I’m on the same page as wanting to see what, specifically, these insurance companies are talking about, but I don’t find it very convincing that they somehow needed a “pretext” to raise prices. Mine seem to do so pretty much every year, with the vague reference to “rising costs of providing healthcare”.
Why in the world would you think they needed a “pretext”? Do you think they couldn’t cancel it years ago without any “pretext”?
Because the plans can’t pay for the uninsurables the insurance company has to pay for now because under no-reject insurance would have to pay for a 53 year old at 360 lbs, diabetic and with stage 2 prostate cancer and under ACA they can’t charge them based on the actual cost of taking care of their health needs.
The issue at hand is that everyone should have seen the higher costs = higher premiums coming but Obama but he kept claiming costs would go down because of ObamaMagic or something. So while technically Obama & Sebelius aren’t forcing companies to cancel policies because of ACA (except in many cases they are e.g. now ALL Kaiser plans include dental), the reality was that the old policies would not allow the company to follow the guidelines of ACA including no-reject and stay solvent. The extra $20/month I need to pay may cover the dental I don’t need but the $2700 increase in the out-of-pocket limit is to cover the increased health cost of all of the new customers - that’s why the old policy was cancelled starting 2014.
I realize I never said my son’s policy was Kaiser but that’s your answer. His policy did not have dental but since ACA requires dental for minors, he HAS to lose his old policy and get one with (unneeded) dental. In fact, all of Kaiser’s plans now include dental which is why all of the old policies were cancelled (I think Kaiser may have had a separate dental plan but it was never part of the main insurance package). Now Obama apologists will claim that Kaiser could still leave in the old policies for people over 18 and that may be technically correct but it does not account for the reality of how insurance companies develop their products.
They are cancelling ALL policies based on this program. Not just me. So I guess the “underlying reason” is that they’re going to lose money on the aggregate program. Where they weren’t losing money in all the years before. Right? And it’s just a coincidence that the time that they project losing money in is when Obamacare law goes into effect. Yup. That’s the ticket. Coincidence.
John Mace, that is simply a falsehood.
Here’s adaher’s post.
He most certainly did link the race to the ACA (bolding mine to make this eminently clear to you). To further solidify the point, he has been arguing now that other races in VA were referendums on ACA.
No backtracking needed. You’re the one misrepresenting things, as the bolded quote above makes quite clear.
With falsehoods? No thanks!
If you had it for years, it would have been grandfathered in, and would not need to be cancelled due to the ACA. Sounds like it was canceled due to your insurance company to me.
Thanks, by the way, for stepping up with the details of your plan so that others could check it out. At least you’re willing to put your premiums where your mouth is, which is honorable. I have to confess that I have not had the time to take a look just yet, but I will!
The post clearly and unambiguously links the fact that the polls are tightening to the ACA. Is that what you mean by “link the race to the ACA”?
Very few plans are “grandfathered” because very few plans do not change over three years (or is it four?)
Are you calling me a sock? 
Yes, absolutely.
Yes, he tied the narrowing of the race to the negative impact of the recent Obamacare news, but he never said it would be definitive wrt who would eventually win. You were the one who interjected the idea that “winning” was the what decided the referendum:
Emphasis added. He never said that. You extrapolated that from something he said earlier. And since you threw down that gauntlet, it makes sense to point out that, while the Democrat one, he did not win by a majority. And I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of the Libertarian votes were by people not happy with Obamacare.
Perhaps, but you said you have had the same plan for five years. Unless there were substantial changes, your plan would be grandfathered.
Ok - was he correct that the polls tightened? Was he correct in that the final result was 2.5% difference where the polls predicted 6%? I mean, what exactly are you objecting to?
adaher has since said:
So, is it your position, since you are again speaking for adaher, that where Republicans won races, this is a reflection on the ACA, and where they lost races, this is due to individual candidates?
Put another way, is it your position that it was a referendum on Obamacare only if Democrats lost?
If not, please explain the apparent contradiction in your/adaher’s comments quoted above.
There were no substantial changes that I know of. But then my definition of “substantial change” most probably differs from Obamacare’s. And I understand certain things are cause for grandfathering exclusion even if they don’t change - for example, lifetime limit (which my plan had, at $2M). Just that would disqualify it from being grandfathered.
No. The person who said that “what matters is who wins” (paraphrased) is YOU. So, some of us are taking that at face value and showing why you’re wrong about what the actual results show. You think you have a gotcha, but it’s manufactured on the basis of a claim that you made, not anyone else.
That’s an unfair statement. Merely being active on 23 March 2010 does not grandfather the health insurance policy. For example, any policy that had lifetime limits (I believe most did) could not be grandfathered in. The weird one is Section 2718 that requires the policy to bring down the cost of health care. I’m not sure how that is interpreted but if your policy did not bring down health care cost (maybe through low cost primary care?) it was not grandfathered in.
My son had his policy for years and for a reason stated numerous times above was canceled because it did not comply with ACA.
ETA: As Terr said, the lifetime limit probably is the reason for a lot of cancellations.
That’s the reimbursement requirement: insurers must rebate any amount over 20% of premium not spent on actual healthcare.
I don’t think that’s quite right.
Grandfathered plans did have to comply with certain ACA requirements intended to apply to the entire market (including the ban on lifetime limits). But the change in the plan required for compliance with that requirement does not count as a change preventing the plan from being grandfathered.
Nor would the premium change necessary to correspond to the elimination of lifetime limits itself un-grandfather a plan.
If the elimination of lifetime limits is indeed the culprit, it would have to be the premium change associated with it somehow took the plan out of grandfather status because of the benefit ratios involved. But even that isn’t clear to me.