President Obama announced today [Nov. 14] that citizens who had been paying for their own health insurance, and liked their health insurance, but had received termination notices from insurers that require them to get new policies within the next month—policies that turn out to cover less of what we need but cost more–can keep our policies for another year. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/us/politics/obama-to-offer-health-care-fix-to-keep-plans-democrat-says.html?hp&gwh=9E06EB5C31480C785E21002BDD4EEA41.
Note that this is what the Administration did earlier this year for big business and union plans—gave them a one-year extension. Meanwhile, people without insurance can continue to enroll and receive subsidies, and no other benefits of the ACA would be suspended. The President apparently does not believe that this “fix” will threaten the implementation of the ACA.
Oddly, our state’s insurance commissioner just announced that his operation is going so well that he won’t let us keep our existing policies, no matter what the President says ( insurance.wa.gov/about-oic/11-14-2013 ) Commissioner Mike Kreidler claims that he worries what the extension that the President has offered us would do to the insurance market. He expressed no such concerns about the ACA in general, or when the big businesses and big union plans got their one-year extensions. It’s just the small businesses or individuals who buy insurance on the regular market who are going to distort the market.
If you are one of those people who have been paying for your own insurance for years, will continue pay for your own insurance under the ACA, and like the plan you have now, call Commissioner Kreidler at 360-725-7055 and tell him what you think. Or go to insurance.wa.gov/connect-with-us/ask-mike/ to tell him. Or tweet @wainsuranceblog.
Peg Manning
Orcas
Yes, for the many folks who had their current policies cancelled despite President Obama’s promise, the effect has to be extremely upsetting — even to anger. But neither that shock, nor the fact that exceptions have already been made for others, means it’s a good idea to hold on to insurance policies which do not, for example, provide protection when an accident or serious illness strikes. One strength of the Affordable Care Act is that it makes it illegal to cancel a policy because of the policy holder’s illness.
It may be a positive advantage to be able to choose your own, less expensive health insurance. I believe it is much more beneficial to have an insurance policy that cannot be cancelled when you need it most.
David Kobrin
I am SO tired of hearing about how the more expensive “options” that I am being forced to choose between are “better” than the way-too-expensive, barely affordable Group Health plan I have now. My new options are NOT better by any comparison. They cost more and deliver less, and I have no hope that Group Health would ever let me keep my old plan even if the state would allow it.
The right whined and cried about both Medicare and Social Security when they were created. The ACA would have probably been a better law had the Republicans cooperated. It is a disgrace that this Country stills believe that everything should be for profit. Every deregulation we have had has driven up the price of whatever was deregulated.
Germany has powerful unions, universal health care and is way more prosperous than us.
No lifetime caps, no denial for preexisting conditions.
For those of you who fear the socialism boogie man I suggest you never use the library or Interstate 5 again. These are socialism in their purest form.
David–
I’m not sure why you think I’m describing policies that do not provide protection when accident or illness strike. We had Regence Blue Shield full coverage policies, and selected a high deductible. The policies cover all diseases and illnesses, with provisions (deductible, co-pay, coverage limits on certain services) that have been the standard in health insurance for decades.
To my knowledge (and I work in the area), no insurance company could ever cancel a policy because of a policy holder’s illness. They might have been able to cancel a policy on the ground of a pre-existing illness not properly disclosed. The ACA is prohibiting the declination of coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
Harvey–
I am not sure you are responding to my post. I’m not discussing socialism, Germany, or deregulation, libraries, or interstates.
I’m discussing the President’s recent proposal that we who do not have access to the employer or union insurance plan market be permitted to keep the policies we like, as we were promised, for the same period as the unions and corporations were allowed to delay their implementation of ACA.
We, like Thea, have received cancellation notices of our existing policies–the ones that were costly, but that we liked and wanted to keep. We have been “offered” and will be forced to purchase less relevant coverage (including maternity, substance abuse rehab and liberal mental health benefits we won’t be using) at higher premiums and even higher deductibles. $5,000-$6,000 deductibles, in fact. (We always chose high deductibles in the past, but many persons making the switch are not in the position to do so but don’t have a choice.)
The President has said we should be able to keep our policies. Our state insurance commissioner announced almost simultaneously that HE would not permit it–though he did not interfere when the President granted the corporation and union plans a one-year’s delay.
As for deregulation and socialism, our healthcare is the most expensive and regulated in the world. What the ACA did was to add greatly and unnecessarily to its expense and complexity. It did not need to do that to accomplish the goals of the law.
If Congress (because the ACA is Congress’s baby) really wanted to accomplish its goals of decent affordable health insurance for all, it would have simply expanded the well-established Medicare and Medicaid programs to all, and eliminated the health insurance companies and the state health exchanges. Instead, we got legislation that was sausage, and implementation that is beyond grossly incompetent. (Social Security/Medicare know how to handle millions of enrollments; instead, we hired huge consulting companies to develop another system (potentially 50+ different systems) that may not be working until well into the new year–which is of interest to many of us who will be subject to penalties and/or lose some benefits (like Medicare Part D) if this mess isn’t straightened out soon. For some, those effects will accrue if we are not solidly ensconced in our 2014 plan by December 15.
As for whether Germany is “way more prosperous than us,” I do not know. Not a citizen of Germany, and not interested in moving there.
Peg,
Thank you for explaining in greater detail the meaning of your original post. I appreciate your extra effort. I did misunderstand your original post. And I agree that we already have an effective working plan in Medicare.