insurance company scams regarding the ACA bring hefty fines (1 Viewer)

[matttyl]

According to the statistics used to trivialize the 10 million ACA number only 28% of the cancelled plans were because they were not ACA compliant and not grandfathered. Yes, in the BS case the ACA stopped BS from confusing customers that its junk plan was insurance, but those with this "health plan" never had insurance to begin with. So in the vast majority of cases of those buying insurance one the exchange the insurance company decided to terminate the plan not because they had to, but because they wanted to. And in every single one of the other cases the "grandfathered status" should had been disclosed all along.(Yes I realize I'm doing a "mattyl" with this post, but I'll leave the challenge to figuring out how and what this means to what I wrote to the experts.)

That's not true at all, and for someone that posts as much as you do about the subject, you know know that.

You also don't know that in the "BS case" she didn't know that she really only had a discount card.

15 percent previously had individually-purchased coverage, but their old plans had been rendered illegal by Obamacare and were canceled. The remaining 40 percent were people previously covered under the old individual market, a market that was substantially less expensive than the Obamacare exchanges


15/(15+40) = ???

Was the lady on CBS the only person with such a plan?

You can't be this stupid.

You're linking a "study" of only ~7,500 people for starters. Anyway, they are saying that of the 7,500 people, 15% of them had plans that were canceled, and another 40% apparently previously had individual coverage - though it doesn't say if they have been canceled, will be canceled, or were grandfathered. So then you take that to mean that only 28% of all the individual plans canceled were canceled because they were not ACA compliant and grandfathered?! That makes zero sense at all. I thought you were educated on the subject by all of the posts you make.

I said I was doing a "mattyl".

And the 28% number is probably off (but the survey size is the least of the reasons), but there has been no evidence to date to suggest that business decisions is a tiny minority of the plans that were cancelled. You know such as existing "guarantee issue" plans that can't compete with deals on the exchange (or even a company's new product line) or can't sell dirt cheap plans with annual and lifetime limits as well as recission policies being more heavily regulated - you know two of the three stated reasons from the carriers. So as of right now 28% is the best number we have. You're more than welcome to post better, more up to date, less extrapolated stats but whatever that number might be a good percentage of canceled plans were not cancelled because the ACA made them illegal.

Sorry that you want to claim that Obama was misleading with "if you like your plan you can keep it" while at the same time saying "the ACA cancelled all of these plans". It is not others with double standards.

The 28% number is off because it's totally meaningless. Yes, 55% of those in this very small group apparently already had coverage in the individual market - that's all you know. You don't know that they were all canceled or not. You don't know which were grandfathered and which weren't.

Obamacare made it illegal for a carrier to renew any individual plan (initially sold after March of 2010) after January 1st, 2014 that wasn't "compliant". That's the very reason why the letters were sent out by Humana - allowing those plans to be renewed in December of 2013, the absolute last possible time they could be - allowing them to keep it for 12 months from that date. I myself have an individual plan that I bought before March of 2010 (so it's grandfathered), but had I purchased it in April of 2010 it would be deemed "not worthy" because it didn't include maternity. Yes, my policy that covers only me (a 33 year old male) would have been canceled because it wouldn't cover me if I ever got pregnant.

So, 100% of the individual plans that were canceled were done so because the ACA mandated that the carriers not renew them, as they weren't compliant. The carriers had no choice. Do you really honestly think the carriers would just drop all of their customers (and their premiums) if they didn't have to?!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So, 100% of the individual plans that were canceled were done so because the ACA mandated that the carriers not renew them, as they weren't compliant. The carriers had no choice. Do you really honestly think the carriers would just drop all of their customers (and their premiums) if they didn't have to?!

Zero of the Aetna and United plans in California were canceled because the ACA mandated it. And I don't need to know if those plans were compliant or not to make this statement.

And were these canceled because the law forced them?

Both Independence and Highmark are cancelling so-called “guaranteed issue” policies, which had been sold to customers who had pre-existing medical conditions when they signed up. Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't believe Henry Ford ever found fault with "allowing" someone to renew early in their old plan.

False. You must have missed the 10th post in this very thread (I don't know how to cut and paste another's post)....

Henry Ford on January 31st and 10:30 AM - The issue, for me, is primarily that insurance companies are engaging in practices which have led to, for instance, $65,000.00 in fines in Kentucky. I don't think they should be doing things that states fine them for.

That tells me you haven't read the thread, but you're happy to post a bunch of crap in it.

 

[matttyl]

I don't believe Henry Ford ever found fault with "allowing" someone to renew early in their old plan.

False. You must have missed the 10th post in this very thread (I don't know how to cut and paste another's post)....

Henry Ford on January 31st and 10:30 AM - The issue, for me, is primarily that insurance companies are engaging in practices which have led to, for instance, $65,000.00 in fines in Kentucky. I don't think they should be doing things that states fine them for.

That tells me you haven't read the thread, but you're happy to post a bunch of crap in it.

...and he started this entire thread because of it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Some surprising support in this topic for weaselage by private businesses.

Please tell me what's weaselage by actually allowing you to keep your policy, which is what the President promised after all?

You have to have an insurance policy before you can keep it.

The letters were sent by Humana to their policy holders. You're mixing stories here to attempt to prove a point.

Where did fatness limit his statement to Humana?

I was asking him a question about the specific topic of this thread.

I don't believe Henry Ford ever found fault with "allowing" someone to renew early in their old plan.

False. You must have missed the 10th post in this very thread (I don't know how to cut and paste another's post)....Henry Ford on January 31st and 10:30 AM - The issue, for me, is primarily that insurance companies are engaging in practices which have led to, for instance, $65,000.00 in fines in Kentucky. I don't think they should be doing things that states fine them for.

That tells me you haven't read the thread, but you're happy to post a bunch of crap in it.

Perhaps you can differentiate between "allowing someone the option of renewing early" and "breaking the law by providing unapproved insurance forms before they are approved."

 

[matttyl]

So, 100% of the individual plans that were canceled were done so because the ACA mandated that the carriers not renew them, as they weren't compliant. The carriers had no choice. Do you really honestly think the carriers would just drop all of their customers (and their premiums) if they didn't have to?!

Zero of the Aetna and United plans in California were canceled because the ACA mandated it. And I don't need to know if those plans were compliant or not to make this statement.

And were these canceled because the law forced them?

Both Independence and Highmark are cancelling so-called “guaranteed issue” policies, which had been sold to customers who had pre-existing medical conditions when they signed up. Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year.

Why did United and Aetna leave California again? Oh yeah, because of the ACA.

Your link doesn't work.

Guaranteed issue policies were extremely expensive (as they couldn't ask any medical questions, kinda like now), so no one would have likely wanted to keep those plans over the better priced options via the ACA. And even if they did extend them, as your own link clearly says they would have only had that option through the next year when at that time they would have been canceled because of being mandated to do so by the ACA.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm gaining great insight into why insurance companies' attorneys thinking that repeating the same poor interpretation of a plaintiff's position over and over will somehow make that interpretation true.

Don't stop believing, matttyl.

 

[matttyl]

Some surprising support in this topic for weaselage by private businesses.

Please tell me what's weaselage by actually allowing you to keep your policy, which is what the President promised after all?

You have to have an insurance policy before you can keep it.

The letters were sent by Humana to their policy holders. You're mixing stories here to attempt to prove a point.

Where did fatness limit his statement to Humana?

I was asking him a question about the specific topic of this thread.

I don't believe Henry Ford ever found fault with "allowing" someone to renew early in their old plan.

False. You must have missed the 10th post in this very thread (I don't know how to cut and paste another's post)....Henry Ford on January 31st and 10:30 AM - The issue, for me, is primarily that insurance companies are engaging in practices which have led to, for instance, $65,000.00 in fines in Kentucky. I don't think they should be doing things that states fine them for.

That tells me you haven't read the thread, but you're happy to post a bunch of crap in it.

