insurance company scams regarding the ACA bring hefty fines (2 Viewers)

[matttyl]

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

Of course that sentence doesn't say it, but that's the rule. I hope I answered it in my above post regarding your 1a and 1b examples. All "1a" plans will turn into "1b" plans upon their renewal in 2014, the BOI/DOIs won't allow them to be continued upon their renewal after 1/1/14.

I mean seriously, why would carriers go through all the trouble (and fine for Humana) to allow for early renewals, if they already had the ability to renewal those plans as normal in 2014. They wouldn't.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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.

2c) 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.

:

:

She said some policyholders who may have faced limited coverage for their medical conditions will get new plans with “richer benefits” and the policies “in most cases, will be at a lower rate.”

And 2d are the dirt cheap plans for young healthy people that were reported to be cancelled in those original articles.

Might not make sense to you, but they happened.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We had agreed it's legal and appropriate to still offer this woman a new ACA compliant policy.

Yet: It was a scam to offer her the policy with a deadline; it seems to me it would have been just as much a scam to offer it to her with a longer deadline like 12/15/13.

If the insurer prevented her from buying the new policy after 11/1/13, they would have been doing her a favor. It seems to me whether it was before 11/1 or after, if it was before 12/15 or after, there is no way to say selling her a new policy was in the best interest of the customer.

So maybe the problem here is that we are allowing private insurers to sell more expensive policies in the first place. I think that's the real "scam" you and the original author are seeing here.

But even though the facts may be wrong, this is still all nonsense.

Yeah I'm not sure why this is all wrong if the utter crime the insurer is accuse of here is charging $591 for a policy that she could have gotten on the exchange for $165, ~$480 total (IIRC). (Leaving aside all the other stuff like service and available providers and whether the feds are just paying the insurers their lost profits anyway) I don't know why that gets any better for you at any time whenever it happens however it happens.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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

Of course that sentence doesn't say it, but that's the rule. I hope I answered it in my above post regarding your 1a and 1b examples. All "1a" plans will turn into "1b" plans upon their renewal in 2014, the BOI/DOIs won't allow them to be continued upon their renewal after 1/1/14.

I mean seriously, why would carriers go through all the trouble (and fine for Humana) to allow for early renewals, if they already had the ability to renewal those plans as normal in 2014. They wouldn't.

Where does it say these plans had to be cancelled at all? Where does it say these plans were not compliant? Where does it say they were not grandfathered? Is the rule that compliant and/or grandfathered customers were not offered the ability to extend to 2014?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

We had agreed it's legal and appropriate to still offer this woman a new ACA compliant policy.

Yet: It was a scam to offer her the policy with a deadline; it seems to me it would have been just as much a scam to offer it to her with a longer deadline like 12/15/13.

If the insurer prevented her from buying the new policy after 11/1/13, they would have been doing her a favor. It seems to me whether it was before 11/1 or after, if it was before 12/15 or after, there is no way to say selling her a new policy was in the best interest of the customer.

So maybe the problem here is that we are allowing private insurers to sell more expensive policies in the first place. I think that's the real "scam" you and the original author are seeing here.

But even though the facts may be wrong, this is still all nonsense.

Yeah I'm not sure why this is all wrong if the utter crime the insurer is accuse of here is charging $591 for a policy that she could have gotten on the exchange for $165, ~$480 total (IIRC). (Leaving aside all the other stuff like service and available providers and whether the feds are just paying the insurers their lost profits anyway) I don't know why that gets any better for you at any time whenever it happens however it happens.

That poor strawman!

 

[matttyl]

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?

That market doesn't exist. Who would pay the shared responsibility fee AND $54 a month for a discount plan (or more accurately whatever the 2014 cost for that plan) instead of buying an ACA mandated policy that would do everything the discount card would do and more, likely for the same money or less.

Theoretically she only purchased this discount card because she couldn't afford "real coverage". If her means are that low, then she qualifies for a substantial subsidy, as the lady in Florida actually did. So, her ACA cost after subsidy would likely be about the same as or less than the shared responsibility fee and the discount card cost combined, if not in year 1 then for sure in year two.

The only potential market for these discount cards now are those "too poor" for Obamacare subsidies....but because Florida (your above example) accepted Medicaid expansion, no one would pay $54 a month for a discount card in Florida if they can just get Medicaid.

 

[fourd]

Your policy is going up $500 per month "because of Obamacare?" May want to check out your options. Pretty good chance your company is scamming you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/insurance-companies-obamacare-scam/

While BFS is doing his best to change the topic in the thread as to who is responsible for canceling policies the above is probably the biggest misrepresentation we have. What was the hefty fine BCBS of Florida received for their "scam?"

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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?

That market doesn't exist. Who would pay the shared responsibility fee AND $54 a month for a discount plan (or more accurately whatever the 2014 cost for that plan) instead of buying an ACA mandated policy that would do everything the discount card would do and more, likely for the same money or less.

Theoretically she only purchased this discount card because she couldn't afford "real coverage". If her means are that low, then she qualifies for a substantial subsidy, as the lady in Florida actually did. So, her ACA cost after subsidy would likely be about the same as or less than the shared responsibility fee and the discount card cost combined, if not in year 1 then for sure in year two.

The only potential market for these discount cards now are those "too poor" for Obamacare subsidies....but because Florida (your above example) accepted Medicaid expansion, no one would pay $54 a month for a discount card in Florida if they can just get Medicaid.

Right there in the interview it says she doesn't want more than this (and half of saint dome's posts). Who cares why since that is irrelevant! Was she alone? That is what determines if there would have been a market. If it was a good product serving the needs of customers in 2013, why is 2014 different? Nobody was fooled into thinking it was insurance.

 

[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.

2c) 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.

:

:

She said some policyholders who may have faced limited coverage for their medical conditions will get new plans with “richer benefits” and the policies “in most cases, will be at a lower rate.”

And 2d are the dirt cheap plans for young healthy people that were reported to be cancelled in those original articles.

Might not make sense to you, but they happened.

That's all you've got?

2c is a very, very small subset of the individual market. I know, as I've sold guaranteed issue policies. It's maybe 2-5% of the individual market. First off, these plans are very, very, very expensive because they are sold without asking any medical questions. All of those plans that were canceled, though, would fall into 1b or 1c in your above example. If they were grandfathered, they couldn't just be dropped (again, they are "guaranteed renewable"). If they weren't grandfathered, they had to be dropped, either by 1b or 1c....or eventually 1a. All of them most likely, even if grandfathered, would go to an exchange plan for the lower premiums there than to remain on their current very expensive guaranteed issue plans.

