If you’re saying There Had Been Such A Plan, And Now There Isn’t, then, yes, I agree.
If you’re saying something else, then I don’t follow you.
IOW, not this page. Guess that makes you as accurate as Obama.
At any rate, Cabbage’s link is pretty clear: what causes a plan in effect before March 23, 2010 to lose its grandfathered status is if your insurer changes the plan, so that it’s no longer the grandfathered plan. That’s it.
What happens then is that if the new plan doesn’t meet ACA standards, you can’t keep it, because it’s not the grandfathered plan anymore, and all post-3/23/10 plans have to meet ACA standards.
The relevant text:
JFTR, nobody ever said the ACA would force the insurer to keep your old plan in effect - just that the ACA wouldn’t force you to switch plans.
Anyhow, Obama wasn’t lying back in 2009. End of story.
I’m not at all sure I see the point, here. If Obama “lied”, that means the ACA is no good? OK, does the same metric apply to those who “lie” about the ACA in order to eliminate it? How about when Republicans fib about “replacing” the ACA with something better when haven’t anything to show for it? Or, “death panels”?
Might we not be better off simply addressing the thing itself? Because insinuating that the value of the thing is dependent upon the honesty of a prominent advocate is beneath the dignity of a middle-school debate team. It’s a logical phallus, see?
The claim D’Anconia was making (which TOWP picked up when D’ dropped the baton) is that Obama swindled us into the ACA by making false promises.
Being a small-d democrat, I believe that the people have the right to choose wrong paths through the political process, as well as right ones. But I agree with the implicit suggestion that it’s antidemocratic to mislead and swindle the people or their representatives into supporting something they otherwise might not have.
So I think this is a debate worth having - briefly, anyway.
Nice try. My line was “as per the previous posts on this very page”.
And, as per said previous posts on said page: “See post 3781”, I explained. “There’s a link – provided by one of the posters defending Obama – that spells out how “Grandfathered plans aren’t exempt from all of ObamaCare’s new rules.” It then of course lists a number of requirements other than reporting”, I added.
Did 'em right here on this page.
I don’t think that’s the part I’m referring to. I’m referring to the part on that same website where it spells out that “Grandfathered plans aren’t exempt from all of ObamaCare’s new rules.” It’s the opposite of what you’re saying: the plan doesn’t lose its grandfathered status, and yet has to change as per the new rules anyway.
But it forces the insurer to stop offering various plans; if one of those is the plan I liked and wanted to keep, and my insurer would be perfectly willing to keep offering it, then how can the the claim be true?
This never happened.
“Grandfathered plans aren’t exempt from all of ObamaCare’s new rules,” does not means plans had to be changed. There were additional rules that insurance companies had to follow with respect all plans, including grandfathered plans.
How does the ACA force an insurance company to stop offering a grandfathered plan. I am not a lawyer but I didn’t see anything in that link that indicated that grandfathered status would be lost other than by actions initiated by the company.
You must be going for the Bricker award for overlawyering.
Then you need to quote it.
Because you need to make your own arguments.
Otherwise, you’re expecting me to:
- Go back into the link and try to guess which part you mean.
- Rebut the part that I’ve guessed you mean.
- Get told that you mean some other part.
Since apparently we’ve already gone through this sequence once, I’ll be damned if I’m going to do it a second time. Find me the part that you say says these things. Quote it.
Like deja vu all over again.
What? If “all plans, including grandfathered plans” had to follow the additional rules, then of course that means the plans had to be changed if they didn’t comply with those rules; that’s the whole point! If I had a plan, and liked it, and wanted to keep it, and said plan didn’t comply with said rules, then I didn’t get to keep said plan.
Is “mere accuracy” just the right amount? Because I was going for that.
I did quote it: “Grandfathered plans aren’t exempt from all of ObamaCare’s new rules” is the direct quote from the part in question; it’s followed by a number of said rules. (You should be able to find it right under “What Benefits Rights And Protections Does A Grandfathered Plan Have To Offer?”)
This is meaningless without any discussion of what those rules were. If all the insurance company had to do with a grandfathered plan is add a statement saying “this is a pre-March 23, 2010 plan, and is unchanged from that time, aside from the addition of this statement,” then it’s an additional rule that applies to a grandfathered plan, but it still lets people keep grandfathered plans.
So what’s the rule that forces these un-grandfathering changes on grandfathered plans? You can’t go all day just saying such a rule must exist. Put up or shut up, as we used to say.
What makes a plan “the same plan”?
Every plan I’ve ever had has had minor chances from year to year, and sometimes within the same year. A new hospital gets added, the prescription formulary gets changed, the rules for treatment X change slightly, test Y now requires pre-approval and procedure Z no longer does, the legislature or state insurance department revises the rules and regulations slightly, etc., etc. Does that mean I’m getting a whole new plan every time they change anything, or is it the same plan until they make a really major change?
If any change = new plan, then nobody I know has ever had the same plan for more than twelve months, EVER, and it’s usually been more like three months.
If small changes can be made in a plan without making it a new plan, though, then the debate is whether the ACA-imposed requirements were sufficiently great to meet the definition of “new plan,” and I’m not sure what has been posted so far is good evidence of that.
Guess I’ve already replied to this while you were writing it, so I’ll let my previous post stand.
I mentioned them in post 3810:
AFAICT, there are reporting requirements, and fee requirements, and waiting-period requirements, and rescission-based requirements, and dollar-limit requirements, and dependent-child-coverage requirements – and if the plan I liked and wanted to keep didn’t comply with said rules, then I didn’t get to keep said plan, even if my insurer would’ve been happy to keep offering such a plan, which they can’t any more.
There are 16 or so bullet points on the linked page in question. Are you claiming that each and every one of them requires a change in grandfathered plans?
How about, “Employer reporting to IRS on coverage (starting in 2015)”?
Does the fact that employers have to report coverage of employees to the IRS for all plans, including grandfathered plans, require a change in the plan?
What a strange question. Do any of the changes require a change in the plan? If so, then (a) we’re already done; just (b) cue the old gag about Winston Churchill and quibbling over details, or something. There are plenty of requirements other than reporting; if I feel even one would change the plan away from what I’d like, then I’m satisfied. Do you feel all of them are insufficient to so change said plan?
Pick one. Which one do you think requires a change to the plan? Quote it and make your case for it.
Well, imagine someone liked – and wanted to keep – a plan where she paid a fairly small amount every month, in exchange for coverage with a dollar-limit provision; if she asked me why her payments had suddenly gone way up, I’d say looks like it’s because you’re now required to have a plan that doesn’t have those dollar-limit provisions; it may well be that your insurer would’ve been happy to keep offering the plan you liked, but they can’t do that any more.
And if she said Obama said she could keep her plan if she liked it, I’d shrug and say well, I guess that wasn’t true.
(And maybe I’d add I think your old plan sucked. And maybe she’d say I didn’t ask whether you liked my plan; I liked my plan, and wanted to keep it, and was told I could. And I’d reply tell it to Obama; I didn’t say you could keep it, he did.)
Same thing if she asked about dependent-child coverage: if she says what, even if other coverage is available? – I’d have to say “Well, looks like they grandfathered that for a while, but then stopped grandfathering it, so, yeah, your payments went way up from what you’d liked, regardless of whether your insurer would’ve been happy to let them and your existing coverage stay put.” What else could I say?
I didn’t realize I was arguing with your imagination. I don’t see how a fact based argument can rebut that.
Peace.