Perhaps you can differentiate between "allowing someone the option of renewing early" and "breaking the law by providing unapproved insurance forms before they are approved."

The letters clearly said that the option was still subject to DOI approval. The option was later approved and was even asked by the President to be an option given by carriers.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't believe Henry Ford ever found fault with "allowing" someone to renew early in their old plan.

False. You must have missed the 10th post in this very thread (I don't know how to cut and paste another's post)....

Henry Ford on January 31st and 10:30 AM - The issue, for me, is primarily that insurance companies are engaging in practices which have led to, for instance, $65,000.00 in fines in Kentucky. I don't think they should be doing things that states fine them for.

That tells me you haven't read the thread, but you're happy to post a bunch of crap in it.

...and he started this entire thread because of it.

Nope.

So, 100% of the individual plans that were canceled were done so because the ACA mandated that the carriers not renew them, as they weren't compliant. The carriers had no choice. Do you really honestly think the carriers would just drop all of their customers (and their premiums) if they didn't have to?!

Zero of the Aetna and United plans in California were canceled because the ACA mandated it. And I don't need to know if those plans were compliant or not to make this statement.

And were these canceled because the law forced them?

Both Independence and Highmark are cancelling so-called “guaranteed issue” policies, which had been sold to customers who had pre-existing medical conditions when they signed up. Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year.

Why did United and Aetna leave California again? Oh yeah, because of the ACA.

Your link doesn't work.

Guaranteed issue policies were extremely expensive (as they couldn't ask any medical questions, kinda like now), so no one would have likely wanted to keep those plans over the better priced options via the ACA. And even if they did extend them, as your own link clearly says they would have only had that option through the next year when at that time they would have been canceled because of being mandated to do so by the ACA.

And nope.

 

[matttyl]

I'm gaining great insight into why insurance companies' attorneys thinking that repeating the same poor interpretation of a plaintiff's position over and over will somehow make that interpretation true.

Don't stop believing, matttyl.

Tell me again what your issue is with the insurance company. First it was saying that someone's coverage is going up by "1000%" (which was something the media did). Then it wasn't about Florida at all, it was about Humana in Kentucky. Then it wasn't about their offer of extension of coverage, it was because some people might see it as being locked into coverage for a full year (even though you have provided zero evidence of that, even after being asked to multiple times).

Even you said earlier that there wouldn't be any harm in someone accepting "option A".

 

[matttyl]

I don't believe Henry Ford ever found fault with "allowing" someone to renew early in their old plan.

False. You must have missed the 10th post in this very thread (I don't know how to cut and paste another's post)....

Henry Ford on January 31st and 10:30 AM - The issue, for me, is primarily that insurance companies are engaging in practices which have led to, for instance, $65,000.00 in fines in Kentucky. I don't think they should be doing things that states fine them for.

That tells me you haven't read the thread, but you're happy to post a bunch of crap in it.

...and he started this entire thread because of it.

Nope.

So, 100% of the individual plans that were canceled were done so because the ACA mandated that the carriers not renew them, as they weren't compliant. The carriers had no choice. Do you really honestly think the carriers would just drop all of their customers (and their premiums) if they didn't have to?!

Zero of the Aetna and United plans in California were canceled because the ACA mandated it. And I don't need to know if those plans were compliant or not to make this statement.

And were these canceled because the law forced them?

Both Independence and Highmark are cancelling so-called “guaranteed issue” policies, which had been sold to customers who had pre-existing medical conditions when they signed up. Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year.

Why did United and Aetna leave California again? Oh yeah, because of the ACA.

Your link doesn't work.

Guaranteed issue policies were extremely expensive (as they couldn't ask any medical questions, kinda like now), so no one would have likely wanted to keep those plans over the better priced options via the ACA. And even if they did extend them, as your own link clearly says they would have only had that option through the next year when at that time they would have been canceled because of being mandated to do so by the ACA.

And nope.

Great insight, on both counts. I'm at least bringing facts to the table in this discussion, you're bringing BS numbers and smiley faces.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm gaining great insight into why insurance companies' attorneys thinking that repeating the same poor interpretation of a plaintiff's position over and over will somehow make that interpretation true.

Don't stop believing, matttyl.

Tell me again what your issue is with the insurance company. First it was saying that someone's coverage is going up by "1000%" (which was something the media did). Then it wasn't about Florida at all, it was about Humana in Kentucky. Then it wasn't about their offer of extension of coverage, it was because some people might see it as being locked into coverage for a full year (even though you have provided zero evidence of that, even after being asked to multiple times).Even you said earlier that there wouldn't be any harm in someone accepting "option A".

I think I have adequately explained my discussion points. I feel no need to continually correct your mischaracterizations on the exact same points. If you can't reread my several pages of previous explanations, then you cannot understand what I'm saying. I'm okay with that.

 

[matttyl]

So, 100% of the individual plans that were canceled were done so because the ACA mandated that the carriers not renew them, as they weren't compliant. The carriers had no choice. Do you really honestly think the carriers would just drop all of their customers (and their premiums) if they didn't have to?!

Zero of the Aetna and United plans in California were canceled because the ACA mandated it. And I don't need to know if those plans were compliant or not to make this statement.

And were these canceled because the law forced them?

Both Independence and Highmark are cancelling so-called “guaranteed issue” policies, which had been sold to customers who had pre-existing medical conditions when they signed up. Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year.

Why did United and Aetna leave California again? Oh yeah, because of the ACA.

Your link doesn't work.

Guaranteed issue policies were extremely expensive (as they couldn't ask any medical questions, kinda like now), so no one would have likely wanted to keep those plans over the better priced options via the ACA. And even if they did extend them, as your own link clearly says they would have only had that option through the next year when at that time they would have been canceled because of being mandated to do so by the ACA.

And nope.

Which part of any of my 3 responses is incorrect?

Aetna and United both left the California market because of the ACA. There is no disputing that. If they ACA weren't here today, United and Aetna both still would be in the individual market in California.

Your link didn't work at the time, you since fixed it. Even it says, and I quote - The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1. Most are ending policies sold after the law passed in March 2010. At least a few are cancelling plans sold to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

So again, like I've been saying the entire time, they are canceling policies that aren't compliant with ACA requirements, and were sold after March of 2010. I said the exact thing earlier!

And the guaranteed issue plans were extremely expensive. I know, I sold them. People wouldn't want to continue them anyway, and even if they did, they would have been canceled with the rest of the policies a year later as specifically said by your own link! Quote - "Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year." So they would have been canceled no matter what.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't believe Henry Ford ever found fault with "allowing" someone to renew early in their old plan.

False. You must have missed the 10th post in this very thread (I don't know how to cut and paste another's post)....

Henry Ford on January 31st and 10:30 AM - The issue, for me, is primarily that insurance companies are engaging in practices which have led to, for instance, $65,000.00 in fines in Kentucky. I don't think they should be doing things that states fine them for.

That tells me you haven't read the thread, but you're happy to post a bunch of crap in it.

...and he started this entire thread because of it.

Nope.

So, 100% of the individual plans that were canceled were done so because the ACA mandated that the carriers not renew them, as they weren't compliant. The carriers had no choice. Do you really honestly think the carriers would just drop all of their customers (and their premiums) if they didn't have to?!

Zero of the Aetna and United plans in California were canceled because the ACA mandated it. And I don't need to know if those plans were compliant or not to make this statement.

And were these canceled because the law forced them?

Both Independence and Highmark are cancelling so-called “guaranteed issue” policies, which had been sold to customers who had pre-existing medical conditions when they signed up. Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year.

Why did United and Aetna leave California again? Oh yeah, because of the ACA.

Your link doesn't work.

Guaranteed issue policies were extremely expensive (as they couldn't ask any medical questions, kinda like now), so no one would have likely wanted to keep those plans over the better priced options via the ACA. And even if they did extend them, as your own link clearly says they would have only had that option through the next year when at that time they would have been canceled because of being mandated to do so by the ACA.

And nope.

Great insight, on both counts. I'm at least bringing facts to the table in this discussion, you're bringing BS numbers and smiley faces.