And you're claiming that 2d represents grandfathered plans for young folks? Really? You're claiming that there are a good number of policies on young and healthy folks that have been in existence, unchanged, since before March of 2010 (4 years now)?! And if they are "young and healthy" (and grandfathered, haha), how in the world would those plans be a bad deal for the carriers?! Please link me to any article showing this to be any number more than 10.

 

[matttyl]

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

Of course that sentence doesn't say it, but that's the rule. I hope I answered it in my above post regarding your 1a and 1b examples. All "1a" plans will turn into "1b" plans upon their renewal in 2014, the BOI/DOIs won't allow them to be continued upon their renewal after 1/1/14.

I mean seriously, why would carriers go through all the trouble (and fine for Humana) to allow for early renewals, if they already had the ability to renewal those plans as normal in 2014. They wouldn't.

Where does it say these plans had to be cancelled at all? Where does it say these plans were not compliant? Where does it say they were not grandfathered? Is the rule that compliant and/or grandfathered customers were not offered the ability to extend to 2014?

No, if they were compliant or grandfathered they have to be given the ability to extend that coverage to 2014....and 2015...as long as they want. These are "guaranteed renewable" policies. They can't just be dropped. I'm in the insurance industry, as I'm sure you know.

If they weren't grandfathered or compliant, they couldn't be extended in 2014 (though they could be given an early offer to extend coverage into 2014, just not past it).

Again...use common sense. If carriers could just renew all those policies IN 2014, why in the world would they go through all the trouble, cost, manpower (and fines) to offer them an early renewal?!

 

[matttyl]

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?

That market doesn't exist. Who would pay the shared responsibility fee AND $54 a month for a discount plan (or more accurately whatever the 2014 cost for that plan) instead of buying an ACA mandated policy that would do everything the discount card would do and more, likely for the same money or less.

Theoretically she only purchased this discount card because she couldn't afford "real coverage". If her means are that low, then she qualifies for a substantial subsidy, as the lady in Florida actually did. So, her ACA cost after subsidy would likely be about the same as or less than the shared responsibility fee and the discount card cost combined, if not in year 1 then for sure in year two.

The only potential market for these discount cards now are those "too poor" for Obamacare subsidies....but because Florida (your above example) accepted Medicaid expansion, no one would pay $54 a month for a discount card in Florida if they can just get Medicaid.

Right there in the interview it says she doesn't want more than this (and half of saint dome's posts). Who cares why since that is irrelevant! Was she alone? That is what determines if there would have been a market. If it was a good product serving the needs of customers in 2013, why is 2014 different? Nobody was fooled into thinking it was insurance.

Because in 2014 everyone is already mandated to have coverage that makes these cards redundant and irrelevant. Again, it's like offering CD players to everyone who's mandated to have blu-ray players. The market evaporated overnight, because of the changes the ACA brought.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Your policy is going up $500 per month "because of Obamacare?" May want to check out your options. Pretty good chance your company is scamming you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/insurance-companies-obamacare-scam/

While BFS is doing his best to change the topic in the thread as to who is responsible for canceling policies the above is probably the biggest misrepresentation we have. What was the hefty fine BCBS of Florida received for their "scam?"

As I discovered and posted the Blue Shield example (as in the letter, not the junk plan) was poorly reported. Whether or not you believe BS did anything wrong here would be dependent on one's beliefs as to whether or not being automatically "opted in" is a bad thing. I've backed away from that since I'm torn a bit. It is the same Humana issue of whether those that were "opted in" felt they were "looked in" or not. I'm not sure. And if whether being "opted in" created a real disincentive to shop around. I'm sure it created some "I'm taken care of" attitudes, but with the sticker shock I'm not so sure that most just took it. An again I'm arguing in these cases that there is no honest claim that imposing short deadlines on customers was in their best interest even if those deadlines were effectively meaningless.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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

Of course that sentence doesn't say it, but that's the rule. I hope I answered it in my above post regarding your 1a and 1b examples. All "1a" plans will turn into "1b" plans upon their renewal in 2014, the BOI/DOIs won't allow them to be continued upon their renewal after 1/1/14.

I mean seriously, why would carriers go through all the trouble (and fine for Humana) to allow for early renewals, if they already had the ability to renewal those plans as normal in 2014. They wouldn't.

Where does it say these plans had to be cancelled at all? Where does it say these plans were not compliant? Where does it say they were not grandfathered? Is the rule that compliant and/or grandfathered customers were not offered the ability to extend to 2014?

No, if they were compliant or grandfathered they have to be given the ability to extend that coverage to 2014....and 2015...as long as they want. These are "guaranteed renewable" policies. They can't just be dropped. I'm in the insurance industry, as I'm sure you know.

If they weren't grandfathered or compliant, they couldn't be extended in 2014 (though they could be given an early offer to extend coverage into 2014, just not past it).

Again...use common sense. If carriers could just renew all those policies IN 2014, why in the world would they go through all the trouble, cost, manpower (and fines) to offer them an early renewal?!

All the article states is that policy holders with regular plans were offered renewals in 2014. It did not state they were offered "early renewals".

 

[matttyl]

Your policy is going up $500 per month "because of Obamacare?" May want to check out your options. Pretty good chance your company is scamming you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/insurance-companies-obamacare-scam/

While BFS is doing his best to change the topic in the thread as to who is responsible for canceling policies the above is probably the biggest misrepresentation we have. What was the hefty fine BCBS of Florida received for their "scam?"

As I discovered and posted the Blue Shield example (as in the letter, not the junk plan) was poorly reported. Whether or not you believe BS did anything wrong here would be dependent on one's beliefs as to whether or not being automatically "opted in" is a bad thing. I've backed away from that since I'm torn a bit. It is the same Humana issue of whether those that were "opted in" felt they were "looked in" or not. I'm not sure. And if whether being "opted in" created a real disincentive to shop around. I'm sure it created some "I'm taken care of" attitudes, but with the sticker shock I'm not so sure that most just took it. An again I'm arguing in these cases that there is no honest claim that imposing short deadlines on customers was in their best interest even if those deadlines were effectively meaningless.

