Politics

[connor_in]

Here's how Robert Laszewksi, an insurance consultant, put it in a note to clients earlier this morning:

This means that the insurance companies have 32 days to reprogram their computer systems for policies, rates, and eligibility, send notices to the policyholders via US Mail, send a very complex letter that describes just what the differences are between specific policies and Obamacare compliant plans, ask the consumer for their decision — and give them a reasonable time to make that decision — and then enter those decisions back into their systems without creating massive billing, claim payment, and provider eligibility list mistakes.

All by January 1.

There's also worry, among health policy wonks, that allowing people to stay on these plans will be bad for the new insurance marketplaces. Anyone who enrolls in one of these pre-Obamacare plans will be kept in a separate "risk pool," meaning that their premiums are set based on their smaller group. Everyone who buys an Obamacare-compliant plan is put in a different risk pool.

The concern here is that healthier people are more likely to stay in these pre-Obamacare plans; they're probably more okay with a skimpier benefit package. And that could drive up premiums in the new Obamacare markets. A short-term fix, in other words, could become a longer-term problem for the president's health-care law.

"This puts the insurance companies," Laszewski writes, "who have successfully complied with the law, in a hell of a mess."

The White House’s Obamacare fix is about to create a big mess

 

[Ndaccountant]

Is it true that there is a provision in the ACA that said if the premiums charged by the insurance companies fail to adequately cover their costs for the first three years (due to unforeseen circumstances), that they will be reimbursed by Washington?

If so, today's events would most certainly count as unforeseen circumstances and the good ole american tax payer will be there to once again pick up the pieces since I really doubt insurance companies will re-offer the new plans AND I am skeptical there will be Democrats willing to actually take away the insurance options in an election year (2014) and implement the employer mandate.

 

[phgreek]

Is it true that there is a provision in the ACA that said if the premiums charged by the insurance companies fail to adequately cover their costs for the first three years (due to unforeseen circumstances), that they will be reimbursed by Washington?

If so, today's events would most certainly count as unforeseen circumstances and the good ole american tax payer will be there to once again pick up the pieces since I really doubt insurance companies will re-offer the new plans AND I am skeptical there will be Democrats willing to actually take away the insurance options in an election year (2014) and implement the employer mandate.

subsidies for insurance companies in out years in such circumstances are provided. It trails off over three years...so yes.

I don't know if this counts...losses incurred need to be for QUALIFIED PLANS...today's events seem to place the onus on insurance companies with no hope of recompense.

EDIT: so yes there are provisions...no those provisions seem not to cover a "do over" / "rollback" because the policies people want back do not qualify under ACA...which is why they were cancelled in the first place

...and I hope the irony of what Mr. Obama did today is not lost on everyone...Industry take 1/30th of the time I took to get us into this, and fix it...oh, and yea, you get no cost recovery.

EDIT: if there is cost recovery it will be through future premiums or they change the meaning of "qualified plans", in which case the subsidies apply...so then Tax dollars are used.

Question: If no one knew about the cancellation issue...where did those provisions to help the insurance companies stay whole in the transition come from?

Lies upon lies upon lies...Stevie Nicks says those are neither "sweet", nor "little"...

...I respect the presidency, but the guy in the chair is simply NOT presidential.

 

[palinurus]

Like the "people/children/elderly are dying/starving in the streets" used by the left?

Not all old people; some are being pushed over cliffs in their wheelchairs.

 

[irishpat183]

I wonder what the overall numbers are?

Total number of returns vs fraudulent? It seems that maybe even with this outrageous fraud, they may still have a very good overall success???

we put our best in charge of obamacare

By the way, you can make that same comment about our pre-obamacare health system.

 

[Black Irish]

we put our best in charge of obamacare

By the way, you can make that same comment about our pre-obamacare health system.

Good point.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

More "tolerance" from leftists at MSLSD. Stay classy, Martin.

MSNBC's Bashir: Sarah Palin Should Be Defecated, Pissed On | RealClearPolitics

 

[Irish#1]

These are true as well, but it came to fruition when the opportunity was there. There is no denying that. This isn't that different from the Bush tax cuts. When did those get peeled back? When the Dems took office. The GOP will have ample opportunity to roll back Obamacare if it is a flop. However I suspect it will be popular by then and be much harder to do. All of this is predicated on the notion that the GOP will eventually stop making massive political mis-steps and overreaches that keep them from the former power position.

I don't think you'll see it get rolled back when the republicans regain control. There will be so many rules and regulations already programmed and administered that it will take years to reprogram. Insurance companies are already saying they are having trouble rolling back the recent change where peoples coverage was discontinued.

 

[connor_in]

This is where liberals like to insert that Republicans never wanted Obamacare to work. Not quite. Republicans always knew that Obamacare could not work.

Obamacare: Unaffordable and Incomprehensible | RealClearPolitics

OMG...this is from an article in a San Francisco paper? President Obama should be worried.

Also, this brings up the point that D's have been saying that R's aren't trying to help fix the ACA or help make its implementation easier. First, why should they? They did not vote for it. It was strictly party line....all D. Second, polls since the laws passage have shown the public on the R's side on this. Finally, you could say the R's went above and beyond to help President Obama and the D's on this...not only did they tell them what would happen and that it wouldn't work...the House tried FORTY times to repeal the thing and save everyone all this trouble.

/end rant

 

[Bluto]

Obamacare: Unaffordable and Incomprehensible | RealClearPolitics

OMG...this is from an article in a San Francisco paper? President Obama should be worried.