Facts like the misrepresentation of the quote? And if my "link doesn't work" how can my "own link clearly says" anything?

 

[matttyl]

I'm gaining great insight into why insurance companies' attorneys thinking that repeating the same poor interpretation of a plaintiff's position over and over will somehow make that interpretation true.

Don't stop believing, matttyl.

Tell me again what your issue is with the insurance company. First it was saying that someone's coverage is going up by "1000%" (which was something the media did). Then it wasn't about Florida at all, it was about Humana in Kentucky. Then it wasn't about their offer of extension of coverage, it was because some people might see it as being locked into coverage for a full year (even though you have provided zero evidence of that, even after being asked to multiple times).Even you said earlier that there wouldn't be any harm in someone accepting "option A".

I think I have adequately explained my discussion points. I feel no need to continually correct your mischaracterizations on the exact same points. If you can't reread my several pages of previous explanations, then you cannot understand what I'm saying. I'm okay with that.

That's a great way of saying that I proved you points incorrect quite a few times and I no longer really know what I was so upset about.

You start a thread about a "huge scam" that carriers are getting "hefty fines" for, and within 2.5 pages you post this....

"Depends on the situation, but I agree that as far as the actual effects of this, it's likely a wash at worst." Post 148 if you want to go back and read your own words, as you apparently you think I have not.

 

[matttyl]

Facts like the misrepresentation of the quote? And if my "link doesn't work" how can my "own link clearly says" anything?

Who misrepresented what quote?

And you fixed your link. I already said that. The link doesn't prove anything. The policies were canceled, or were going to be canceled in 2014, all because of the ACA.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Matttyl kicking some rear in this thread.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Which part of any of my 3 responses is incorrect?

Aetna and United both left the California market because of the ACA. There is no disputing that. If they ACA weren't here today, United and Aetna both still would be in the individual market in California.

Might be a good assumption but you cannot know this. Neither had any appreciable market share to begin with. Maybe the ACA was the last straw that led to Aetna and United to make the business decision to leave those markets. There was however no provision of the ACA that mandated that Aetna and United could not sell plans in California.
So this is a blatant lie-

So, 100% of the individual plans that were canceled were done so because the ACA mandated that the carriers not renew them, as they weren't compliant. The carriers had no choice. Do you really honestly think the carriers would just drop all of their customers (and their premiums) if they didn't have to?!

Your link didn't work at the time, you since fixed it. Even it says, and I quote - The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1. Most are ending policies sold after the law passed in March 2010. At least a few are cancelling plans sold to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

So again, like I've been saying the entire time, they are canceling policies that aren't compliant with ACA requirements, and were sold after March of 2010. I said the exact thing earlier!

I fixed nothing. Nowhere did I say that zero plans were cancelled because they weren't ACA compliant. I said that there is no reason to believe that they represented ...

So, 100% of the individual plans that were canceled were done so because the ACA mandated that the carriers not renew them, as they weren't compliant. The carriers had no choice. Do you really honestly think the carriers would just drop all of their customers (and their premiums) if they didn't have to?!

Because they don't!

And the guaranteed issue plans were extremely expensive. I know, I sold them. People wouldn't want to continue them anyway, and even if they did, they would have been canceled with the rest of the policies a year later as specifically said by your own link! Quote - "Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year." So they would have been canceled no matter what.

Where does it say that they are going to be cancelled next year? More importantly where does it say that the ACA mandates that these be cancelled next year?

So all three statements are wrong in some way.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm gaining great insight into why insurance companies' attorneys thinking that repeating the same poor interpretation of a plaintiff's position over and over will somehow make that interpretation true.

Don't stop believing, matttyl.

Tell me again what your issue is with the insurance company. First it was saying that someone's coverage is going up by "1000%" (which was something the media did). Then it wasn't about Florida at all, it was about Humana in Kentucky. Then it wasn't about their offer of extension of coverage, it was because some people might see it as being locked into coverage for a full year (even though you have provided zero evidence of that, even after being asked to multiple times).Even you said earlier that there wouldn't be any harm in someone accepting "option A".

I think I have adequately explained my discussion points. I feel no need to continually correct your mischaracterizations on the exact same points. If you can't reread my several pages of previous explanations, then you cannot understand what I'm saying. I'm okay with that.

That's a great way of saying that I proved you points incorrect quite a few times and I no longer really know what I was so upset about.You start a thread about a "huge scam" that carriers are getting "hefty fines" for, and within 2.5 pages you post this....

"Depends on the situation, but I agree that as far as the actual effects of this, it's likely a wash at worst." Post 148 if you want to go back and read your own words, as you apparently you think I have not.

The actual effect of signing up. The perceived effects, induced by the insurance companies, which cause problems in an agency relationship, are a big discussion point I had in this thread. I have a hard time believing that you missed all of that.You haven't proven me wrong, you've refused to discuss the actual points I'm discussing. And that's okay. Good luck.

 

[matttyl]

Which part of any of my 3 responses is incorrect?

Aetna and United both left the California market because of the ACA. There is no disputing that. If they ACA weren't here today, United and Aetna both still would be in the individual market in California.

Might be a good assumption but you cannot know this. Neither had any appreciable market share to begin with. Maybe the ACA was the last straw that led to Aetna and United to make the business decision to leave those markets. There was however no provision of the ACA that mandated that Aetna and United could not sell plans in California.
So this is a blatant lie-

First off, even if those carrier had remained in the market, the policies still would have been canceled as they weren't compliant or grandfathered. So your point is void as it would have happened anyway. Here, do a little homework on the subject (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43314.pdf)

Secondly, I've asked in the other ACA related threads, and I'll ask again in this one....name me one other carrier the size of either United or Aetna who's ever left a market the size of California ever before. I haven't gotten a single response. You think that both of them left the California market the same exact year, and Cigna too, and it was coincidentally the same year the ACA came online? Really? What about the 10 or so carriers who all left South Carolina this year (link - http://www.liveinsurancenews.com/he...ina-market/8530818/?ModPagespeed=noscript)%C2

Oh, and the LA Times put the blame of United and Aetna leaving on Obamacare...http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/18/news/la-ol-aetna-leaving-california-individual-health-insurance-market-20130618

 

[matttyl]

And the guaranteed issue plans were extremely expensive. I know, I sold them. People wouldn't want to continue them anyway, and even if they did, they would have been canceled with the rest of the policies a year later as specifically said by your own link! Quote - "Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year." So they would have been canceled no matter what.

Where does it say that they are going to be cancelled next year? More importantly where does it say that the ACA mandates that these be cancelled next year?

Because the "option to extend their coverage" is the same option that was given to the Humana policy holders in the letter - which is why they got fined and Henry Ford started this thread about it. That's why it's "an option" and not just a typical renewal. If it were a typical renewal, it wouldn't be deemed "will be given an option".

As for where does the ACA mandate cancelations....read this by the Co9ngressional Research Service (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43314.pdf

Specifically this part -

On November 14, 2013, President Obama announced a transitional policy
that allows health insurance issuers to choose to continue coverage that
would otherwise be cancelled.
13
Pursuant to the policy, state insurance
commissioners may choose whether to enforce compliance with specified
ACA market reforms. Presumably, if state insurance commissioners choose
not to enforce compliance, then issuers of nongroup policies may renew
coverage for individuals who would otherwise receive cancellation notices.
14
Pursuant to this transitional policy, coverage that is renewed for a policy year
between January 1, 2014 and October 1, 2014 will not have to comply with
specified ACA market reforms, provided the coverage meets certain
conditions.

 

[matttyl]

The actual effect of signing up. The perceived effects, induced by the insurance companies, which cause problems in an agency relationship, are a big discussion point I had in this thread. I have a hard time believing that you missed all of that.You haven't proven me wrong, you've refused to discuss the actual points I'm discussing. And that's okay. Good luck.

