Support NeoGAF

[Diablos]

He's essentially shifting the responsibility to insurers, yes.

...by just calling on them to do it? I don't think that will go over too well.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Insurers: Obamacare Fix 'Could Destabilize Market'

The insurance industry's top lobbying group, America's Health Insurance Plans, warned Thursday that the administration's Obamacare fix could "destabilize the market and result in higher premiums for consumers."

“Making sure consumers have secure, affordable coverage is health plans' top priority. The only reason consumers are getting notices about their current coverage changing is because the ACA requires all policies to cover a broad range of benefits that go beyond what many people choose to purchase today," AHIP president and CEO Karen Ignagni said in a statement.

“Changing the rules after health plans have already met the requirements of the law could destabilize the market and result in higher premiums for consumers. Premiums have already been set for next year based on an assumption of when consumers will be transitioning to the new marketplace. If now fewer younger and healthier people choose to purchase coverage in the exchange, premiums will increase and there will be fewer choices for consumers. Additional steps must be taken to stabilize the marketplace and mitigate the adverse impact on consumers.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/insurers-obamacare-fix-could-destabilize-market

Translation: we're going to increase premiums next year and blame the law.

The amount of young/healthy people who keep their shitty plans shouldn't be enough to fuck the law. If young people don't sign up it'll be due to other factors, specifically prices.

 

[Diablos]

I still don't know what my subsidy is (or isn't). Now I no longer get a blank page/400 error when trying to view eligibility results -- instead, nothing happens. Click click click, big ass border around the button, nothing. LOL.

 

[WayneMorse]

Welp, this is all very depressing.

 

[Cloudy]

I still don't know what my subsidy is (or isn't). Now I no longer get a blank page/400 error when trying to view eligibility results -- instead, nothing happens. Click click click, big ass border around the button, nothing. LOL.

You have to make another account with a different email and re-apply. I had a friend try that today and it worked perfectly.. He'd been waiting since the 2nd week with no identity verification

 

[Diablos]

You have to make another account with a different email and re-apply. I had a friend try that today and it worked perfectly.. He'd been waiting since the 2nd week with no identity verification

I have thought about that, but won't that raise a red flag somewhere? Someone with the same SSN doing two applications for enrollment?

Furthermore I'm already at the enrollment stage (to simply see premium prices) and so the site tells me if I dislike my results I can appeal.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/us/politics/groups-mobilize-to-aid-democrats.html

Liberal and Democratic-leaning groups, facing a difficult midterm election next year without the technological muscle of the Obama campaign behind them, are preparing a major effort to improve their data infrastructure.

George Soros, the retired hedge fund billionaire and longtime patron of liberal causes, will invest $2.5 million in the effort, officials involved with the plan said. His participation is a signal that some of the wealthy donors who arrived late to the Democrats’ “super PAC” efforts in 2012 are committing early for the next round.

 

[Cloudy]

I have thought about that, but won't that raise a red flag somewhere? Someone with the same SSN doing two applications for enrollment?

Furthermore I'm already at the enrollment stage (to simply see premium prices) and so the site tells me if I dislike my results I can appeal.

Nah, it's fine. My friend thought the same today until I told him to try that. He was stuck in the "Pending Identity Verification" stage for a month and uploading files didn't help.

Making a new account with a different email worked right away. I believe the site is working fine now but accounts created the first week are stuck in limbo

 

[Aylinato]

I dunno. Ask the Bush Administration who sent out letters to everyone announcing that in a few weeks they would receive $300.

Which everyone had to pay back, by the way.

 

[The Librarian]

Honestly, this terrible roll-out of healthcare.gov makes me think another shutdown is more likely in 2014.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Honestly, this terrible roll-out of healthcare.gov makes me think another shutdown is more likely in 2014.

That's actually good news for dems

 

[speculawyer]

Nice speech. He admits issues, takes responsibility, makes a move to help remedy, but stands firmly committed to seeing the program work.

The fact that they had the grandfather clause gives them plausible deniability on the 'keep your insurance' claim. Hey . . . you can keep it if the insurance company keeps offering it. But the reality is that if not for Obamacare, most of those people still would have received cancellation notices.

 

[B-Dubs]

Nice speech. He admits issues, takes responsibility, makes a move to help remedy, but stands firmly committed to seeing the program work.

The fact that they had the grandfather clause gives them plausible deniability on the 'keep your insurance' claim. Hey . . . you can keep it if the insurance company keeps offering it. But the reality is that if not for Obamacare, most of those people still would have received cancellation notices.