We've still been presented with zero evidence of this.

Carriers had to send these "opt in" letters to their current policy holders (who didn't accept the "option A" in the Humana letters, who will themselves receive an "opt-in" letter later this year when their next renewal comes up - my example of a "1a" becoming a "1b" in BFS' example).

Can you imagine the huge cluster f, and likely litigation, that would occur if they didn't automatically opt their current insured in, and rather just flat out canceling all coverage and throwing them at the (non-functional) exchanges?

 

[fourd]

Your policy is going up $500 per month "because of Obamacare?" May want to check out your options. Pretty good chance your company is scamming you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/insurance-companies-obamacare-scam/

While BFS is doing his best to change the topic in the thread as to who is responsible for canceling policies the above is probably the biggest misrepresentation we have. What was the hefty fine BCBS of Florida received for their "scam?"

As I discovered and posted the Blue Shield example (as in the letter, not the junk plan) was poorly reported. Whether or not you believe BS did anything wrong here would be dependent on one's beliefs as to whether or not being automatically "opted in" is a bad thing. I've backed away from that since I'm torn a bit. It is the same Humana issue of whether those that were "opted in" felt they were "looked in" or not. I'm not sure. And if whether being "opted in" created a real disincentive to shop around. I'm sure it created some "I'm taken care of" attitudes, but with the sticker shock I'm not so sure that most just took it. An again I'm arguing in these cases that there is no honest claim that imposing short deadlines on customers was in their best interest even if those deadlines were effectively meaningless.

I wonder at what point is it the responsibility of the individual to ask questions if they aren't sure what the letter they received means? As to automatically putting them in the new plans I can see both sides. But I'd ask, with the way most people pay attention to things like this, would the alternative have been better? Imagine the outcry when someone gets hurt partying at 1 AM New Year's Day and goes to the emergency room only to find out their plan termed? Or someone with ongoing medical conditions finding out at the pharmacy that they can't fill their prescriptions?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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.

2c) 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.

:

:

She said some policyholders who may have faced limited coverage for their medical conditions will get new plans with “richer benefits” and the policies “in most cases, will be at a lower rate.”

And 2d are the dirt cheap plans for young healthy people that were reported to be cancelled in those original articles.

Might not make sense to you, but they happened.

That's all you've got?

2c is a very, very small subset of the individual market. I know, as I've sold guaranteed issue policies. It's maybe 2-5% of the individual market. First off, these plans are very, very, very expensive because they are sold without asking any medical questions. All of those plans that were canceled, though, would fall into 1b or 1c in your above example. If they were grandfathered, they couldn't just be dropped (again, they are "guaranteed renewable"). If they weren't grandfathered, they had to be dropped, either by 1b or 1c....or eventually 1a. All of them most likely, even if grandfathered, would go to an exchange plan for the lower premiums there than to remain on their current very expensive guaranteed issue plans.

And you're claiming that 2d represents grandfathered plans for young folks? Really? You're claiming that there are a good number of policies on young and healthy folks that have been in existence, unchanged, since before March of 2010 (4 years now)?! And if they are "young and healthy" (and grandfathered, haha), how in the world would those plans be a bad deal for the carriers?! Please link me to any article showing this to be any number more than 10.

Q.E.D.

2 to 5% alone would prove-

"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". "

This is because the frequently offered, but unsupported 5 million number is what percentage of 165 million? What percentage of 300 million? 2D which is not zero would only be icing on the cake.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Your policy is going up $500 per month "because of Obamacare?" May want to check out your options. Pretty good chance your company is scamming you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/insurance-companies-obamacare-scam/

While BFS is doing his best to change the topic in the thread as to who is responsible for canceling policies the above is probably the biggest misrepresentation we have. What was the hefty fine BCBS of Florida received for their "scam?"

As I discovered and posted the Blue Shield example (as in the letter, not the junk plan) was poorly reported. Whether or not you believe BS did anything wrong here would be dependent on one's beliefs as to whether or not being automatically "opted in" is a bad thing. I've backed away from that since I'm torn a bit. It is the same Humana issue of whether those that were "opted in" felt they were "looked in" or not. I'm not sure. And if whether being "opted in" created a real disincentive to shop around. I'm sure it created some "I'm taken care of" attitudes, but with the sticker shock I'm not so sure that most just took it. An again I'm arguing in these cases that there is no honest claim that imposing short deadlines on customers was in their best interest even if those deadlines were effectively meaningless.

I wonder at what point is it the responsibility of the individual to ask questions if they aren't sure what the letter they received means? As to automatically putting them in the new plans I can see both sides. But I'd ask, with the way most people pay attention to things like this, would the alternative have been better? Imagine the outcry when someone gets hurt partying at 1 AM New Year's Day and goes to the emergency room only to find out their plan termed? Or someone with ongoing medical conditions finding out at the pharmacy that they can't fill their prescriptions?

Right I see both sides also. The thing is that the argument to automatically opt in people is based on the same argument that the people will be likely to misinterpret and/or ignore the letter isn't it?

 

[matttyl]

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

Of course that sentence doesn't say it, but that's the rule. I hope I answered it in my above post regarding your 1a and 1b examples. All "1a" plans will turn into "1b" plans upon their renewal in 2014, the BOI/DOIs won't allow them to be continued upon their renewal after 1/1/14.

I mean seriously, why would carriers go through all the trouble (and fine for Humana) to allow for early renewals, if they already had the ability to renewal those plans as normal in 2014. They wouldn't.

Where does it say these plans had to be cancelled at all? Where does it say these plans were not compliant? Where does it say they were not grandfathered? Is the rule that compliant and/or grandfathered customers were not offered the ability to extend to 2014?

No, if they were compliant or grandfathered they have to be given the ability to extend that coverage to 2014....and 2015...as long as they want. These are "guaranteed renewable" policies. They can't just be dropped. I'm in the insurance industry, as I'm sure you know.

If they weren't grandfathered or compliant, they couldn't be extended in 2014 (though they could be given an early offer to extend coverage into 2014, just not past it).

Again...use common sense. If carriers could just renew all those policies IN 2014, why in the world would they go through all the trouble, cost, manpower (and fines) to offer them an early renewal?!