You still have, after being asked multiple times, provided this thread with any evidence that anyone who received one of those letters perceived it as being locked into a contract for another year. Not one. As I've said for like 3 pages now, you're creating a problem that doesn't exist because you already "moved the goalposts" and said the issue that you actually started this thread about is "it's likely a wash at worst".

 

[fatness]

Some surprising support in this topic for weaselage by private businesses.

I think I pointed this out before.

The federal government is paying the insurance companies for their lost profits through this process anyway.

How's that for weaselage.

Already answered prior to you making that post.

Usually it's hidden behind "misleading incompetent government" stuff.

 

[Henry Ford]

The actual effect of signing up. The perceived effects, induced by the insurance companies, which cause problems in an agency relationship, are a big discussion point I had in this thread. I have a hard time believing that you missed all of that.

You haven't proven me wrong, you've refused to discuss the actual points I'm discussing. And that's okay. Good luck.

You still have, after being asked multiple times, provided this thread with any evidence that anyone who received one of those letters perceived it as being locked into a contract for another year. Not one. As I've said for like 3 pages now, you're creating a problem that doesn't exist because you already "moved the goalposts" and said the issue that you actually started this thread about is "it's likely a wash at worst".

No, I said the issue you wanted to discuss was likely a wash at worst overall.

 

[matttyl]

The actual effect of signing up. The perceived effects, induced by the insurance companies, which cause problems in an agency relationship, are a big discussion point I had in this thread. I have a hard time believing that you missed all of that.

You haven't proven me wrong, you've refused to discuss the actual points I'm discussing. And that's okay. Good luck.

You still have, after being asked multiple times, provided this thread with any evidence that anyone who received one of those letters perceived it as being locked into a contract for another year. Not one. As I've said for like 3 pages now, you're creating a problem that doesn't exist because you already "moved the goalposts" and said the issue that you actually started this thread about is "it's likely a wash at worst".

No, I said the issue you wanted to discuss was likely a wash at worst overall.

The issue I wanted to discuss?!?! It's the issue you started this entire thread for!!

And if you say it isn't the issue you started this thread for, then change the title of it - as that's far more misleading than anything in any letter from an insurance company you've posted.

And again you haven't provided a single shread of evidence to back up the issue that you want to discuss.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Which part of any of my 3 responses is incorrect?

Aetna and United both left the California market because of the ACA. There is no disputing that. If they ACA weren't here today, United and Aetna both still would be in the individual market in California.

Might be a good assumption but you cannot know this. Neither had any appreciable market share to begin with. Maybe the ACA was the last straw that led to Aetna and United to make the business decision to leave those markets. There was however no provision of the ACA that mandated that Aetna and United could not sell plans in California.
So this is a blatant lie-

First off, even if those carrier had remained in the market, the policies still would have been canceled as they weren't compliant or grandfathered. So your point is void as it would have happened anyway. Here, do a little homework on the subject (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43314.pdf)

Link to show that every single Aetna, United, and Cigna plan was not grandfathered nor compliant "as is". This is your assertion! Prove that you are not once again lying!

Secondly, I've asked in the other ACA related threads, and I'll ask again in this one....name me one other carrier the size of either United or Aetna who's ever left a market the size of California ever before. I haven't gotten a single response. You think that both of them left the California market the same exact year, and Cigna too, and it was coincidentally the same year the ACA came online? Really? What about the 10 or so carriers who all left South Carolina this year (link -

Oh, and the LA Times put the blame of United and Aetna leaving on Obamacare...http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/18/news/la-ol-aetna-leaving-california-individual-health-insurance-market-20130618

Irrelevant! You asserted that these plans were mandated to be cancelled.

matttyl, on 02 Feb 2014 - 4:41 PM, said:

So, 100% of the individual plans that were canceled were done so because the ACA mandated that the carriers not renew them, as they weren't compliant. The carriers had no choice. Do you really honestly think the carriers would just drop all of their customers (and their premiums) if they didn't have to?!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And the guaranteed issue plans were extremely expensive. I know, I sold them. People wouldn't want to continue them anyway, and even if they did, they would have been canceled with the rest of the policies a year later as specifically said by your own link! Quote - "Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year." So they would have been canceled no matter what.

Where does it say that they are going to be cancelled next year? More importantly where does it say that the ACA mandates that these be cancelled next year?

Because the "option to extend their coverage" is the same option that was given to the Humana policy holders in the letter - which is why they got fined and Henry Ford started this thread about it. That's why it's "an option" and not just a typical renewal. If it were a typical renewal, it wouldn't be deemed "will be given an option".

As for where does the ACA mandate cancelations....read this by the Co9ngressional Research Service (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43314.pdf

Specifically this part -

On November 14, 2013, President Obama announced a transitional policy
that allows health insurance issuers to choose to continue coverage that
would otherwise be cancelled.
13
Pursuant to the policy, state insurance
commissioners may choose whether to enforce compliance with specified
ACA market reforms. Presumably, if state insurance commissioners choose
not to enforce compliance, then issuers of nongroup policies may renew
coverage for individuals who would otherwise receive cancellation notices.
14
Pursuant to this transitional policy, coverage that is renewed for a policy year
between January 1, 2014 and October 1, 2014 will not have to comply with
specified ACA market reforms, provided the coverage meets certain
conditions.

Just making up as you go along now. Just because carriers were allowed to continue coverage that would otherwise be cancelled doesn't mean that all continued coverage had to be cancelled. So once again you pull out to fib.

ETA: And why was PBS reporting on "coverage continuation for non compliant plans" on 10/28 when the announcement was 11/14?

 

[Henry Ford]

The actual effect of signing up. The perceived effects, induced by the insurance companies, which cause problems in an agency relationship, are a big discussion point I had in this thread. I have a hard time believing that you missed all of that.

You haven't proven me wrong, you've refused to discuss the actual points I'm discussing. And that's okay. Good luck.

You still have, after being asked multiple times, provided this thread with any evidence that anyone who received one of those letters perceived it as being locked into a contract for another year. Not one. As I've said for like 3 pages now, you're creating a problem that doesn't exist because you already "moved the goalposts" and said the issue that you actually started this thread about is "it's likely a wash at worst".

No, I said the issue you wanted to discuss was likely a wash at worst overall.

The issue I wanted to discuss?!?! It's the issue you started this entire thread for!!And if you say it isn't the issue you started this thread for, then change the title of it - as that's far more misleading than anything in any letter from an insurance company you've posted.

And again you haven't provided a single shread of evidence to back up the issue that you want to discuss.

Either take a breath and try to understand the distinction, or at least understand that I don't care anymore that you are confused.

 

[Todd Andrews]

We seem to be speaking past each other a little bit. I dont care about this particular instance and have never mentioned it, I am saying that the insurance industry as a whole is a vile, disgusting, fraudulent, scummy con game. And I agree with you that the feds are in business with the insurers, but unlike you I dont have selective memory and realize that the feds have always been in business with the insureres--nothing new going on.

I was personally always in favor of single payer public healthcare, by the way.

Give us an example of why. And please don't use the "scam" in the OP. It can't be a "scam" by one party, and a "fix" by another.

Are you kidding?

I cant help that you felt drawn to such an industry and I feel bad for you, but I think you seriously misunderstand how people feel about insurance companies. Most of the people I know just consider them a necessary evil that must be suffered through and view the brokers and agents as conmen to be avoided at all costs unless absolutely necessary.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You also don't know that in the "BS case" she didn't know that she really only had a discount card.

An while I am at it. If the goBlue "health plans" confused no one into believing they were insurance and everyone who bought in knew they were just some form of discount plan then why are they no longer being sold? Why did BS of Florida feel the need to tell the consumers that their health plans didn't qualify under ObamaCare? Why did they shift these people to other product lines? No one thought that they had insurance as they all knew this was just a discount card.

 

[matttyl]

Which part of any of my 3 responses is incorrect?

Aetna and United both left the California market because of the ACA. There is no disputing that. If they ACA weren't here today, United and Aetna both still would be in the individual market in California.

