Please tell me regarding the ACA and cancelled policies: Am I wrong about something here?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Because I keep hearing people on places like Facebook claiming that their insurance policies are being cancelled because of the ACA.

So when I press further, I say that it may be because their policies are a junk policy and don't meet ACA requirements. But many claim that these policies do in fact meet ACA requirements.

Which begs the question: Who should they be mad at? The ACA, or their insurance company?

Because if these plans do meet all ACA requirements, and the insurance companies still see fit to cancel these policies in an attempt to push their insureds to higher premium policies (also ACA compliant, but costlier), I'd be pretty fucking mad at my insurance company right now. And if this is the case, you better damn be sure that heads proverbially roll because of this cruel con job.

But is this really happening? Are the insurance companies really farting and blaming it on the dog?

Why else would an insurance company cancel an ACA compliant policy?

[JoePhilly]

1. Remind your friends that each year they ENROLL in a new plan.

They do not really RENEW their old plan.

Every year, their employer reaches a NEW deal with one or more insurance companies. Those companies can offer the same plan they offered last year, a modified version of that plan, or entirely new plans.

For those buying insurance on their own, they too, had to enroll each year. And the insurance company could decide to not offer a prior plan, or, if you had been sick, they could decide to not offer YOU the same plan you had last time.

This has always been true. The insurance companies have always been able to stop offering one plan and replace it with one or more other plans, or not offer anything like that plan at all.

The ACA includes no mechanism that stops that process. The ACA created rules for the plans that are available through the exchanges.

The insurance companies are now in the process of trying to work around the ACA and get as much out of the system as they can.

On edit: This is a great argument for single payer and public option alternatives. The insurers will always try to game the system so they can skim profits off the top. The ACA makes that reality more obvious.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. Thanks.

Pretty good summation to it all.

[JayhawkSD]

4. Thge plans in question are not employer-provided plans.

They are individual plans, bought by individuals.

They do not "buy new plans" each year, they simply renew the existing plan, just as I do with my homeowner's and car insurance. I could go out and shop those plans and buy new ones, but I don't; I merely send in the premium which renews them.

Yes, the insurance companies can cancel plans and have always been able to do so. They have not done so because they have had no reason to do so. According to letters sent to policy holders, the ACA gave them a reason to cancel plans which "did not meet standards set by the ACA."

The ACA standards for insurance plans are not limited to exchanges. The ACA sets minimum standards for all insurance plans offered anywhere by anyone. There was much controversy about this, because it has always been a state perogative and the federal government has now usurped that function from the states. States may still set standards which exceed the ACA standard, but the ACA is the minimum for all insurance policies, not just those sold on the excahnges.

That "The insurance companies are now in the process of trying to work around the ACA and get as much out of the system as they can," is a meaningless statement, and even if taken at face value, why should they not try to make a profit despite the government's efforts to deny them the ability to do so?

"The insurers will always try to game the system so they can skim profits off the top." It's not "skimming." The insurance industry is a for-profit business, and the ACA specifically allows them to make a profit.

[JoePhilly]

5. I'll start at the bottom.

They are "skimming" ... the plans they've offered for years in the individual markets are, for the most part, bad plans that cover almost nothing. And if you get a serious illness that lasts longer than your current 1 year term, they could drop you at the end of that year.

The ACA regulations prevent them from dropping you NEXT YEAR, and that's why the insurers are "dropping" these plans. They'll take your money for decades, then drop you after one year of illness. If that's not gaming the system, nothing is.

I like the RW talking point about the federal government "usurping" control from the states. I guess we could say that about any federal law that supersedes a state law. Well, we could say that if we were Republicans.

At present, the insurance companies have divided up the states so that there is almost no competition within the state level. The ACA actually creates more competition in the states. Which is usually a good thing for consumers.

And the ACA does give the insurers a reason to cancel policies. As soon as you require the current plans to have coverage for existing conditions, and to cap out of pocket costs, and remove life time minimums, you have "changed the plans", you've made them better.

The insurers could and should add those provisions to their existing plans. But they don't want to do that, so they "cancel" the old plans, and blame the ACA.