All the article states is that policy holders with regular plans were offered renewals in 2014. It did not state they were offered "early renewals".

No, that is not what the article says - or if it did say that it is wrong. Again, I know as I'm in the business. The article is referring to early renewal letters being sent out to underwritten business, but not to guaranteed issue business. I know this for a fact as all of my non-grandfathered underwritten business received one of those letters, but none of my guaranteed issue clients did.

All of them, though, will eventually have their policies canceled/replaced/opted in - whatever you want to call it. The guaranteed issue business happened on 1/1/14, as they are the ones most likely to be helped (greatly) by the ACA. The underwritten business was either going to be as well on 1/1/14, unless they took the "option" referred to in the article, which allowed them to stay on until December of 2014, at which would it would happen then.

There is a huge difference between being able to renew a (non-grandfathered non-compliant) plan into 2014 (in December of 2013 until December of 2014, as the Humana letter discusses), and being able to renew that same plan in 2014 (which isn't an option).

 

[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.

2c) 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.

:

:

She said some policyholders who may have faced limited coverage for their medical conditions will get new plans with “richer benefits” and the policies “in most cases, will be at a lower rate.”

And 2d are the dirt cheap plans for young healthy people that were reported to be cancelled in those original articles.

Might not make sense to you, but they happened.

That's all you've got?

2c is a very, very small subset of the individual market. I know, as I've sold guaranteed issue policies. It's maybe 2-5% of the individual market. First off, these plans are very, very, very expensive because they are sold without asking any medical questions. All of those plans that were canceled, though, would fall into 1b or 1c in your above example. If they were grandfathered, they couldn't just be dropped (again, they are "guaranteed renewable"). If they weren't grandfathered, they had to be dropped, either by 1b or 1c....or eventually 1a. All of them most likely, even if grandfathered, would go to an exchange plan for the lower premiums there than to remain on their current very expensive guaranteed issue plans.

And you're claiming that 2d represents grandfathered plans for young folks? Really? You're claiming that there are a good number of policies on young and healthy folks that have been in existence, unchanged, since before March of 2010 (4 years now)?! And if they are "young and healthy" (and grandfathered, haha), how in the world would those plans be a bad deal for the carriers?! Please link me to any article showing this to be any number more than 10.

Q.E.D.

2 to 5% alone would prove-

"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". "

This is because the frequently offered, but unsupported 5 million number is what percentage of 165 million? What percentage of 300 million? 2D which is not zero would only be icing on the cake.

Let me rephrase my stance by a question. We'll use your above "5 million" number. If the ACA weren't here at all, how many of them would still be in force (or at least able to still be in force if the insured wanted) today 2/3/14. I say that is extremely close to 100% - so close in fact that you can in fact call it 100%. My stance is that all of those cancellations were because of the ACA (likely a better term than "mandated", so I apologize).

So how many of those 5m would still be in force today (if the insured wanted it to be) if the ACA weren't here today?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Your policy is going up $500 per month "because of Obamacare?" May want to check out your options. Pretty good chance your company is scamming you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/insurance-companies-obamacare-scam/

While BFS is doing his best to change the topic in the thread as to who is responsible for canceling policies the above is probably the biggest misrepresentation we have. What was the hefty fine BCBS of Florida received for their "scam?"

As I discovered and posted the Blue Shield example (as in the letter, not the junk plan) was poorly reported. Whether or not you believe BS did anything wrong here would be dependent on one's beliefs as to whether or not being automatically "opted in" is a bad thing. I've backed away from that since I'm torn a bit. It is the same Humana issue of whether those that were "opted in" felt they were "looked in" or not. I'm not sure. And if whether being "opted in" created a real disincentive to shop around. I'm sure it created some "I'm taken care of" attitudes, but with the sticker shock I'm not so sure that most just took it. An again I'm arguing in these cases that there is no honest claim that imposing short deadlines on customers was in their best interest even if those deadlines were effectively meaningless.

We've still been presented with zero evidence of this.

Carriers had to send these "opt in" letters to their current policy holders (who didn't accept the "option A" in the Humana letters, who will themselves receive an "opt-in" letter later this year when their next renewal comes up - my example of a "1a" becoming a "1b" in BFS' example).

Can you imagine the huge cluster f, and likely litigation, that would occur if they didn't automatically opt their current insured in, and rather just flat out canceling all coverage and throwing them at the (non-functional) exchanges?

Like I said I backed off when I read the actual letter (or at least what was readable at the 2:01 mark of the CBS story). My issue with these letters however has been the amount of time that was offered to make up one's mind. I don't see how the argument in favor of automatically opting these people in supports that these consumers were under the understanding that they were not being "locked in" for the year. I haven't argued that the carrier should be required to push customers to competitors with better deals, just that what the carriers were doing was in the carrier's best interest and not the best interests of the customer.

 

[matttyl]

Like I said I backed off when I read the actual letter (or at least what was readable at the 2:01 mark of the CBS story). My issue with these letters however has been the amount of time that was offered to make up one's mind. I don't see how the argument in favor of automatically opting these people in supports that these consumers were under the understanding that they were not being "locked in" for the year. I haven't argued that the carrier should be required to push customers to competitors with better deals, just that what the carriers were doing was in the carrier's best interest and not the best interests of the customer.

For reference, what letter are we talking about here? The letter the lady got in Florida by BCBS? I haven't yet seen that specific letter, but I have seen plenty of letters by BCBS here in VA.

I can somewhat agree with the time that was offered to make up one's mind argument, but again it didn't lock them into anything. Also, BCBS pushed that time limit back 3 separate times here in VA, and I can't imagine they were the only ones. They were doing what they could to keep the customers they already had in a violently changing marketplace. They are, after all, for profit companies. That's a different topic altogether.

So, are you going to answer my question of how many of the "5m" would still be in force today if not for the ACA? That number is well above 95%.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We had agreed it's legal and appropriate to still offer this woman a new ACA compliant policy.

Yet: It was a scam to offer her the policy with a deadline; it seems to me it would have been just as much a scam to offer it to her with a longer deadline like 12/15/13.

If the insurer prevented her from buying the new policy after 11/1/13, they would have been doing her a favor. It seems to me whether it was before 11/1 or after, if it was before 12/15 or after, there is no way to say selling her a new policy was in the best interest of the customer.