Might be a good assumption but you cannot know this. Neither had any appreciable market share to begin with. Maybe the ACA was the last straw that led to Aetna and United to make the business decision to leave those markets. There was however no provision of the ACA that mandated that Aetna and United could not sell plans in California.
So this is a blatant lie-

First off, even if those carrier had remained in the market, the policies still would have been canceled as they weren't compliant or grandfathered. So your point is void as it would have happened anyway. Here, do a little homework on the subject (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43314.pdf)

Link to show that every single Aetna, United, and Cigna plan was not grandfathered nor compliant "as is". This is your assertion! Prove that you are not once again lying!

Secondly, I've asked in the other ACA related threads, and I'll ask again in this one....name me one other carrier the size of either United or Aetna who's ever left a market the size of California ever before. I haven't gotten a single response. You think that both of them left the California market the same exact year, and Cigna too, and it was coincidentally the same year the ACA came online? Really? What about the 10 or so carriers who all left South Carolina this year (link -

Oh, and the LA Times put the blame of United and Aetna leaving on Obamacare...http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/18/news/la-ol-aetna-leaving-california-individual-health-insurance-market-20130618

Irrelevant! You asserted that these plans were mandated to be cancelled.

matttyl, on 02 Feb 2014 - 4:41 PM, said:

So, 100% of the individual plans that were canceled were done so because the ACA mandated that the carriers not renew them, as they weren't compliant. The carriers had no choice. Do you really honestly think the carriers would just drop all of their customers (and their premiums) if they didn't have to?!

Excuse me, I'll reassert what I mean. Each and every policy that was canceled was done so due to effects of the ACA. Meaning that if the ACA weren't here today, all of those policies would still be in force. How's that for you? Due to the ACA and the changes it caused and is continuing to cause, carriers left markets and their policies were canceled.

 

[matttyl]

And the guaranteed issue plans were extremely expensive. I know, I sold them. People wouldn't want to continue them anyway, and even if they did, they would have been canceled with the rest of the policies a year later as specifically said by your own link! Quote - "Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year." So they would have been canceled no matter what.

Where does it say that they are going to be cancelled next year? More importantly where does it say that the ACA mandates that these be cancelled next year?

Because the "option to extend their coverage" is the same option that was given to the Humana policy holders in the letter - which is why they got fined and Henry Ford started this thread about it. That's why it's "an option" and not just a typical renewal. If it were a typical renewal, it wouldn't be deemed "will be given an option".

As for where does the ACA mandate cancelations....read this by the Co9ngressional Research Service (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43314.pdf

Specifically this part -

On November 14, 2013, President Obama announced a transitional policy
that allows health insurance issuers to choose to continue coverage that
would otherwise be cancelled.
13
Pursuant to the policy, state insurance
commissioners may choose whether to enforce compliance with specified
ACA market reforms. Presumably, if state insurance commissioners choose
not to enforce compliance, then issuers of nongroup policies may renew
coverage for individuals who would otherwise receive cancellation notices.
14
Pursuant to this transitional policy, coverage that is renewed for a policy year
between January 1, 2014 and October 1, 2014 will not have to comply with
specified ACA market reforms, provided the coverage meets certain
conditions.

Just making up as you go along now. Just because carriers were allowed to continue coverage that would otherwise be cancelled doesn't mean that all continued coverage had to be cancelled. So once again you pull out to fib.

ETA: And why was PBS reporting on "coverage continuation for non compliant plans" on 10/28 when the announcement was 11/14?

Actually that's exactly what it means. All those plans that "were allowed to continue coverage" had a "contract date" of January 1st. If they weren't able to adjust that contract date to December (as was suggested by the Humana letters), they would have to be canceled as of the next upcoming contract date after 1/1/14, which just happened to be 1/1/14.

For your ETA - Really? Because some carriers allowed for "coverage continuation for non compliant plans" much earlier than 10/28. These letters from Humana above were sent out In August or September, correct?

 

[matttyl]

The actual effect of signing up. The perceived effects, induced by the insurance companies, which cause problems in an agency relationship, are a big discussion point I had in this thread. I have a hard time believing that you missed all of that.

You haven't proven me wrong, you've refused to discuss the actual points I'm discussing. And that's okay. Good luck.

You still have, after being asked multiple times, provided this thread with any evidence that anyone who received one of those letters perceived it as being locked into a contract for another year. Not one. As I've said for like 3 pages now, you're creating a problem that doesn't exist because you already "moved the goalposts" and said the issue that you actually started this thread about is "it's likely a wash at worst".

No, I said the issue you wanted to discuss was likely a wash at worst overall.

The issue I wanted to discuss?!?! It's the issue you started this entire thread for!!And if you say it isn't the issue you started this thread for, then change the title of it - as that's far more misleading than anything in any letter from an insurance company you've posted.

And again you haven't provided a single shread of evidence to back up the issue that you want to discuss.

Either take a breath and try to understand the distinction, or at least understand that I don't care anymore that you are confused.

I'm only "confused" because you keep moving the goal posts. First it's about a scam, and you post an article about a woman in Florida (even though the "scam" a carrier was fined for was in Kentucky). Then it was about why that Kentucky carrier was fined, you didn't think they should be doing things that get them fined. Then that didn't matter, and it's because the letters asserted that they would be forced to remain in that policy for another full year (your issue with the word "remain"). Yet you've still yet to offer a single bit of evidence to show that any person thought that taking option A would in fact lock them into that policy for another year and keep them from shopping on the exchange. I'm still waiting for any evidence of that.

 

[matttyl]

We seem to be speaking past each other a little bit. I dont care about this particular instance and have never mentioned it, I am saying that the insurance industry as a whole is a vile, disgusting, fraudulent, scummy con game. And I agree with you that the feds are in business with the insurers, but unlike you I dont have selective memory and realize that the feds have always been in business with the insureres--nothing new going on.

I was personally always in favor of single payer public healthcare, by the way.

Give us an example of why. And please don't use the "scam" in the OP. It can't be a "scam" by one party, and a "fix" by another.

Are you kidding?

I cant help that you felt drawn to such an industry and I feel bad for you, but I think you seriously misunderstand how people feel about insurance companies. Most of the people I know just consider them a necessary evil that must be suffered through and view the brokers and agents as conmen to be avoided at all costs unless absolutely necessary.

You should hang out with different people. If brokers and agents are conmen, then why does the ACA mandate that everyone utilize their services to obtain coverage?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And the guaranteed issue plans were extremely expensive. I know, I sold them. People wouldn't want to continue them anyway, and even if they did, they would have been canceled with the rest of the policies a year later as specifically said by your own link! Quote - "Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year." So they would have been canceled no matter what.

Where does it say that they are going to be cancelled next year? More importantly where does it say that the ACA mandates that these be cancelled next year?

Because the "option to extend their coverage" is the same option that was given to the Humana policy holders in the letter - which is why they got fined and Henry Ford started this thread about it. That's why it's "an option" and not just a typical renewal. If it were a typical renewal, it wouldn't be deemed "will be given an option".

As for where does the ACA mandate cancelations....read this by the Co9ngressional Research Service (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43314.pdf

Specifically this part -

On November 14, 2013, President Obama announced a transitional policy
that allows health insurance issuers to choose to continue coverage that
would otherwise be cancelled.
13
Pursuant to the policy, state insurance
commissioners may choose whether to enforce compliance with specified
ACA market reforms. Presumably, if state insurance commissioners choose
not to enforce compliance, then issuers of nongroup policies may renew
coverage for individuals who would otherwise receive cancellation notices.
14
Pursuant to this transitional policy, coverage that is renewed for a policy year
between January 1, 2014 and October 1, 2014 will not have to comply with
specified ACA market reforms, provided the coverage meets certain
conditions.

Just making up as you go along now. Just because carriers were allowed to continue coverage that would otherwise be cancelled doesn't mean that all continued coverage had to be cancelled. So once again you pull out to fib.