Also, this brings up the point that D's have been saying that R's aren't trying to help fix the ACA or help make its implementation easier. First, why should they? They did not vote for it. It was strictly party line....all D. Second, polls since the laws passage have shown the public on the R's side on this. Finally, you could say the R's went above and beyond to help President Obama and the D's on this...not only did they tell them what would happen and that it wouldn't work...the House tried FORTY times to repeal the thing and save everyone all this trouble.

/end rant

Deb Saunders is a "conservative/GOP stooge" op Ed writter at the Chronicle. She's basically regurgitating the party line per usual.

So what I'm getting from your post is that public policy should be based on the lattest quinnipiac poll numbers?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Deb Saunders is a "conservative/GOP stooge" op Ed writter at the Chronicle. She's basically regurgitating the party line per usual.

So what I'm getting from your post is that public policy should be based on the lattest quinnipiac poll numbers?

No. Poll numbers show the majority of Americans don't want the feds involved in health care and, judging on the past month, are fully capable of making their own decisions without an authoritatian government.

 

[connor_in]

Deb Saunders is a "conservative/GOP stooge" op Ed writter at the Chronicle. She's basically regurgitating the party line per usual.

So what I'm getting from your post is that public policy should be based on the lattest quinnipiac poll numbers?

Yes, Bluto...you are absolutely correct in your distillation of my comments down to rule by poll numbers. I was hoping that I wouldn't be quite so obvious about it, but you certainly sniffed it out and showed me a thing or two by pointing it out to the rest of the class. I will try later to use a more updated version of my far right wingnut neo-con secret code words book to make things more jargon-y and wonk-y so that people think I am trying to make a point about how D's blame R's for things they did to themselves and cry about R's not helping fix something they said would never work in the first place.

/sarc off

 

[potownhero]

Deb Saunders is a "conservative/GOP stooge" op Ed writter at the Chronicle. She's basically regurgitating the party line per usual.

So what I'm getting from your post is that public policy should be based on the lattest quinnipiac poll numbers?

Maybe you should try reading the article and addressing her points?

Your Alinsky like tactics of attacking the messenger reeks of someone who cannot argue against the points she raises.

 

[irishpat183]

Deb Saunders is a "conservative/GOP stooge" op Ed writter at the Chronicle. She's basically regurgitating the party line per usual.

So what I'm getting from your post is that public policy should be based on the lattest quinnipiac poll numbers?

What should they be based on then, since you didn't have the public's support to pass it in the first place?

 

[irishpat183]

No. Poll numbers show the majority of Americans don't want the feds involved in health care and, judging on the past month, are fully capable of making their own decisions without an authoritatian government.

but if we could just help ONE person, it was worth it....

 

[BobD]

No. Poll numbers show the majority of Americans don't want the feds involved in health care and, judging on the past month, are fully capable of making their own decisions without an authoritatian government.

Polls only show the majority of those polled, not the majority of Americans.

 

[DSully1995]

Polls only show the majority of those polled, not the majority of Americans.

Polls are pretty representative dude...not always, but more often than not by far

 

[irishpat183]

Polls only show the majority of those polled, not the majority of Americans.

LOL.....Really?

 

[PerthDomer]

Policy Polls even tend to skew dem a bit because likely voters tend to be a bit more Republican than the public at large.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Polls only show the majority of those polled, not the majority of Americans.

Take a play from Herm Edwards' playbook: sit back, take a minute, and think before you hit "send."

 

[irishpat183]

Policy Polls even tend to skew dem a bit because likely voters tend to be a bit more Republican than the public at large.

Gimmie a ****ing break. So likely republican voters are voting for more gun control (according to MSNBC polls)??



When a poll doesn't agree with your point of view, it's skewed, when it does, it's a representation?


Glad I cleared that up.

 

[PerthDomer]

Pat I'm agreeing with you. I'm pointing out that if you polled likely voters this likely looks even worse for Obama (vs. just sampling the average American).

 

[irishpat183]

Pat I'm agreeing with you. I'm pointing out that if you polled likely voters this likely looks even worse for Obama (vs. just sampling the average American).

Didn't see "dem" in your sentence. My bad.

 

[BobD]

Take a play from Herm Edwards' playbook: sit back, take a minute, and think before you hit "send."

I would suggest that advice for you. My statement is 100% correct. Think before you click.

 

[DSully1995]

I would suggest that advice for you. My statement is 100% correct. Think before you click.

Its correct, doesnt make it less ridiculous. Have a national referendum before the passing of every bill? Or multiple times through the legislative process?

 

[BobD]

Its correct, doesnt make it less ridiculous. Have a national referendum before the passing of every bill? Or multiple times through the legislative process?

So correct is ridiculous? I didn't say anything about national referendums or the legislative process.
He said "polls show most Americans" and I corrected him.

 

[BobD]

No. Poll numbers show the majority of Americans don't want the feds involved in health care and, judging on the past month, are fully capable of making their own decisions without an authoritatian government.

Polls are pretty representative dude...not always, but more often than not by far

LOL.....Really?

Here is one you'll like then......."most Americans" lol!

Presidential Polls 2012: Romney Ahead Nationwide, Has a Real Shot at Victory - PolicyMic

 

[GoIrish41]

Polls are pretty representative dude...not always, but more often than not by far

Bob had a Mitt Romney moment.

 

[ACamp1900]

Never forget everyone, Bob is an independent, NOT a liberal... he just happens to think republicans are to blame for everything, San Francisco is the greatest city on Earth, and that Obama is an infallible demi-god... but, he’s not liberal.

 

[BobD]

Bob had a Mitt Romney moment.

? What?