Then Obama should have said you can keep your insurer, not your policy. For me my policy was: $110/mo premium, $25 copay, $15 prescriptions, $1500 deductable, $2500 max out of pocket annually. I’m pretty sure that’s what most people thought of as the plan they get to keep and if you change any of those then it’s not the same policy.
The big question is whether or not those changes are due to ACA - hence “Obama lied”.
I don’t know about that. Many young, healthy people choose bare-bones plans and shop around yearly to find the cheapest rate. I don’t know what the percentage is but they would be included in the “turnover” number
So, we have to listen to all of his speeches in order to understand any individual one of them? That makes no sense. There is no “context” to add to the statement I quoted earlier. You don’t add “Period” at the end of a statement and then have an * that says: subject to the following terms and conditions. That’s not “context”, that’s lying.
“Period” means “You don’t need to read any further. This is it.”
I think it’s a bit misleading to say that anyone’s individual coverage will be cancelled because of The ACA or the grandfathering rules. Because individual plans are just that- individual- there really are no individual plans that continue from year to year with or without the ACA. In essence every one is rewritten every year.
I’d have to ask my wife. She’s the real expert. AIUI, though, no “internal” functions count towards qualified costs, despite some heavy lobbying on the issue by the industry.
I think interpreting the phrase as saying your policy will not change in any respect is not a reasonable interpretation for at least two reasons: in most cases, the very next sentence was about how the policy would change; and no one thought the ACA was putting in mechanisms to prevent the kind of changes that already happened pre-ACA (like premium increases, for example).
I don’t think you would apply that standard anywhere else in life. Almost all human communication involves context. You’re using a *ton *of context just to reach the interpretation you’re putting on that sentence. What you want to do is selectively exclude the context (including, often, the very next sentence!). I think that’s unfair.
Again, I think it’s fair to say that the ACA probably contributing to the cancellation of policies, and even if that is not an intended effect, and even if people should have been aware of that risk, it still makes Obama’s pledge misleading.
What I think is unfair is this reading of his language as meaning no one would see a premium increase or that the ACA would have no effect on existing policies. That’s about as fair as reading the Third Amendment to mean you cannot rip the arms and legs off of soldiers in a house without the owner’s consent. It may be one literally correct reading, but it ignores all the relevant context.
I sure would. When someone makes a statement and says “Period” afterwards, they are saying that no further context is needed. What do you think “Period” means?
But don’t take my word on this. I’ve already cited the WaPo’s factchecker who gave Obama 4 Pinocchios (you can’t get a worse rating than that) and FactCheck.org which called Obama’s statements about keeping your insurance "one of the health care ‘whoppers’ in 2010, one of the ‘Whoppers of 2012’ and — just last month — one of several ‘Obamacare Myths.’ And by “Whopper”, they’re not talking about Burger King.
I find that reading absurd. “Period” does not mean ignore all context in interpreting what I meant by this phrase. It means there are not hidden conditions or exceptions.
If I read “you can keep your health plan, period” to mean I can keep it even if I stop paying premiums, is that a reasonable reading? Why or why not? Be sure not to use any context! That’s not allowed because he said “period”!
Yes, I’m aware of those opinions. Obviously, I disagree. Are you shocked? Have you ever disagreed with factcheck or Glenn Kessler?
OK, I can go with that definition. And if I have to search through his other speeches to find those conditions and exceptions, then they are hidden.
But the plan includes a premium that has to be paid. That not “context”, that the definition of the term “plan”.
I have never thought that 4 Pinocchios should be 0 Pinocchios, and I can’t recall a time when I thought FactCheck.Org was wrong. What, specifically, do you disagree with about those analyses?
So, it turns out that in the case of at least one insurer, “we’re cancelling your plan because of Obamacare” actually means"We’re going to trick you into changing your plan so that you lose your grandfathered status";
And how do you know that definition, John? If I look up “plan” in the dictionary, I don’t get that information. Where did you get it?
Obviously, you know what the word means because of…context. He’s referring to your insurance policy, and he’s talking about the effect of health care reform on your policy. You get that information from–you guessed it–the other sentences in his speech (not to mention the broader context of the ACA debate).
That’s why it’s absurd to say a reasonable person could listen to only that sentence and not, say, the very next sentence. To even understand that sentence you have to understand the context in which it was uttered.
So, again, I think it’s quite artificial and absurd to say that “period” means ignore the next sentence and ignore the argument that this sentence is rebutting.
In my dealings when my son had BCBS, I’d be shocked if they didn’t try to scam their customers.
No, it means that there is a lawsuit pending and we don’t know wether the plaintiffs will win or not.
Richard: I think there is a world of difference between saying “context means having heard all of the speeches Obama has made on the subject” and “context means the definition of a word that everyone agrees on”. If you can show me a person who thinks that “insurance plan” does not include the premiums one pays, then you may have a point. But if you think most people feel they can’t judge Obama’s words when he makes an unambiguous promise in one speech unless they search through his other speeches to make sure he hasn’t contradicted that promise in another speech, then I think we simply have to agree to disagree on this and let the reader decide.
We seem to be talking past each other. At no point have I maintained that “context means having heard all of the speeches Obama has made on the subject.” And you keep ignoring my actual points, which include the fact of context in the very next sentence many of the times that he used this phrase.
Since you seem more informed on the techinical issues of insurance can you tell me if what I wrote in post #913 is incorrect? If it is not then individual plans do continue from year to year if the policy holder decides to keep the plan.
I’m not sure how misleading it is to say that ACA caused the cancellation of policies. The fact that Sen. Enzi proposed legislation to block the rule on grandfathering because of the potential for canceled policies plus the new Dem effort to pass a bill that will let people keep their current plans doesn’t sound like it’s just insurance companies screwing people over. Technically, ACA might not have forced these plans to be cancelled but the grandfather rules may have deliberately been written so narrow as to have the same effect.
I never said increased premiums prevented grandfathering. My point was that most Americans think of their policy as premiums and benefits. Those changed because of ACA and so I was not able to keep my policy. Whether or not that is truly accurate, that is many Americans’ perception and thus “Obama lied”.
On a previous post, to get the facts on grandfathering regulations I went to the Federal Register.
I’m not sure where you read that including dental is something required of all plans, for example.
The complete list of grandfathering rules is my post here.
And the complete list of requirements for all policies is here.
Both are taken directly from the regulations.
I only said it dental was for children. Kaiser chose to make it for all plans that they sent me but maybe considering my son is under 19 they only sent me lists of plans with dental coverage. As for a cite that those under 19 are required to have dental, do a google search of “dental aca” and you’ll find a ton.
I’m not following your claim. Are you claiming that grandfathered plans are required to add dental coverage for those under 19? If so, that is not correct. Grandfathered plans are not required to add so-called “essential health benefits.”
But new policies are so if the plan was not grandfathered in, they are required to have adolescent dental. I thought you meant that I implied that under EHB everyone needed dental and I was clarifying that under the new rules 19+ insureds are not required to have dental.
That’s right. Grandfathered policies = no dental required. New policies = dental for kids.
I thought you had suggested in your prior post that a grandfathered policy was forced to include dental when you said this:
Since a grandfathered policy does not, in fact, have to “include dental,” nor does it “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” (except for group policies, and then only kids), I don’t see what those things have to do with whether the grandfathering rules adequately complied with the President’s pledge.