ETA: And why was PBS reporting on "coverage continuation for non compliant plans" on 10/28 when the announcement was 11/14?

Actually that's exactly what it means. All those plans that "were allowed to continue coverage" had a "contract date" of January 1st. If they weren't able to adjust that contract date to December (as was suggested by the Humana letters), they would have to be canceled as of the next upcoming contract date after 1/1/14, which just happened to be 1/1/14.

For your ETA - Really? Because some carriers allowed for "coverage continuation for non compliant plans" much earlier than 10/28. These letters from Humana above were sent out In August or September, correct?

So no plans, including your own can continue into 2015? Or, could you possibly be given the option to extend their your coverage through next year 2015?

 

[matttyl]

You also don't know that in the "BS case" she didn't know that she really only had a discount card.

An while I am at it. If the goBlue "health plans" confused no one into believing they were insurance and everyone who bought in knew they were just some form of discount plan then why are they no longer being sold? Why did BS of Florida feel the need to tell the consumers that their health plans didn't qualify under ObamaCare? Why did they shift these people to other product lines? No one thought that they had insurance as they all knew this was just a discount card.

Because the plans were no longer compliant with the ACA. You do understand that, right?

 

[matttyl]

So no plans, including your own can continue into 2015? Or, could you possibly be given the option to extend their your coverage through next year 2015?

My own plan is grandfathered, I can continue it as long as I want to. That's the case for anyone with a "grandfathered" plan.

Some people were given the option to continue their older non-grandfathered plans into 2014 via a December renewal option (like the Humana letters outline), but they will not be given that option into 2015. The reason for that is the individual mandate. The plans aren't compliant, so if they were extended further, the person would have that plan but would still have to pay the individual mandate penalty/tax/fine as their coverage doesn't meet the "essential health benefits" guidelines of the ACA.

And you guys think it's a "scam" to offer someone the ability to extend their coverage into 2014 (which wouldn't cause them any individual mandate issues), I can only image the outrage you would have if carriers extended policyholders further with non-compliant plans thus causing them to get hit with the individual mandate penalty/tax/fine!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Which part of any of my 3 responses is incorrect?

Aetna and United both left the California market because of the ACA. There is no disputing that. If they ACA weren't here today, United and Aetna both still would be in the individual market in California.

Might be a good assumption but you cannot know this. Neither had any appreciable market share to begin with. Maybe the ACA was the last straw that led to Aetna and United to make the business decision to leave those markets. There was however no provision of the ACA that mandated that Aetna and United could not sell plans in California.
So this is a blatant lie-

First off, even if those carrier had remained in the market, the policies still would have been canceled as they weren't compliant or grandfathered. So your point is void as it would have happened anyway. Here, do a little homework on the subject (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43314.pdf)

Link to show that every single Aetna, United, and Cigna plan was not grandfathered nor compliant "as is". This is your assertion! Prove that you are not once again lying!

Secondly, I've asked in the other ACA related threads, and I'll ask again in this one....name me one other carrier the size of either United or Aetna who's ever left a market the size of California ever before. I haven't gotten a single response. You think that both of them left the California market the same exact year, and Cigna too, and it was coincidentally the same year the ACA came online? Really? What about the 10 or so carriers who all left South Carolina this year (link -

Oh, and the LA Times put the blame of United and Aetna leaving on Obamacare...http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/18/news/la-ol-aetna-leaving-california-individual-health-insurance-market-20130618

Irrelevant! You asserted that these plans were mandated to be cancelled.

matttyl, on 02 Feb 2014 - 4:41 PM, said:

So, 100% of the individual plans that were canceled were done so because the ACA mandated that the carriers not renew them, as they weren't compliant. The carriers had no choice. Do you really honestly think the carriers would just drop all of their customers (and their premiums) if they didn't have to?!

Excuse me, I'll reassert what I mean. Each and every policy that was canceled was done so due to effects of the ACA. Meaning that if the ACA weren't here today, all of those policies would still be in force. How's that for you? Due to the ACA and the changes it caused and is continuing to cause, carriers left markets and their policies were canceled.

Which brings us full circle to the question of what percentage of the policies that were cancelled were because they were mandated and what percentage because insurance companies made business decisions? Of course when you think about it, 100% were business decisions since all of the carriers could have arranged for their customers the Humana option. Well I guess not since they still needed state insurance commission approvals.

In any case back to my point that was derailed by this -

There were other significant reasons for policies to be cancelled other than being mandated such that the number is not 100%, and not likely close to 100%. And for those that were mandated to be cancelled "disclosures of grandfathered status" should have already been made to consumers when they were purchased. So that only the business decisions should have blindsided customers.

 

[RCon]

I'm gaining great insight into why insurance companies' attorneys thinking that repeating the same poor interpretation of a plaintiff's position over and over will somehow make that interpretation true.

Don't stop believing, matttyl.

Tell me again what your issue is with the insurance company. First it was saying that someone's coverage is going up by "1000%" (which was something the media did). Then it wasn't about Florida at all, it was about Humana in Kentucky. Then it wasn't about their offer of extension of coverage, it was because some people might see it as being locked into coverage for a full year (even though you have provided zero evidence of that, even after being asked to multiple times).Even you said earlier that there wouldn't be any harm in someone accepting "option A".

I think I have adequately explained my discussion points. I feel no need to continually correct your mischaracterizations on the exact same points. If you can't reread my several pages of previous explanations, then you cannot understand what I'm saying. I'm okay with that.

I have no idea what you think the insurance companies did wrong either. Apparently, Humana broke a law in Kentucky regarding the timing of when they sent their letter, but surely you can't be that upset about a simple timing issue?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So no plans, including your own can continue into 2015? Or, could you possibly be given the option to extend their your coverage through next year 2015?

My own plan is grandfathered, I can continue it as long as I want to. That's the case for anyone with a "grandfathered" plan.

Some people were given the option to continue their older non-grandfathered plans into 2014 via a December renewal option (like the Humana letters outline), but they will not be given that option into 2015. The reason for that is the individual mandate. The plans aren't compliant, so if they were extended further, the person would have that plan but would still have to pay the individual mandate penalty/tax/fine as their coverage doesn't meet the "essential health benefits" guidelines of the ACA.

And you guys think it's a "scam" to offer someone the ability to extend their coverage into 2014 (which wouldn't cause them any individual mandate issues), I can only image the outrage you would have if carriers extended policyholders further with non-compliant plans thus causing them to get hit with the individual mandate penalty/tax/fine!

That strawman's ### is really getting sore!

Thanks for the lesson, but how does that prove your assertion that these policy holders must have non grandfathered plans? I don't see that they extend their non compliant coverage through Dec 30th anywhere. And if they could just extend any plans they want then 100% were business decisions this year, but my previous post already shows the flaw in this statement.

Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You also don't know that in the "BS case" she didn't know that she really only had a discount card.

An while I am at it. If the goBlue "health plans" confused no one into believing they were insurance and everyone who bought in knew they were just some form of discount plan then why are they no longer being sold? Why did BS of Florida feel the need to tell the consumers that their health plans didn't qualify under ObamaCare? Why did they shift these people to other product lines? No one thought that they had insurance as they all knew this was just a discount card.

Because the plans were no longer compliant with the ACA. You do understand that, right?

They are discount cards. No one is confusing them for actual insurance. That is what you said. (ETA: Well technically you stated there was no evidence that the women in the CBS story was confused, but that seems to hint that there was no confusion or it would be completely irrelevant.) Where does the ACA ban discount cards? (Assuming they aren't scam insurance policies of course.)

 

[matttyl]

Excuse me, I'll reassert what I mean. Each and every policy that was canceled was done so due to effects of the ACA. Meaning that if the ACA weren't here today, all of those policies would still be in force. How's that for you? Due to the ACA and the changes it caused and is continuing to cause, carriers left markets and their policies were canceled.

Which brings us full circle to the question of what percentage of the policies that were cancelled were because they were mandated and what percentage because insurance companies made business decisions? Of course when you think about it, 100% were business decisions since all of the carriers could have arranged for their customers the Humana option. Well I guess not since they still needed state insurance commission approvals.