Yup. I can't believe how quickly everyone forgot how insurance companies operate, of course they'll try to fuck you over. That's practically their mission statement.

Honestly, this terrible roll-out of healthcare.gov makes me think another shutdown is more likely in 2014.

I doubt that, the GOP saw what happened the last time they tried that. They'd have to be truly stupid to try it again so close to the midterms.

 

[The Librarian]

I doubt that, the GOP saw what happened the last time they tried that. They'd have to be truly stupid to try it again so close to the midterms.

They smell blood in the water, B-Dubs! They won't be able to resist!

 

[Eidan]

Uh, because it can't be? Software engineers aren't cheap, and unless you outsource all your shit to China or the 3rd world, you have to compete with the MS's and Google's of the world when recruiting talent. This is a problem that can only be solved with money, and the GOP has made it impossible to pass a budget that increases funding for those things during the past 5 years.

Yep. The fact of the matter is that the government would never get the top talent necessary to make a site like this work without hiccups. America's great software engineers aren't living in Herndon.

 

[B-Dubs]

They smell blood in the water, B-Dubs! They won't be able to resist!

I honestly don't know. I'd hate to go through another shutdown, but it would be a barrel of laughs if they did it next October.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I honestly don't know. I'd hate to go through another shutdown, but it would be a barrel of laughs if they did it next October.

It'll be in January and/or February.

I wouldn't blame republicans for trying again, especially since I don't think the law will be any more popular by that time, and I wouldn't be surprised if the site doesn't work in December. Still as of right now I don't think they'll try it.

 

[mckmas8808]

I just don't understand why this idea isn't even being considered by the administration at this point.

Because it'll cost too much and take too much time.

 

[xnipx]

Because it'll cost too much and take too much time.

It will cost too much to mail a packet of information?

 

[mckmas8808]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/insurers-obamacare-fix-could-destabilize-market

Translation: we're going to increase premiums next year and blame the law.

The amount of young/healthy people who keep their shitty plans shouldn't be enough to fuck the law. If young people don't sign up it'll be due to other factors, specifically prices.

Within the ACA the government can give the insurance companies a bailout through the year 2015 or 2016 for reason like this. So premiums shouldn't go up.

 

[bananas]

Come January, this won't be an issue anymore. Obama's approvals will go back up to the mid-40 range they usually are at, and everyone will be putting pressure on the GOP to compromise and not shut down the government again.

So to everyone freaking out: Relax.

 

[pigeon]

...by just calling on them to do it? I don't think that will go over too well.

They were already responsible, they were just claiming that Obamacare made it impossible for them to keep the plans active. In reality, there were all kinds of reasons they wanted to kill those plans, but Obamacare was a scapegoat.

Now they can't scapegoat Obamacare in the same way -- left pundits can always respond that the insurance companies are responsible for choosing not to renew the plans. There are still all the same reasons they want to kill those plans, so you should expect that they will mostly still get killed, but the goal is to shift the bad press to the insurance companies. That's why the insurance companies are so mad about this (and threatening to raise rates).

Make no mistake, this is a purely political move. But the reality is that this is a purely political problem, because, as we've discussed so many times, most of those cancelled plans were terrible and deserved to get canceled. The problem here isn't policy, it's politics. (And IT, but that's kind of another story.)

 

[mckmas8808]

It will cost too much to mail a packet of information?

It's an unnecessary cost. And the administration cost on making, shipping, receiving, and applying that information can be higher than you think.

 

[xnipx]

It's an unnecessary cost. And the administration cost on making, shipping, receiving, and applying that information can be higher than you think.

So you prefer the broken online method? All I'm saying is if they have these call centers and workers on staff to process paper applications they should push for people to use them instead of "keep trying the site Until it works"

Hell even just having ppl print the app from the site and sending it in is better than the process it is now. Hiding the subsidized or non subsidized prices was a stupid idea in the first place

 

[Wilsongt]

Republicans saw what happened during the last shut down: Nothing.

I wouldn't put it pass them to shut down the government again to try and get rid of the ACA.

But, in getting rid of the ACA, that means you can no longer stay on your parents' insurance until you're 26 and the preexisting condition clauses come back, right?

 

[Oblivion]

Regarding the Bill Clinton thing, I was pissed off at first as well, but Steve M. makes a pretty interesting argument for why that might have been a good thing:

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2013/11/mark-halperin-thinks-bill-clinton-is.html#links

11th dimensional chess, basically.