So maybe the problem here is that we are allowing private insurers to sell more expensive policies in the first place. I think that's the real "scam" you and the original author are seeing here.

But even though the facts may be wrong, this is still all nonsense.

Yeah I'm not sure why this is all wrong if the utter crime the insurer is accuse of here is charging $591 for a policy that she could have gotten on the exchange for $165, ~$480 total (IIRC). (Leaving aside all the other stuff like service and available providers and whether the feds are just paying the insurers their lost profits anyway) I don't know why that gets any better for you at any time whenever it happens however it happens.

That poor strawman!

As it was used in the original article? I guess we agree on that too now, that's progress.

 

[Henry Ford]

Your policy is going up $500 per month "because of Obamacare?" May want to check out your options. Pretty good chance your company is scamming you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/insurance-companies-obamacare-scam/

While BFS is doing his best to change the topic in the thread as to who is responsible for canceling policies the above is probably the biggest misrepresentation we have. What was the hefty fine BCBS of Florida received for their "scam?"

It didn't receive one. It's an example of one of the misrepresentations, others of which are discussed in the article, all of which are similar.

 

[fourd]

Your policy is going up $500 per month "because of Obamacare?" May want to check out your options. Pretty good chance your company is scamming you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/insurance-companies-obamacare-scam/

While BFS is doing his best to change the topic in the thread as to who is responsible for canceling policies the above is probably the biggest misrepresentation we have. What was the hefty fine BCBS of Florida received for their "scam?"

It didn't receive one. It's an example of one of the misrepresentations, others of which are discussed in the article, all of which are similar.

And yet you used it as an example of the "hefty" fines insurers are receiving. The article itself is filled with more misrepresentations than anything you've demonstrated.

 

[matttyl]

Your policy is going up $500 per month "because of Obamacare?" May want to check out your options. Pretty good chance your company is scamming you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/insurance-companies-obamacare-scam/

While BFS is doing his best to change the topic in the thread as to who is responsible for canceling policies the above is probably the biggest misrepresentation we have. What was the hefty fine BCBS of Florida received for their "scam?"

It didn't receive one. It's an example of one of the misrepresentations, others of which are discussed in the article, all of which are similar.

What was the "scam" in her letter (which I still haven't seen a clear copy of)? They couldn't renew her "coverage", but since they were also going to remain in the Florida market they couldn't just drop her altogether (can you imagine the lawsuits they would get for that?!). So they have to offer her a new, compliant plan. They did that. They have no idea if she qualifies for a subsidy or not, even she herself stated she didn't know if she did or not.

Does the letter not at all mention her option of obtaining coverage via exchange?

 

[Henry Ford]

Your policy is going up $500 per month "because of Obamacare?" May want to check out your options. Pretty good chance your company is scamming you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/insurance-companies-obamacare-scam/

While BFS is doing his best to change the topic in the thread as to who is responsible for canceling policies the above is probably the biggest misrepresentation we have. What was the hefty fine BCBS of Florida received for their "scam?"

It didn't receive one. It's an example of one of the misrepresentations, others of which are discussed in the article, all of which are similar.

And yet you used it as an example of the "hefty" fines insurers are receiving. The article itself is filled with more misrepresentations than anything you've demonstrated.

I'm sorry if that was confusing, but I didn't actually say that they got a hefty fine. Ever.

 

[matttyl]

Your policy is going up $500 per month "because of Obamacare?" May want to check out your options. Pretty good chance your company is scamming you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/insurance-companies-obamacare-scam/

While BFS is doing his best to change the topic in the thread as to who is responsible for canceling policies the above is probably the biggest misrepresentation we have. What was the hefty fine BCBS of Florida received for their "scam?"

It didn't receive one. It's an example of one of the misrepresentations, others of which are discussed in the article, all of which are similar.

And yet you used it as an example of the "hefty" fines insurers are receiving. The article itself is filled with more misrepresentations than anything you've demonstrated.

I'm sorry if that was confusing, but I didn't actually say that they got a hefty fine. Ever.

Read the title of this thread again, please. That's extremely misleading. He posted your first post in this thread that you created, with the title including "hefty fine". And you say BCBS is being "misleading"?

 

[fourd]

Your policy is going up $500 per month "because of Obamacare?" May want to check out your options. Pretty good chance your company is scamming you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/insurance-companies-obamacare-scam/

While BFS is doing his best to change the topic in the thread as to who is responsible for canceling policies the above is probably the biggest misrepresentation we have. What was the hefty fine BCBS of Florida received for their "scam?"

It didn't receive one. It's an example of one of the misrepresentations, others of which are discussed in the article, all of which are similar.

And yet you used it as an example of the "hefty" fines insurers are receiving. The article itself is filled with more misrepresentations than anything you've demonstrated.

I'm sorry if that was confusing, but I didn't actually say that they got a hefty fine. Ever.

It wasn't confusing. Your thread is entitled "Insurance company scams regarding the ACA bring hefty fines." So you obviously meant more than one. The poorly researched, badly written article you linked to had how many stories as examples of these scams? And your opening post references the Blue Cross case as an example, but now not of the hefty fines? Maybe I am 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.

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?

Because the ACA is stupid?

 

[Henry Ford]

Your policy is going up $500 per month "because of Obamacare?" May want to check out your options. Pretty good chance your company is scamming you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/insurance-companies-obamacare-scam/

While BFS is doing his best to change the topic in the thread as to who is responsible for canceling policies the above is probably the biggest misrepresentation we have. What was the hefty fine BCBS of Florida received for their "scam?"

It didn't receive one. It's an example of one of the misrepresentations, others of which are discussed in the article, all of which are similar.

And yet you used it as an example of the "hefty" fines insurers are receiving. The article itself is filled with more misrepresentations than anything you've demonstrated.

I'm sorry if that was confusing, but I didn't actually say that they got a hefty fine. Ever.

It wasn't confusing. Your thread is entitled "Insurance company scams regarding the ACA bring hefty fines." So you obviously meant more than one. The poorly researched, badly written article you linked to had how many stories as examples of these scams? And your opening post references the Blue Cross case as an example, but now not of the hefty fines? Maybe I am confused.

I'm sure.

First, $65,000.00 isn't a hefty fine to an insurance company. I believed that title to be somewhat ironic and mildly amusing. Humana's revenue was over $10 billion in 2013. $65,000.00 is not hefty. I suppose that got lost in translation. None of the other companies have been fined for what I consider to be misleading and ##### practices with respect to their insureds.