In any case back to my point that was derailed by this -

There were other significant reasons for policies to be cancelled other than being mandated such that the number is not 100%, and not likely close to 100%. And for those that were mandated to be cancelled "disclosures of grandfathered status" should have already been made to consumers when they were purchased. So that only the business decisions should have blindsided customers.

Ok, perhaps "mandated" was the wrong term. But again, it wasn't a "business decision" either. The carriers were not given DOI/BOI approval to renewal non-compliant plans after 1/1/14 when the ACA came online. Many, though, were able to offer early renewal options (again, if given DOI/BOI approval in their state) in December of 2013. Doing this, as the Humana letter states, means that the coverage could continue until the end of 2014, but not after. So they would then be canceled (at the end of 2014 rather than at the start of it).

So, if carriers couldn't continue coverage for these people, what would you call it?

Again, they couldn't continue those policies because they weren't/aren't compliant. So lets just for a second assume that someone had a policy date of February 1st, so without the ACA it would have been renewed 2 days ago, on 2/1/14, and would be allowed to continue for another 12 months (assuming a 12 month contract, which is standard). Under the ACA, though, if the carrier did that, the individual would still be subject to the individual mandate tax/penalty/fine as the coverage they "purchased" (via renewal) in 2014 wasn't compliant with the mandates of the ACA. So you want to see a media s--- storm, you show me a carrier that would allow their plans to be renewed IN 2014, knowingly subjecting their policy holders to the individual mandate, and I'll show you a carrier that would be sued to no end. That's what I mean when I use the word "mandate".

 

[matttyl]

So no plans, including your own can continue into 2015? Or, could you possibly be given the option to extend their your coverage through next year 2015?

My own plan is grandfathered, I can continue it as long as I want to. That's the case for anyone with a "grandfathered" plan.

Some people were given the option to continue their older non-grandfathered plans into 2014 via a December renewal option (like the Humana letters outline), but they will not be given that option into 2015. The reason for that is the individual mandate. The plans aren't compliant, so if they were extended further, the person would have that plan but would still have to pay the individual mandate penalty/tax/fine as their coverage doesn't meet the "essential health benefits" guidelines of the ACA.

And you guys think it's a "scam" to offer someone the ability to extend their coverage into 2014 (which wouldn't cause them any individual mandate issues), I can only image the outrage you would have if carriers extended policyholders further with non-compliant plans thus causing them to get hit with the individual mandate penalty/tax/fine!

That strawman's ### is really getting sore!

Thanks for the lesson, but how does that prove your assertion that these policy holders must have non grandfathered plans? I don't see that they extend their non compliant coverage through Dec 30th anywhere. And if they could just extend any plans they want then 100% were business decisions this year, but my previous post already shows the flaw in this statement.

Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year.

They could offer the policy holder the ability to extend their current coverage during 2013 via an early renewal (such as the Humana letters) assuming DOI/BOI approval in their state - they could not make that offer in 2014 to renew non-compliant plans (no state DOI/BOI will allow that). Many states didn't allow for that 2013 early offer, hence those plans couldn't be renewed when the policy date came up on 1/1/14, and they had to be canceled. If they couldn't be renewed, they had to be canceled, right?

What don't you get about that?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Excuse me, I'll reassert what I mean. Each and every policy that was canceled was done so due to effects of the ACA. Meaning that if the ACA weren't here today, all of those policies would still be in force. How's that for you? Due to the ACA and the changes it caused and is continuing to cause, carriers left markets and their policies were canceled.

Which brings us full circle to the question of what percentage of the policies that were cancelled were because they were mandated and what percentage because insurance companies made business decisions? Of course when you think about it, 100% were business decisions since all of the carriers could have arranged for their customers the Humana option. Well I guess not since they still needed state insurance commission approvals.

In any case back to my point that was derailed by this -

There were other significant reasons for policies to be cancelled other than being mandated such that the number is not 100%, and not likely close to 100%. And for those that were mandated to be cancelled "disclosures of grandfathered status" should have already been made to consumers when they were purchased. So that only the business decisions should have blindsided customers.

Ok, perhaps "mandated" was the wrong term. But again, it wasn't a "business decision" either. The carriers were not given DOI/BOI approval to renewal non-compliant plans after 1/1/14 when the ACA came online. Many, though, were able to offer early renewal options (again, if given DOI/BOI approval in their state) in December of 2013. Doing this, as the Humana letter states, means that the coverage could continue until the end of 2014, but not after. So they would then be canceled (at the end of 2014 rather than at the start of it).

So, if carriers couldn't continue coverage for these people, what would you call it?

Again, they couldn't continue those policies because they weren't/aren't compliant. So lets just for a second assume that someone had a policy date of February 1st, so without the ACA it would have been renewed 2 days ago, on 2/1/14, and would be allowed to continue for another 12 months (assuming a 12 month contract, which is standard). Under the ACA, though, if the carrier did that, the individual would still be subject to the individual mandate tax/penalty/fine as the coverage they "purchased" (via renewal) in 2014 wasn't compliant with the mandates of the ACA. So you want to see a media s--- storm, you show me a carrier that would allow their plans to be renewed IN 2014, knowingly subjecting their policy holders to the individual mandate, and I'll show you a carrier that would be sued to no end. That's what I mean when I use the word "mandate".

Lets keep this simple-

1) Some plans were non compliant and had to be cancelled.

a) In some case carriers were willing and able thanks to insurance commissions offer early renewals

b) In some cases carriers were willing, but insurance commissions were not

c) In some cases carriers were not willing and we will never know about insurance commissions

I'm willing to give you that 1b and 1c were "mandated" cancellations.

2) There were other reasons plans were cancelled

a) Aetna already had too small of a market share and was going to lose 30% of that in California so it opted out all together

b) United's market share was even smaller

c) Some old grandfathered plans were just bad deals for customers and new plans just served them better

d) Some old grandfathered plans were just bad deals for the carriers under the new regulations and the carriers dropped them

None of these were because the "ACA mandated" cancellations. Maybe the ACA changed things such that these were obvious, not much debate changes but they were not mandated changes.

My claim was/is that group of cancellations in group 2 is significant enough that any claim that "all of the cancellations were caused by" is at least as misleading as "if you like your plan you can keep it". So arguing that "all of the cancellations were caused by" while calling the president a liar creates a double standard for those making such claims.

ETA: I changed "all of the cancellations were mandated" to "all of the cancellations were caused by" to more accurately reflect my opinion since I believe these statements are the same when offered as rhetorical talking points.

 

[matttyl]

You also don't know that in the "BS case" she didn't know that she really only had a discount card.

An while I am at it. If the goBlue "health plans" confused no one into believing they were insurance and everyone who bought in knew they were just some form of discount plan then why are they no longer being sold? Why did BS of Florida feel the need to tell the consumers that their health plans didn't qualify under ObamaCare? Why did they shift these people to other product lines? No one thought that they had insurance as they all knew this was just a discount card.

Because the plans were no longer compliant with the ACA. You do understand that, right?

They are discount cards. No one is confusing them for actual insurance. That is what you said. (ETA: Well technically you stated there was no evidence that the women in the CBS story was confused, but that seems to hint that there was no confusion or it would be completely irrelevant.) Where does the ACA ban discount cards? (Assuming they aren't scam insurance policies of course.)

It doesn't specifically ban them directly, but when the ACA mandates (via the individual mandate) that everyone has individual compliant coverage (unless given a waiver) - thus providing the policy holder with access to a network, and Rx coverage and everything else that comes with it - what would be the purpose of someone purchasing a discount card on top of it? No one would buy a discount card on top of current ACA coverage, so the discount cards are being stopped.

It would be like offering individuals an older used CD player for their living room when the government already requires everyone to purchase a brand new blu-ray player. No one would buy the older CD player when they already have something better/more robust.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So no plans, including your own can continue into 2015? Or, could you possibly be given the option to extend their your coverage through next year 2015?

