# Oops. Looks like we were lied to about Obamacare after all. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2013, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534 "2013-10-29T07:22:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 45
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/881 "2013-11-07T02:24:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > “Common decency”, then? Nope. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/882 "2013-11-07T02:31:53Z")
I second that nope. It costs nothing to make other people pay for things. Now a principled liberal can say that it is the responsibility of the middle class to care for the poor, but given that we live in a democracy(or republic, what have you), it’s necessary to convince a majority of the public to back you. The fact that Democrats have shied away from taxing the middle class in recent years says that that argument is settled, and not in elucidator’s favor. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/883 "2013-11-07T03:11:48Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well, one thing the public has predicted overwhelmingly is that the bill will add to the deficit, which is at odds with what the CBO says(although the CBO figures include caveats). a majority of the us public believes in ghosts too. Many also believed in unskewed polls. But, can we get clarification on this? Is this an adaher prediction that the overall impact of the ACA will not be as predicted by the CBO, but will instead ultimately increase the deficit? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/884 "2013-11-07T03:29:33Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well, one thing the public has predicted overwhelmingly is that the bill will add to the deficit, which is at odds with what the CBO says(although the CBO figures include caveats). > > of course, if few sign up, that’s few subsidies to give out, so that’s something. What??? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/885 "2013-11-07T03:34:06Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > a majority of the us public believes in ghosts too. Many also believed in unskewed polls. > > But, can we get clarification on this? Is this an adaher prediction that the overall impact of the ACA will not be as predicted by the CBO, but will instead ultimately increase the deficit? I think it will, but only if 7 million actually sign up for the exchanges. if it’s less, that means less subsidies get handed out, which means spending will be much lower than expected. But yes, I predict ACA will increase the deficit, because I don’t believe the Medicare cuts will all go through, nor will all the taxes. THe pressure to repeal things like the medical device tax and IPAB are going to be too much. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/886 "2013-11-07T03:35:25Z")
The fuck? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/887 "2013-11-07T04:19:43Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > If that’s the reason they gave, it’s a lie. Dropping the lifetime limit does not prevent grandfathering. But it defies all known definitions of what “grandfathering” means. Let’s try an analogy. Let’s say that your local library allows you to check out a maximum of 4 books at a time. The new policy mandates that libraries must now all unlimited number of books to be checked out, but that libraries which had the 4 book policy prior to November 6, 2013 can “keep their policy. Period.” It’s grandfathered. On January 1, 2016, all libraries are now required to allow unlimited books to be checked out. People scratch their heads and say, “Wait, weren’t libraries that had the policy in effect allowed to keep the 4 book policy?” The reply is that as long as they drop the 4 book limit, they can keep their previous policy in place. It’s a very poor attempt at linguistic sophistry. This is not “grandfathering.” A grandfather provision exempts things from new laws. If these health insurance plans were “grandfathered” then they could keep the lifetime limits in place, not offer maternity care, dump kids when they turn 21, etc. Saying that you are grandfathered as long as you comply with the new policy is simply insulting the English language. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/888 "2013-11-07T06:27:47Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Yeah, I don’t know how to say it more clearly, but I still think you don’t get it. > > Cancellations resulting from the **change in lifetime limits** have zero to do with grandfathering. You can blame them on the ACA’s requirements and the insurance company’s cost decisions, but you cannot blame them on the grandfathering provisions. Emphasis added. I’m not sure I’m following this clearly, but what was the change in the lifetime limit? **Terr** keeps saying that it didn’t change. That it was precisely because there was a lifetime limit (unchanged from the previous policy) that made the policy no longer valid. That’s not grandfathered, that’s voided. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/889 "2013-11-07T06:51:33Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > …Saying that you are grandfathered as long as you comply with the new policy is simply insulting the English language. Dear God, is there no end to this man’s perfidy! ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/890 "2013-11-07T09:56:00Z")
Republicans warned in 2010 that the grandfather rule would result in the cancellation of a lot of insurance policies. Sen. Enzi proposed legislation to block this rule but it was [voted down on a party line vote.](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/31/senate-democrats-supported-rule-that-lead-to-insurance-cancellations/) Also, some White House policy advisers [warned](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB30001424052702303843104579172002892623382?mg=reno64-wsj) that the president’s broad statement that you can keep your plan if you like your plan was inaccurate but were overruled by political aides. The White House, unsurprisingly, claims they were unaware of the objections ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/891 "2013-11-07T14:45:11Z")
Here is why both sides are right (but my side is righter than yours) There is nothing in ACA that is forcing these cancellations as in “all current policies must be cancelled”. So those that are claiming that insurance companies are not being forced to cancel you because of ACA are absolutely right … Except in reality they are wrong. Let’s define “keeping your policy” as your current policy that may be improved to comply with ACA and where there is no area it got worse (higher premium, higher copay, lower benefits, etc.). Take my son’s case. To be compliant with ACA, his policy needed to include dental and lift the lifetime limit. The Obamacare apologists are absolutely correct in that my insurance company could have made these changes and still let me keep my policy. But look at the insurance companies end of it. In order to keep my policy, it needs to pay for my improved benefits (dental and unlimited lifetime benefits) AND pay for people that have the highest medical costs i.e. those that the company had determined to not insure because of their health or medical condition. Understand that these are people that the underwriters have said medical cost will outweigh any possible premium they could charge. So given the reality of Obamacare, there would be no feasible way they could let me keep my old policy. In my case, the policy has increased $20/mo and annual out-of-pocket limits increased by $2700. Whether or not the policy had to be cancelled or if the insurance company could have just changed the terms is immaterial - I was not allowed to keep my own policy for reasons indirectly related to ACA. So while Obama/Sebelius may be technically be correct that the insurance company could make the changes associated with ACA and let you keep you policy, the reality is if companies did that then in 2015 we’d start discussing if health insurance companies are “to big to fail”. Anyone want to disagree with my analysis? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/892 "2013-11-07T14:56:52Z")