 

[Black Mamba]

You assume that most people who have junk policies are young and healthy to begin with, which isn't true. Overall this is what, 5-10 million people? I do not believe that keeping them in their shitty plans harms the law in any way. We already know many of them can't afford ACA plans anyway considering they aren't eligible for subsidies, so it's not like most would sign up for the law anyway.

I did not assume youth, I only assumed health. Of course only the healthy have these junk policies. If they were unhealthy, their insurance would be useless or unattainable.

You're nuts if you don't think 5-10 million doesn't affect the numbers. Hello? The individual market is already very small. And if a company currently has 200k people in a state on individual plans and they expect to gain 200k on top of that under the ACA and now 100k of those original 200k stay on the old plans, you're talking about 1/4th their entire risk pool. The hell do you think is going to happen to premiums for the other 300k?

And to the claim that they couldn't afford it is bullocks. A ton will get subsidized and the ones who are young can still get catastrophic coverage on the exchanges. The ones who are older and don't qualify for subsidies will overwhelmingly be self-employed who can afford the hike and are currently using crappy insurance because they've been fooled. Some will get screwed over but this was always something what was going to happen. It sucks for them and I wish it weren't the case, but it's a small portion of the overall market.

Your fix sounds nice...but that could not be done without congressional action correct?

Of course. Put it on Congress.

Finally you're going to make me defend Obama. He simply could not hold firm on a losing issue like this, and your fantasy statement doesn't sound like it would work for anyone but liberal bloggers. At the end of the day he promised the law would not impact existing plans. We've spent years beating back anti-Obamacare FUD by noting the plan only applies to those without insurance, even though many of us were also aware of these 2010 junk policies.

He said it wouldn't affect existing plans in 2010, not plans that people bought in 2011, 2012, 2013. I agree he wasn't clear on this, however. My statement isn't about appeasing liberal bloggers. It's about taking a stand and telling those people who are losing their current coverage "TOUGH SHIT." No one will care if the law is working as intended one year from now so to entertain "fixes" that make things worse is fucking stupid.

And I've pointed out in Obamacare threads and this one in the past that people were going to lose their coverage many moons before a single insurance company sent out a cancellation notice. This was discussed years ago in the newspapers. We knew this because of the 10 essential benefits aspect of the law. Everyone knew this. This is a story being rehashed because the media loves to dogpile on shit like this.

Here's where I won't defend Obama: once again, he allows a story to get weeks ahead of his rebuttal/response. We saw this happen during the creation of ACA, during that first August recess. Same thing happened earlier this year with the drip drip drip of NSA news.

I agree, he should have told those people tough shit weeks ago. And if the GOP wanted a fix, to increase subsidies for them.

 

[AndyD]

Regarding the Bill Clinton thing, I was pissed off at first as well, but Steve M. makes a pretty interesting argument for why that might have been a good thing:

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2013/11/mark-halperin-thinks-bill-clinton-is.html#links

11th dimensional chess, basically.

There was an interesting article on Bill's messaging that came right after the last election. If I remember right, he had 6-8 things he baited with over the years, for each of 2-3 potential candidates and the 'sterling' was the only one that stuck in a big way and thus became meaningful as Romney became the front runner. But they went into detail that he repeated a few of them several times, and they had small pull in the media.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

^ I can't wait for another hour long convention speech demolishing Christie in 2016. Bill can sell the economics have hillary sell the women and minorities.

And I hope you guys are ready for the "if you like your doctor you can keep it stories" next year. The liberal media will catch Obama in another one of his lies!

 

[Black Mamba]

They were already responsible, they were just claiming that Obamacare made it impossible for them to keep the plans active. In reality, there were all kinds of reasons they wanted to kill those plans, but Obamacare was a scapegoat.

Now they can't scapegoat Obamacare in the same way -- left pundits can always respond that the insurance companies are responsible for choosing not to renew the plans. There are still all the same reasons they want to kill those plans, so you should expect that they will mostly still get killed, but the goal is to shift the bad press to the insurance companies. That's why the insurance companies are so mad about this (and threatening to raise rates).

Make no mistake, this is a purely political move. But the reality is that this is a purely political problem, because, as we've discussed so many times, most of those cancelled plans were terrible and deserved to get canceled. The problem here isn't policy, it's politics. (And IT, but that's kind of another story.)