However, the fact that any company has even been fined for this shows how pervasive it is. Insurance companies get treated with kid gloves by a lot of states because the argument brought in court is often "if we treat insurance companies like this, they'll stop insuring in our state." That often resonates with judges, who like having insurance.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Your policy is going up $500 per month "because of Obamacare?" May want to check out your options. Pretty good chance your company is scamming you.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/insurance-companies-obamacare-scam/

While BFS is doing his best to change the topic in the thread as to who is responsible for canceling policies the above is probably the biggest misrepresentation we have. What was the hefty fine BCBS of Florida received for their "scam?"

It didn't receive one. It's an example of one of the misrepresentations, others of which are discussed in the article, all of which are similar.

And yet you used it as an example of the "hefty" fines insurers are receiving. The article itself is filled with more misrepresentations than anything you've demonstrated.

I'm sorry if that was confusing, but I didn't actually say that they got a hefty fine. Ever.

It wasn't confusing. Your thread is entitled "Insurance company scams regarding the ACA bring hefty fines." So you obviously meant more than one. The poorly researched, badly written article you linked to had how many stories as examples of these scams? And your opening post references the Blue Cross case as an example, but now not of the hefty fines? Maybe I am confused.

I'm sure.

First, $65,000.00 isn't a hefty fine to an insurance company. I believed that title to be somewhat ironic and mildly amusing. Humana's revenue was over $10 billion in 2013. $65,000.00 is not hefty. I suppose that got lost in translation. None of the other companies have been fined for what I consider to be misleading and ##### practices with respect to their insureds.

However, the fact that any company has even been fined for this shows how pervasive it is. Insurance companies get treated with kid gloves by a lot of states because the argument brought in court is often "if we treat insurance companies like this, they'll stop insuring in our state." That often resonates with judges, who like having insurance.

The 65K penalty (in KY IIRC) seemed really weak to me too.

Of course in LA we have a notorious history of insurance commissioners going to jail themselves sooo....

If any company engages in fraud or high pressure tactics (the article was not a good example however but we know it happens...) they need to get fined in a real and serious manner so they get the message.

I will say though that if the basis is the insurance company isn't telling people about the exchanges that's almost laughable at this point, two years of campaigning, 5 years of passage and implementation, and how much are the feds spending on advertising the past couple years just for promoting ACA, HC.gov & the exchanges? Is it $500 million?

- I hear some excuse making from the feds here, people are supposed to be clamoring for this system.

 

[matttyl]

First, $65,000.00 isn't a hefty fine to an insurance company. I believed that title to be somewhat ironic and mildly amusing. Humana's revenue was over $10 billion in 2013. $65,000.00 is not hefty. I suppose that got lost in translation. None of the other companies have been fined for what I consider to be misleading and ##### practices with respect to their insureds.

However, the fact that any company has even been fined for this shows how pervasive it is. Insurance companies get treated with kid gloves by a lot of states because the argument brought in court is often "if we treat insurance companies like this, they'll stop insuring in our state." That often resonates with judges, who like having insurance.

Oh BS. You started this thread yourself, and titled it with "hefty fines". Now, 7 pages of back and forth later you're going to say "I suppose that got lost in translation"?!

You also describe "fines", but only give one example. The "fine" that they got was $10 per letter. Considering they already likely had to pay $1-2 per letter in postage, paper, time and ink - $65k is nothing, which is why they didn't even both to fight it.

So if they were fined $10 per letter sent out for something that at the time they didn't know if they could actually do or not, why wasn't the President fined the same amount for making the same offer to millions of Americans without knowing if it could actually be done, either? What's his excuse?

 

[Henry Ford]

First, $65,000.00 isn't a hefty fine to an insurance company. I believed that title to be somewhat ironic and mildly amusing. Humana's revenue was over $10 billion in 2013. $65,000.00 is not hefty. I suppose that got lost in translation. None of the other companies have been fined for what I consider to be misleading and ##### practices with respect to their insureds.

However, the fact that any company has even been fined for this shows how pervasive it is. Insurance companies get treated with kid gloves by a lot of states because the argument brought in court is often "if we treat insurance companies like this, they'll stop insuring in our state." That often resonates with judges, who like having insurance.

Oh BS. You started this thread yourself, and titled it with "hefty fines". Now, 7 pages of back and forth later you're going to say "I suppose that got lost in translation"?!

You also describe "fines", but only give one example. The "fine" that they got was $10 per letter. Considering they already likely had to pay $1-2 per letter in postage, paper, time and ink - $65k is nothing, which is why they didn't even both to fight it.

So if they were fined $10 per letter sent out for something that at the time they didn't know if they could actually do or not, why wasn't the President fined the same amount for making the same offer to millions of Americans without knowing if it could actually be done, either? What's his excuse?

That seems remarkably similar to something I said in the post you just quoted.

 

[matttyl]

First, $65,000.00 isn't a hefty fine to an insurance company. I believed that title to be somewhat ironic and mildly amusing. Humana's revenue was over $10 billion in 2013. $65,000.00 is not hefty. I suppose that got lost in translation. None of the other companies have been fined for what I consider to be misleading and ##### practices with respect to their insureds.

However, the fact that any company has even been fined for this shows how pervasive it is. Insurance companies get treated with kid gloves by a lot of states because the argument brought in court is often "if we treat insurance companies like this, they'll stop insuring in our state." That often resonates with judges, who like having insurance.

Oh BS. You started this thread yourself, and titled it with "hefty fines". Now, 7 pages of back and forth later you're going to say "I suppose that got lost in translation"?!

You also describe "fines", but only give one example. The "fine" that they got was $10 per letter. Considering they already likely had to pay $1-2 per letter in postage, paper, time and ink - $65k is nothing, which is why they didn't even both to fight it.

So if they were fined $10 per letter sent out for something that at the time they didn't know if they could actually do or not, why wasn't the President fined the same amount for making the same offer to millions of Americans without knowing if it could actually be done, either? What's his excuse?

That seems remarkably similar to something I said in the post you just quoted.

Yes, how come it took you 7 pages to finally admit that your misrepresented the title of the thread you started, and have tried to defend?

