When debunking lies, you should probably be more careful with your wording, since what you’ve said here is false.
Grandfathered plans do have to comply with the market reforms not thought to substantially impact their cost, including a prohibition on non-fraud rescissions and elimination of the lifetime caps.
Most insurers have reacted by changing the plans–which remain grandfathered as to the bulk of the ACA–with modest increases in premiums. That your insurer chose to cancel the plan instead is undoubtedly some combination of the marginal cost of, among other things, being unable to rescind it when you need it most, as well as other non-ACA business calculations.
So saying “if you had a lifetime limit, no matter how high (mine was $2M) in the policy that you had before 2010, the policy would not be grandfathered in and would be canceled” is a false. In context, I understand what you were trying to say though. Maybe you should extend the same courtesy to others.
More likely she just had no idea. She makes me look good by comparison. I’d laugh my ass off if a Doper went to one of her press conferences and yelled “CITE!”
No, they didn’t. When you “grandfather” something that means it continues to be valid without changing. Requiring it to change is not “grandfathering” it.
You’re wrong. It’s not a quibble. Words have meanings. My plan, as it was in 2010, could not continue to exist. So the claim of Pelosi’s that “If you had your plan before the enactment of the law in 2010, there is nothing in the law that can remove it” is a lie.
The plans were grandfathered in exactly that sense from the portion of the law focused on health benefits.
They were not grandfathered from all parts of the law.
In your world, if the EPA grandfathers power plants from sulfur dioxide caps but requires all the plants to install scrubbers, then the plants are not grandfathered from the Clean Air Act of Amendments of 1990. And yet, this is how the word has been used in regulations for decades–to refer to excepting certain individuals or entities from the primary parts of the law.
No, it’s a nonsense argument that only makes sense if you ignore large parts of it.
For example, your plan certainly did change in numerous ways since 2010. You just don’t regard those changes as substantial enough to call it a different plan. Nevertheless, you regard the elimination of the lifetime cap as changing the plan–not because that makes any logical sense, but because it serves your rhetoric.
Pelosi was not talking about “portion of the law”. She was talking about the law. Pelosi claimed there is NOTHING in the law that would not allow my 2010 plan to continue. Did she lie or did she not lie?
The plan changed since 2010 because of whatever other reasons. The lifetime cap change is the one that would have been FORCED by Obamacare law, and lead to cancellation of the plan. You keep trying to ignore that fact it and I won’t let you.
There is nothing in the law that would not allow your 2010 plan to continue.
What you’re arguing is that some of the changes “forced cancellation” because of the economic consequences of the changes, not as a matter of law. But that claim is false (since some plans were not cancelled, so “forced” is far too strong) and also different from the law itself forcing that result.
Terr is claiming the law required the cancellation of the 2010 plan. This can only be true in one of two senses:
(1) The law requires the plan to drop lifetime limits, which makes it a different plan and therefore the equivalent of canceled;
(2) Dropping the lifetime limits made the plan uneconomical and had to be canceled.
Which of those claims do you think is true?
The first is quibbling, since there are many other changes to the plan that don’t cause us to regard it as a different plan. The second is not categorically true, so at a minimum it is incorrect to regard the law as the sole cause of that result, and certainly does not rebut what Pelosi said in a way that you can call her a liar.
Wrong. I am claiming that the law caused the cancellation of the 2010 plan by forcing a change on it that the company decided not to do.
If I tell you that you can keep your car, but only if you change the engine in it, and you decide not to do that and sell it, I may try to claim that I didn’t force you to sell your car, but that would be a lie.
Just curious as to why you are focusing on just one of the 534 yellow-bellied lying cowards in Congress? Are you implying that Insurance Companies are always truthful, caring and would never cancel any policy for any reason except when the law requires them to?
It’s called “bait and switch”, you’ll see what I mean on Jan 1st, 2018, haha.
So why didn’t all insurers cancel all 2010 policies that had lifetime limits?
The answer, of course, is that the change did not make all such plans uneconomical. For some, it did. Characterizing this as the law “forcing” this result is not how people ordinarily talk about laws.
In reaction to the Patriot Act, some academic departments spent a bunch of money on ways to communicate with contacts abroad without being monitored. Did the Patriot Act force them to do so? No. It influenced them, and others made different decisions.
Because some decided it is worth it to change the engine in the car. That doesn’t mean that those that did sell the car were not forced to do it by me.
I do not quote the whole post because it is redundant. You said:
The answer, of course, is that the change did not make all such plans uneconomical. For some, it did. Characterizing this as the law “forcing” this result is not how people ordinarily talk about laws.
That’s just stupid. Ok let’s say it did not make ALL such plans uneconomical. But it did make SOME of those plans uneconomical. Thus, for THOSE plans it FORCED their cancellation. Like mine.
You keep ignoring that fact and keep repeating that not ALL plans were canceled. That’s true. But those that were, were forced to be canceled by Obamacare. If there was no Obamacare, they would have continued. There’s Pelosi’s lie.
You’re slowly inching into more defensible territory as you qualify your statement.
But don’t forget that your initial claim was “if you had a lifetime limit, no matter how high (mine was $2M) in the policy that you had before 2010, the policy would not be grandfathered in and would be canceled.”