My own plan is grandfathered, I can continue it as long as I want to. That's the case for anyone with a "grandfathered" plan.

Some people were given the option to continue their older non-grandfathered plans into 2014 via a December renewal option (like the Humana letters outline), but they will not be given that option into 2015. The reason for that is the individual mandate. The plans aren't compliant, so if they were extended further, the person would have that plan but would still have to pay the individual mandate penalty/tax/fine as their coverage doesn't meet the "essential health benefits" guidelines of the ACA.

And you guys think it's a "scam" to offer someone the ability to extend their coverage into 2014 (which wouldn't cause them any individual mandate issues), I can only image the outrage you would have if carriers extended policyholders further with non-compliant plans thus causing them to get hit with the individual mandate penalty/tax/fine!

That strawman's ### is really getting sore!

Thanks for the lesson, but how does that prove your assertion that these policy holders must have non grandfathered plans? I don't see that they extend their non compliant coverage through Dec 30th anywhere. And if they could just extend any plans they want then 100% were business decisions this year, but my previous post already shows the flaw in this statement.

Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year.

They could offer the policy holder the ability to extend their current coverage during 2013 via an early renewal (such as the Humana letters) assuming DOI/BOI approval in their state - they could not make that offer in 2014 to renew non-compliant plans (no state DOI/BOI will allow that). Many states didn't allow for that 2013 early offer, hence those plans couldn't be renewed when the policy date came up on 1/1/14, and they had to be canceled. If they couldn't be renewed, they had to be canceled, right?

What don't you get about that?

Where does that sentence say these regular plan could not be renewed? You reading extra, non existent information into the sentence makes me confused?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You also don't know that in the "BS case" she didn't know that she really only had a discount card.

An while I am at it. If the goBlue "health plans" confused no one into believing they were insurance and everyone who bought in knew they were just some form of discount plan then why are they no longer being sold? Why did BS of Florida feel the need to tell the consumers that their health plans didn't qualify under ObamaCare? Why did they shift these people to other product lines? No one thought that they had insurance as they all knew this was just a discount card.

Because the plans were no longer compliant with the ACA. You do understand that, right?

They are discount cards. No one is confusing them for actual insurance. That is what you said. (ETA: Well technically you stated there was no evidence that the women in the CBS story was confused, but that seems to hint that there was no confusion or it would be completely irrelevant.) Where does the ACA ban discount cards? (Assuming they aren't scam insurance policies of course.)

It doesn't specifically ban them directly, but when the ACA mandates (via the individual mandate) that everyone has individual compliant coverage (unless given a waiver) - thus providing the policy holder with access to a network, and Rx coverage and everything else that comes with it - what would be the purpose of someone purchasing a discount card on top of it? No one would buy a discount card on top of current ACA coverage, so the discount cards are being stopped.

It would be like offering individuals an older used CD player for their living room when the government already requires everyone to purchase a brand new blu-ray player. No one would buy the older CD player when they already have something better/more robust.

I know for a fact that discount cards are still being sold, though I don't think I can prove it with a link - so take that for the not much that it is worth.

And if these cards were only sold as discount cards which is all that the lady ever wanted, shouldn't BS of Florida find a market of those like her that want to pay $54 a month and the shared responsibility fee in 2014?

 

[fourd]

We seem to be speaking past each other a little bit. I dont care about this particular instance and have never mentioned it, I am saying that the insurance industry as a whole is a vile, disgusting, fraudulent, scummy con game. And I agree with you that the feds are in business with the insurers, but unlike you I dont have selective memory and realize that the feds have always been in business with the insureres--nothing new going on.

I was personally always in favor of single payer public healthcare, by the way.

Give us an example of why. And please don't use the "scam" in the OP. It can't be a "scam" by one party, and a "fix" by another.

Are you kidding?

I cant help that you felt drawn to such an industry and I feel bad for you, but I think you seriously misunderstand how people feel about insurance companies. Most of the people I know just consider them a necessary evil that must be suffered through and view the brokers and agents as conmen to be avoided at all costs unless absolutely necessary.

So when Henry says the following in this thread -

"I'm not being flip. Guys like you and mattyl are essential, as are guys like me, because of the misrepresentations here. I'm sure you do explain stuff like this and what it means to your clients, and it's an absolutely necessary function which really shouldn't be necessary.

I'm not saying you guys are doing anything wrong. Far from it, because of what they do, what you do saves many peoples' financial lives."

you would disagree? Can I ask what industry you work in?

 

[matttyl]

Lets keep this simple-

1) Some plans were non compliant and had to be cancelled.

a) In some case carriers were willing and able thanks to insurance commissions offer early renewals

b) In some cases carriers were willing, but insurance commissions were not

c) In some cases carriers were not willing and we will never know about insurance commissions

I'm willing to give you that 1b and 1c were "mandated" cancellations.

2) There were other reasons plans were cancelled

a) Aetna already had too small of a market share and was going to lose 30% of that in California so it opted out all together

b) United's market share was even smaller

c) Some old grandfathered plans were just bad deals for customers and new plans just served them better

d) Some old grandfathered plans were just bad deals for the carriers under the new regulations and the carriers dropped them

None of these were because the "ACA mandated" cancellations. Maybe the ACA changed things such that these were obvious, not much debate changes but they were not mandated changes.

My claim was/is that group of cancellations in group 2 is significant enough that any claim that "all of the cancellations were mandated" is at least as misleading as "if you like your plan you can keep it". So arguing that "all of the cancellations were mandated" while calling the president a liar creates a double standard for those making such claims.

Good post, truly, now we're getting somewhere....

1a plans haven't been canceled yet, obviously, so they shouldn't even be in this discussion, right? You can't count them as canceled plans if they haven't been canceled. Anyway, 1a just means that they were offered an early renewal in 2013, but that they couldn't be renewed in 2014 - so they will end up being canceled in 2014 rather than at the end of 2013. The only reason they were given the offer of an early renewal was to prevent the cancellation for as long as possible, but it's inevitable either way. I mean, why would the carriers go through all that trouble (getting at least one carrier, Humana, fined for their effort) if they had the ability to just renew the plan in 2014 like normal?

1b and 1c were very, very big numbers.

2a and 2b are such small numbers (something like 49k and 8k, total of 57k), that they only represent about 1.1% of all those who were canceled. Even though had those carriers stayed in the market, a very good chuck of thier would have been canceled (either via your 1a, 1b or 1c example). Assuming half were grandfathered and half weren't, it means that we're talking about .55% of all those canceled may have been able to remain on their coverage had those carriers stayed.

2c makes no sense, as a business. If they were a bad deal for the customer, wouldn't that mean they were a good deal for the carrier? Why would the carriers shoot themselves in the foot and cancel out a good deal for them?

2d also doesn't make sense, because it couldn't happen. Those older grandfathered plans were "guaranteed renewable" (definition - http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/guaranteed_renewable_policy.asp), and because they were grandfathered the ACA didn't affect them. Do you know the lawsuits that would be filed against the carriers if they dropped grandfathered plans out from under people (assuming they didn't have to because they left the market like in your 2a or 2b)? Assuming the carrier remained in the market, they couldn't drop grandfathered plans from people.

So if you're going to give me 1b and 1c, then when the policy date for all the 1a policies comes around in 2014, you'll have to give me those as well - because they will all turn into 1b type policies. Also 2a and 2b are such a small number, you can pretty much throw them out - or we could take the number from 100% to 99.5%, if you wish. 2c and 2d both don't make sense.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Some surprising support in this topic for weaselage by private businesses.

I think I pointed this out before.

The federal government is paying the insurance companies for their lost profits through this process anyway.

How's that for weaselage.

Already answered prior to you making that post.

Usually it's hidden behind "misleading incompetent government" stuff.

I didn't accused the government of incompetence here; I accused Obama and the supporting Democrats who crafted the ACA specifically in joining in the weaselage. Two different things.