 

[Henry Ford]

First, $65,000.00 isn't a hefty fine to an insurance company. I believed that title to be somewhat ironic and mildly amusing. Humana's revenue was over $10 billion in 2013. $65,000.00 is not hefty. I suppose that got lost in translation. None of the other companies have been fined for what I consider to be misleading and ##### practices with respect to their insureds.

However, the fact that any company has even been fined for this shows how pervasive it is. Insurance companies get treated with kid gloves by a lot of states because the argument brought in court is often "if we treat insurance companies like this, they'll stop insuring in our state." That often resonates with judges, who like having insurance.

Oh BS. You started this thread yourself, and titled it with "hefty fines". Now, 7 pages of back and forth later you're going to say "I suppose that got lost in translation"?!

You also describe "fines", but only give one example. The "fine" that they got was $10 per letter. Considering they already likely had to pay $1-2 per letter in postage, paper, time and ink - $65k is nothing, which is why they didn't even both to fight it.

So if they were fined $10 per letter sent out for something that at the time they didn't know if they could actually do or not, why wasn't the President fined the same amount for making the same offer to millions of Americans without knowing if it could actually be done, either? What's his excuse?

That seems remarkably similar to something I said in the post you just quoted.

Yes, how come it took you 7 pages to finally admit that your misrepresented the title of the thread you started, and have tried to defend?

Because I don't think I'm admitting to misrepresenting. After all, it's not my job to make sure that people who read what I write understand that the actual meaning is different from the literal meaning. That's what we have message board agents for.

 

[matttyl]

So you first say "insurance company scams regarding ACA bring hefty fines" then say "$65,000 is not a hefty fine" (and is the ONLY example of a fine you can find) - but you're not misrepresenting?!

I guess if you're a lawyer, that could make sense.

 

[Henry Ford]

So you first say "insurance company scams regarding ACA bring hefty fines" then say "$65,000 is not a hefty fine" (and is the ONLY example of a fine you can find) - but you're not misrepresenting?!

I guess if you're a lawyer, that could make sense.

I guess if you come into a thread guns blazing instead of chatting with people on a message board like a normal human being, it doesn't make much sense at all.

You're insane about this topic. I understand that, it's your livelihood. Most of the rest of us aren't quite as rabid and can discuss this with a touch of head-shaking and sighing about the state of things. My head-shaking and sighing happens to be on behalf of individuals and against insurance companies because I sue them a lot. And the kind of things said in these letters fits in pretty well with the kind of ######## I get in pleadings from their lawyers, so it makes sense. I think they should be whacked for misrepresenting the facts more often than they are, but they don't.

 

[matttyl]

So you first say "insurance company scams regarding ACA bring hefty fines" then say "$65,000 is not a hefty fine" (and is the ONLY example of a fine you can find) - but you're not misrepresenting?!

I guess if you're a lawyer, that could make sense.

I guess if you come into a thread guns blazing instead of chatting with people on a message board like a normal human being, it doesn't make much sense at all.

You're insane about this topic. I understand that, it's your livelihood. Most of the rest of us aren't quite as rabid and can discuss this with a touch of head-shaking and sighing about the state of things. My head-shaking and sighing happens to be on behalf of individuals and against insurance companies because I sue them a lot. And the kind of things said in these letters fits in pretty well with the kind of ######## I get in pleadings from their lawyers, so it makes sense. I think they should be whacked for misrepresenting the facts more often than they are, but they don't.

You think those two statements of yours fit one another? And I haven't been chatting with you on here for the last 7 pages? I'm bringing facts to the table.

You're misrepresenting everything here, including the very title of this thread. You started this thread, I'm just asking you to defend what you wrote - but all you'll say is "yeah, the fine isn't hefty at all, and there haven't been fines, just the one."

To me, you're just "fear mongering" against insurance companies for no good reason. You're no better than your example of the media saying "the ACA will raise your premium 1000%". You're just adding fear and confusion to a situation that already has too much of both.

 

[RCon]

To the OP, what did the Florida BCBS do wrong, in your opinion?

 

[MaxThreshold]

So you first say "insurance company scams regarding ACA bring hefty fines" then say "$65,000 is not a hefty fine" (and is the ONLY example of a fine you can find) - but you're not misrepresenting?!

I guess if you're a lawyer, that could make sense.

I guess if you come into a thread guns blazing instead of chatting with people on a message board like a normal human being, it doesn't make much sense at all.

You're insane about this topic. I understand that, it's your livelihood. Most of the rest of us aren't quite as rabid and can discuss this with a touch of head-shaking and sighing about the state of things. My head-shaking and sighing happens to be on behalf of individuals and against insurance companies because I sue them a lot. And the kind of things said in these letters fits in pretty well with the kind of ######## I get in pleadings from their lawyers, so it makes sense. I think they should be whacked for misrepresenting the facts more often than they are, but they don't.

Dude - you're being steamrolled here. Might want to give it break or just ask the mods to delete the thread.

 

[Henry Ford]

So you first say "insurance company scams regarding ACA bring hefty fines" then say "$65,000 is not a hefty fine" (and is the ONLY example of a fine you can find) - but you're not misrepresenting?!

I guess if you're a lawyer, that could make sense.

I guess if you come into a thread guns blazing instead of chatting with people on a message board like a normal human being, it doesn't make much sense at all.You're insane about this topic. I understand that, it's your livelihood. Most of the rest of us aren't quite as rabid and can discuss this with a touch of head-shaking and sighing about the state of things. My head-shaking and sighing happens to be on behalf of individuals and against insurance companies because I sue them a lot. And the kind of things said in these letters fits in pretty well with the kind of ######## I get in pleadings from their lawyers, so it makes sense. I think they should be whacked for misrepresenting the facts more often than they are, but they don't.

Dude - you're being steamrolled here. Might want to give it break or just ask the mods to delete the thread.

I really appreciate your concern. I don't share it.

 

[Henry Ford]

So you first say "insurance company scams regarding ACA bring hefty fines" then say "$65,000 is not a hefty fine" (and is the ONLY example of a fine you can find) - but you're not misrepresenting?!

I guess if you're a lawyer, that could make sense.