Not to mention the grandfathered plans cannot take any new customers…so those grandfathered plans are a dead-end for the insurance companies. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/893 "2013-11-07T14:57:41Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > But it defies all known definitions of what “grandfathering” means. > > Saying that you are grandfathered as long as you comply with the new policy is simply insulting the English language. I understand that argument and I think it is a reasonable one. But I’m not persuaded for two reasons. First, this was a comprehensive reform involving two pieces–which in most of Obama’s speeches were expressly delineated. One piece was market-wide consumer reform affecting all policies, discussed since the 1990s under various titles like the patient’s bill of rights. This is the anti-rescission, no lifetime limits, and similar reforms that apply to the whole industry, and were sold as such. The other piece was expanding insurance coverage, using exchanges and subsidies, with a host of new requirements imposed on new policies (many more than apply to the whole market). The reforms thought to significantly affect the price of policies largely fell into that latter category, and it is that category from which the old policies are grandfathered. Second, it was clear to anyone who bothered to look exactly what grandfathering meant as far back a October 2009, since the statute defines it. So I’m not persuaded that anyone was misled by the use of the term grandfathering. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not sure I’m following this clearly, but what was the change in the lifetime limit? **Terr** keeps saying that it didn’t change. That it was precisely because there was a lifetime limit (unchanged from the previous policy) that made the policy no longer valid. That’s not grandfathered, that’s voided. That’s correct. After the reforms, many policies had to change their contents in order to still be sold, even as renewals. But making that change has no affect on whether the policy meets the grandfathering regulations. If you want to say that a policy that refused to comply with the market-wide consumer protections is “not grandfathered,” that’s fine. But that’s not what the term means in this context (as explained above). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/894 "2013-11-07T14:59:00Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Republicans warned in 2010 that the grandfather rule would result in the cancellation of a lot of insurance policies. Sen. Enzi proposed legislation to block this rule but it was [voted down on a party line vote.](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/31/senate-democrats-supported-rule-that-lead-to-insurance-cancellations/) > > Also, some White House policy advisers [warned](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB30001424052702303843104579172002892623382?mg=reno64-wsj) that the president’s broad statement that you can keep your plan if you like your plan was inaccurate but were overruled by political aides. The White House, unsurprisingly, claims they were unaware of the objections Yeah, but that lie is okay because it was just trying to make true a previous lie. And don’t you know that lying about a lie and amounts to using a double negative, so it equals a 100% truthful statement. In does work that way, right? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/895 "2013-11-07T15:00:10Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Not to mention the grandfathered plans cannot take any new customers…so those grandfathered plans are a dead-end for the insurance companies. This is not entirely correct. A group health plan that provided coverage on March 23, 2010 may add new employees (whether newly hired or newly enrolled) and their families enrolling in the plan after March 23, 2010 without losing grandfather status. \*See \*45 CFR 147.140. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/896 "2013-11-07T15:17:33Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > This is not entirely correct. A group health plan that provided coverage on March 23, 2010 may add new employees (whether newly hired or newly enrolled) and their families enrolling in the plan after March 23, 2010 without losing grandfather status. \*See \*45 CFR 147.140. True. I was referring to the individual market policies. I should have been more specific in my wording. ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/897 "2013-11-07T15:19:03Z")
So the race in Virginia that was repeatedly marketed as a **referendum** on the ACA was won by the guy who _supports_ it and who intends to fully enact it in his state. Awesome, so can we all just stop arguing about the ACA now? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/898 "2013-11-07T15:22:22Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > True. I was referring to the individual market policies. I should have been more specific in my wording. But is the economics of renewing an individual’s policy affected by whether that general line of policies is open to new applicants? I would have thought that, unlike group policies in which the underwriting is about the composition of the group including new members, that individual policies are not especially tied to how many individuals buy that policy. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/899 "2013-11-07T15:39:16Z")
**Saint Cad** : You have a lot of facts wrong about what causes a policy not be grandfathered and what requirements are imposed on grandfathered plans. I posted above all the factors that prevent grandfathering. Increased premiums is not one of them. I’ll do another post on all the requirements imposed on them. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534/900 "2013-11-07T15:40:09Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > But is the economics of renewing an individual’s policy affected by whether that general line of policies is open to new applicants? > > I would have thought that, unlike group policies in which the underwriting is about the composition of the group including new members, that individual policies are not especially tied to how many individuals buy that policy. I’m not positive but I think that not being able to increase the pool that signs up for an individual policy may result in increased cost to the insurer…especially over time. Obviously, if people were to stay on individual policies for extended periods, they are getting older and sicker with time and there is no ability to attract young and healthy individuals into the pool to mitigate the risks. Of course these plans cannot significantly increase cost-sharing percentages, deductibles, or copays without losing grandfathered status anyway. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534.md?page=44) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-looks-like-we-were-lied-to-about-obamacare-after-all/672534.md?page=46)