See, Pigeon gets it, like usual. Under the new ACA rules, these insurance companies want nothing to do with the old shitty insurance plans. It makes no sense for them to offer them, anymore.

The law never forced these companies to stop offering them. It was always their choice. The only difference this "fix" does is it forces them to properly inform their beneficiaries of the ACA changes. The plan being offered is still on them as it always was.

And they will not offer them. They will still cancel them and force people onto the exchanges because it's the only way their premiums on the exchanges makes sense and its the only way with the current premiums to not taint their risk pools.

 

[Diablos]

Instead of canceling them they could have said "this plan is gone, but you can enroll in this one instead" and had the plan name, price, etc. based on their info which they obviously have.

 

[B-Dubs]

Instead of canceling them they could have said "this plan is gone, but you can enroll in this one instead" and had the plan name, price, etc. based on their info which they obviously have.

Since when have insurance companies done anything like that? Like I posted before their mission statement is basically to fuck you in the ass with no lube as hard as they can. When has an insurance company ever done anything out of the kindness of their hearts? It's an industry that has a history of denying coverage to newborns that they feel are too fat, or have we forgotten they have done this? Expecting them to do the right thing is like expecting a bomb to rebuild your house.

 

[Black Mamba]

Instead of canceling them they could have said "this plan is gone, but you can enroll in this one instead" and had the plan name, price, etc. based on their info which they obviously have.

they've done that, only they've tried to put people on expensive versions of it and do it without them seeing the competition, of course.

 

[AndyD]

they've done that, only they've tried to put people on expensive versions of it and do it without them seeing the competition, of course.

Yea, the cancellation letters vary from "cancelled" to "cancelled but you can renew on this plan that is 30% more." In past years it would say "this year the premium is going up by 15% due to increased medical costs, do you wish to renew?" Now they are using the ACA.

 

[WayneMorse]

In much better news, John Oliver is getting his own show.

 

[mckmas8808]

Hell even just having ppl print the app from the site and sending it in is better than the process it is now. Hiding the subsidized or non subsidized prices was a stupid idea in the first place

I agree with that.

 

[Batman]

So happy that people can get back their cancelled plans, what a mess of legislation.

 

[Enron]

This press conference is pathetic. Hearing Obama say the federal government isn't good at IT infrastructure, federal contracts, lamenting all the regulation/red tape...the obvious question becomes: why didn't you fix it? Or, why don't you fix it now? He sounds like a government spectator, not the president.

Regardless of what you think about the ACA - this whole episode post-rollout has been handled in about the worst way possible. That we can agree on, I think. I am starting to see ripple effects at work, as a number of our clients are putting HR/Benefits projects on hold.

 

[mckmas8808]

So happy that people can get back their cancelled plans, what a mess of legislation.

Why do you think it's good?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Why do you think it's good?

Probably because there are plenty of people who make too much for Medicaid or subsidies, and thus would pay significantly more for an ACA plan.

 

[mckmas8808]

Probably because there are plenty of people who make too much for Medicaid or subsidies, and thus would pay significantly more for an ACA plan.

But eventually the plans will go away for good because they are junk. So if not this year, then it'll be gone by 2015.

 

[Jooney]

So happy that people can get back their cancelled plans, what a mess of legislation.

I agree. Let's simplify by implementing single payer.

 

[WayneMorse]

A good time for the public option btw.

 

[Black Mamba]

So happy that people can get back their cancelled plans, what a mess of legislation.

People cannot get back their cancelled plans. Insurance companies won't offer them. Insurance companies always could have kept offering these plans.

Obama's "fix" isn't a fix at all. he changed nothing about the law other than requiring information being sent out.

Probably because there are plenty of people who make too much for Medicaid or subsidies, and thus would pay significantly more for an ACA plan.

So your answer is the fuck with the market which will hurt more people than help?

One of the main points of Obamacare was to force people off these plans and now you want to erase that?

Then it's obvious you don't understand how the law works.

 

[PhoenixDark]

People cannot get back their cancelled plans. Insurance companies won't offer them. Insurance companies always could have kept offering these plans.

Obama's "fix" isn't a fix at all. he changed nothing about the law other than requiring information being sent out.





So your answer is the fuck with the market which will hurt more people than help?

One of the main points of Obamacare was to force people off these plans and now you want to erase that?

Then it's obvious you don't understand how the law works.

Seriously?

A minority of people getting to keep their shitty plan does not threaten the damn law.