I guess if you come into a thread guns blazing instead of chatting with people on a message board like a normal human being, it doesn't make much sense at all.You're insane about this topic. I understand that, it's your livelihood. Most of the rest of us aren't quite as rabid and can discuss this with a touch of head-shaking and sighing about the state of things. My head-shaking and sighing happens to be on behalf of individuals and against insurance companies because I sue them a lot. And the kind of things said in these letters fits in pretty well with the kind of ######## I get in pleadings from their lawyers, so it makes sense. I think they should be whacked for misrepresenting the facts more often than they are, but they don't.

You think those two statements of yours fit one another? And I haven't been chatting with you on here for the last 7 pages? I'm bringing facts to the table.You're misrepresenting everything here, including the very title of this thread. You started this thread, I'm just asking you to defend what you wrote - but all you'll say is "yeah, the fine isn't hefty at all, and there haven't been fines, just the one."

To me, you're just "fear mongering" against insurance companies for no good reason. You're no better than your example of the media saying "the ACA will raise your premium 1000%". You're just adding fear and confusion to a situation that already has too much of both.

Can I get an official fear monger T-shirt? If so, this will all be worth it.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So, are you going to answer my question of how many of the "5m" would still be in force today if not for the ACA? That number is well above 95%.

We only know of hundreds of thousands that had policies cancelled. That 5 million number is just the commonly asserted figure. I already posted that it is as far as I know completely unsubstantiated but it is what we have. Just like your 95% number is nothing but presumptions. With or without the ACA the entire market place is changing. Attributing the "credit" or "blame" entirely to the ACA is simply wrong. Even if the ACA was the last straw or the welcomed opportunity in 100% of the cases it is still wrong to say that the "ACA caused all of the cancellations" unless this statement is completely meaningless. I'd be fine with that since I also think that "if you like your insurance you can keep it" was just rhetoric, but that is why I have no double standard as I pretty much ignore both statements. But asserting one while calling out the other...

But ultimately "if not for the ACA" we can only guess.

 

[matttyl]

So, are you going to answer my question of how many of the "5m" would still be in force today if not for the ACA? That number is well above 95%.

We only know of hundreds of thousands that had policies cancelled. That 5 million number is just the commonly asserted figure. I already posted that it is as far as I know completely unsubstantiated but it is what we have. Just like your 95% number is nothing but presumptions. With or without the ACA the entire market place is changing. Attributing the "credit" or "blame" entirely to the ACA is simply wrong. Even if the ACA was the last straw or the welcomed opportunity in 100% of the cases it is still wrong to say that the "ACA caused all of the cancellations" unless this statement is completely meaningless. I'd be fine with that since I also think that "if you like your insurance you can keep it" was just rhetoric, but that is why I have no double standard as I pretty much ignore both statements. But asserting one while calling out the other...

But ultimately "if not for the ACA" we can only guess.

You're the one who brought up the 5m figure. What do you mean we only know of hundreds of thousands?! We know of hundreds of thousands in California alone. I mean if Cigna and United had such a small percentage of the market, but still accounted for over 57k cancelations, then how can you say that there are only "hundreds of thousands" nationwide?

All of those cancelations are because of the ACA. Without the ACA all of those carriers I listed would still be in their respective markets, and the carriers wouldn't have just dropped their own policy holders off of plans.

 

[matttyl]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/10/28/affordable-care-act-cancellations/3293001/

"Millions of Americans are getting their health insurance canceled under the Affordable Care Act and the Obama administration has known for about three years that this would happen, NBC News is reporting.

About 50% to 75% of 14 million consumers who buy health insurance individually will receive a "cancellation" letter or its equivalent in the next year because their current policies don't meet the standards laid out by the new law, the news organization reports, citing four sources deeply involved in ACA."

As sources matter, is NBC considered conservative or liberal?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/10/28/affordable-care-act-cancellations/3293001/

"Millions of Americans are getting their health insurance canceled under the Affordable Care Act and the Obama administration has known for about three years that this would happen, NBC News is reporting.

About 50% to 75% of 14 million consumers who buy health insurance individually will receive a "cancellation" letter or its equivalent in the next year because their current policies don't meet the standards laid out by the new law, the news organization reports, citing four sources deeply involved in ACA."

As sources matter, is NBC considered conservative or liberal?

This is relevant in the same way that Dodd's summer projections that this site sells can be used to prove players final 2013 stat lines. Even if NBC is 100% correct it doesn't tell us anything about the number of people cancelled to date,.

 

[matttyl]

Or how about this one, released TODAY, which puts the number at 5.4m. It's from the "National Center for Policy Analysis", a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24059

What we know about ObamaCare

"An incredible 5.4 million people with individual policies have already lost their insurance thanks to the ACA. Because the employer mandate has been postponed, those plans have yet to be affected, but cancellations will begin in late 2014."

 

[matttyl]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/10/28/affordable-care-act-cancellations/3293001/

"Millions of Americans are getting their health insurance canceled under the Affordable Care Act and the Obama administration has known for about three years that this would happen, NBC News is reporting.

About 50% to 75% of 14 million consumers who buy health insurance individually will receive a "cancellation" letter or its equivalent in the next year because their current policies don't meet the standards laid out by the new law, the news organization reports, citing four sources deeply involved in ACA."

As sources matter, is NBC considered conservative or liberal?

This is relevant in the same way that Dodd's summer projections that this site sells can be used to prove players final 2013 stat lines. Even if NBC is 100% correct it doesn't tell us anything about the number of people cancelled to date,.

You can't figure out what 50 to 75% of 14 million is? It's certainly more than a few "hundred thousand". It's likely even higher than only 5m, as the report I posted that was released today says.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Or how about this one, released TODAY, which puts the number at 5.4m. It's from the "National Center for Policy Analysis", a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24059

What we know about ObamaCare

"An incredible 5.4 million people with individual policies have already lost their insurance thanks to the ACA. Because the employer mandate has been postponed, those plans have yet to be affected, but cancellations will begin in late 2014."

Just stop!

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. Our goal is to develop and promote private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.

 

[matttyl]

Or how about this one, released TODAY, which puts the number at 5.4m. It's from the "National Center for Policy Analysis", a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24059

What we know about ObamaCare

"An incredible 5.4 million people with individual policies have already lost their insurance thanks to the ACA. Because the employer mandate has been postponed, those plans have yet to be affected, but cancellations will begin in late 2014."

Just stop!

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. Our goal is to develop and promote private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.

So you just throw their numbers completely out, and like your avatar will keep your head in the sand?