send in a resume for when Carney leaves?