 

[Black Mamba]

Seriously?

A minority of people getting to keep their shitty plan does not threaten the damn law.

If 5 million people do, yes it fucking does. Do you not understand that first of all, you can't look at this in aggregate (companies are much smaller), and second of all, the pricing was determined based on shifting these people onto the new plans.

This isn't 50 people, we're talking about. You're talking about something you know nothing about (hint, I do this kind of stuff for a living).

 

[empty vessel]

Probably because there are plenty of people who make too much for Medicaid or subsidies, and thus would pay significantly more for an ACA plan.

You've stated what a potential problem is, not why this is a good solution.

 

[PhoenixDark]

If 5 million people do, yes it fucking does. Do you not understand that first of all, you can't look at this in aggregate (companies are much smaller), and second of all, the pricing was determined based on shifting these people onto the new plans.

This isn't 50 people, we're talking about. You're talking about something you know nothing about (hint, I do this kind of stuff for a living).

There is no guarantee that all or most of those 5 million will (or can) return to their existing shitty plan. As others have said, this fix seems more like a PR adjustment, as Pigeon and Briant Beautler have pointed out
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/14/the...ce_companies_get_their_justified_comeuppance/

Some people will decide they want to pay more for better insurance, others will remain on their plan because they cannot afford to upgrade. Meanwhile a larger pool of people with no insurance will be filling the ACA sign up rolls - once the site works. That group of people without insurance are the main target for the law. Therefore, I am not concerned about this harming the law until proven otherwise.

(hint: I do this stuff for a living as well)

 

[Black Mamba]

There is no guarantee that all or most of those 5 million will (or can) return to their existing shitty plan. As others have said, this fix seems more like a PR adjustment, as Pigeon and Briant Beautler have pointed out
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/14/the...ce_companies_get_their_justified_comeuppance/

Some people will decide they want to pay more for better insurance, others will remain on their plan because they cannot afford to upgrade. Meanwhile a larger pool of people with no insurance will be filling the ACA sign up rolls - once the site works. That group of people without insurance are the main target for the law. Therefore, I am not concerned about this harming the law until proven otherwise.

(hint: I do this stuff for a living as well)

I don't think you understand the fix. People don't get to choose to keep their shitty plan. That's up to the insurance company and the states and I assure you, virtually none of them will allow it. There will be no plan to remain on.

The ACA doesn't work if most of the people currently with insurance don't move onto the exchanges. The way the premiums are made are under the assumption that everyone is currently uninsured (who doesn't have state or employer insurance). You don't understand the math behind this at all.

What pigeon has said, and I agree with 100% as I stated earlier, is that Obama is merely trying to shift blame on the insurance industry without actually altering the cancellations.

Washington's state insurance controller already announced they will ignore the "fix" and require the cancellations of these plans, as well. Other states will follow.

You're dead wrong on this one. If these people kept their plans, it would cause huge rises in premiums, even assuming it was logistically possible in such a short time period, and it would force lots of people not to be able to get on the exchange, as a result.

edit: want to clarify something. The vast majority of people with individual insurance today are fairly healthy, low risk people. high risk people are largely priced out of the market. Therefore, not only does it matter these people go on the exchanged, but it is imperative to the law's success that these people move onto the exchanges. These are the people that will keep the premiums lower. If you allow them to stay on shitty plans at much lower premiums, it falls apart. You have just created a high risk pool and a low risk pool...which is EXACTLY the system we have today. Low risk people pay little for mediocre coverage and high risk people pay an arm and a leg for coverage. Unless you freeze the high risk pool prices (in which case watch how fast companies leave the exchanges), it all falls apart.

The people with individual insurance right now have to get on the exchanges en masse. They along with working poor healthy people (paid for by the gov't) are the key to the law. The uninsured will stay uninsured without them! This is why I say you don't understand what is going on. Your solution does the opposite of what needs to be done. You don't grasp what people have to be on the exchanges.

 

[Jooney]

One of the drivers for the ACA was to address the problem of under-insurance – insurance policies that didn’t cover the cost of medical care when people needed it most. As a result, two-thirds of all medical bankruptcies were people who had a health insurance policy. Insurance companies were happy to collect monthly premiums from families knowing full well if medical tragedy hit they would not have to cover the true cost of care.

We shouldn’t be advocating policies that return us to that previous status quo. Giving people back their old policies is short term political face saving at the cost of the long term robustness and effectiveness of the law.