Again, all great points for demanding single payer or public options.

[geek tragedy]

6. "the federal government has now usurped that function from the states"

Houston, we have Wingnut.

[Courtesy Flush]

3. I heard an NPR story yesterday

claiming that any policies currently being canceled are not due to ACA. Those that do not meet standards must be replaced by the end of next year.

I suspect that insurance companies are timing this to fuel anti-ACA sentiment.

Although the law includes a provision for some existing policies to continue even if they don't meet Obamacare's minimum coverage standards, some insurance companies are dropping such policies rather than claim their "grandfathered" exception.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/10/30/241926991/could-obamas-health-law-vow-mean-2014-pain-for-democrats

[eqfan592]

7. wow, i never realized how many right wing trolls hang out at NPR.

That comment section is a joke. Also, the article clearly states that the ACA grandfathered those old plans, but that these companies are stopping the plans anyway, then a few sentences later makes the implication that the plans are being canceled because of the ACA. Smh...

[ScreamingMeemie]

8. My son's policy is being canceled because it was a junk policy.

I'm not mad at anyone because I can now purchase a real policy at a better price through ACA.

[AngryAmish]

9. Most importantly these people need to shut the fuck up

Criticizing the ACA is not helping.

[alc]

10. some of each - they'll blame each other as long as they can

In many/most cases it was crappy coverage but also the appropriate coverage for many people (they didn't need good coverage for a variety of reasons like access to Canadian care for big issues but needing insurance here for smaller issues)

I some cases it's because the ACA doesn't allow for religious exceptions. The insurers couldn't simply add abortion and birth control to the old policies. That "updates" the policies so they are no longer grandfathered in (and would piss those people off anyhow). If they did this, they could say it's a modification and let people stay on it rather than drop the old policy and have to choose another but it wasn't worth the effort so they just drop people and tell them to pick another.

The insurer also can't continue to sell those policies with religious exception. Technically, they could sell them but the purchaser would not have an ACA qualifying policy and would have to pay the penalty.

[uponit7771]

11. YOU'RE CORRECT!! The HCIs KNEW they had policies that didn't meet ACA standards and waited

... until the last minute to drop those covered because they were under-covering the payies

[renie408]

12. But....but....but... THE PRESIDENT SAID....

God, I am sick of that infantile bullshit. And the fact that the media keeps repeating it without any effort to clarify anything is enough to make you scream.

No, the ACA is NOT cancelling policies; insurance companies are. And yes, people should be pissed at them.

BUT, the administration could do a better job of explaining all of this crap.

[ChiciB1]

13. Was Listening To C-Span This AM

and there were caller who said their plans were not insufficient, but they got notices that the policy would be canceled by 12/31/2013. Of course, these comments were from Repukes & I expected that. They said they were told to get in touch with either their state set-up exchanges or HealthCare.gov. None actually said they HAD to change, but that MAY be the case.

What made me wonder was this. The letters they are receiving are giving them at least 2 months to get further information and encouraging them to check for a better policy that may be cheaper and/or will provide extra coverage they don't currently have. I know many people who have caps & even though they have drug coverage many drugs cost them more. My neighbor is one of them and she is looking forward to checking out what is offered. Her husband also needs full-time care due to what started out as fibromyalgia which has progressed, but he's still able to get around. However, he takes quite a few medications that cost a lot more than ours. They have a supplemental drug plan they pay extra for.

Actually, my husband & I have insurance through the Union company he retired from AND most people pay more for their drugs than we do. We have a mail order plan and most of our medications are actually free. Can't beat that for sure! Of course, we will keep the policy we have even though we get a letter every year saying we "can" opt out of the drug plan. Not something that would be a smart move though.

Perhaps these people complaining really DON'T know all the details and should research what's being offered "just because." I know I would, and if I found my plan was better I think a person could file some sort of complaint pointing this out.

And to your point that their policies DO meet ACA requirements, I would ask them to make the comparisons. It seems to me that not enough people actually have hard facts given the glitches and states who are currently refusing to cooperate with the ACA.

It could be that their statements are valid, but to me it's more likely a lot of people just haven't bothered to compare.
JMHO