Could the Democrats be in revolt over the ACA?

[esmith]

It seems that there are a few Democrats that are not exactly happy with the ongoing problems with the ACA. They are getting a constant barrage of letters from their constitutes that are, how should we say, very unhappy with what is going on with the ACA. Sixteen Senators, all Democrats, had a 2 hour meeting with the President and Vice President over continuing worry about their re-election chances in 2014. There is even a proposed bill in the Senate from Senator Landrieu that basically says that the Obama must live up to his promise "If you like your health care you can keep it Period". Sources for the above can be found here.

Obama meets with Senate Democrats anxious over health care law | Fox News
Landrieu Introduces Bill to 'Keep Promise' of Obamacare | The Weekly Standard

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It seems that there are a few Democrats that are not exactly happy with the ongoing problems with the ACA. They are getting a constant barrage of letters from their constitutes that are, how should we say, very unhappy with what is going on with the ACA. Sixteen Senators, all Democrats, had a 2 hour meeting with the President and Vice President over continuing worry about their re-election chances in 2014. There is even a proposed bill in the Senate from Senator Landrieu that basically says that the Obama must live up to his promise "If you like your health care you can keep it Period". Sources for the above can be found here.

Obama meets with Senate Democrats anxious over health care law | Fox News
Landrieu Introduces Bill to 'Keep Promise' of Obamacare | The Weekly Standard

Democrats are pretty much united in "Support" of the ACA. The issue of liking your insurance and you can keep it has been explained ad nauseum. Yes you can keep it if you like it....but it's obvious insurance companies get the final word whether they want to continue a policy or not. Landrieu may be mistaken in his understanding of the phrase and what "insurance" companies, NOT the President, are doing to people.

 

[4consideration]

Democrats are pretty much united in "Support" of the ACA. The issue of liking your insurance and you can keep it has been explained ad nauseum. Yes you can keep it if you like it....but it's obvious insurance companies get the final word whether they want to continue a policy or not. Landrieu may be mistaken in his understanding of the phrase and what "insurance" companies, NOT the President, are doing to people.

Mary Landrieu is a female Democratic Senator from Louisiana.

It seems that the bill she introduced Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) contains wording that allows health plans to be grand-fathered in if they were in effect prior to the end of December 2013.

That indicates to me that she has seen some plans cancelled as a direct result of not fulfilling the requirements under ACA, but that they are policies that people want to keep.

edit: Sorry. It is very frustrating to me that the links to the texts of bills on the government website seem to never actually work. Here is the text, for anyone that is interested.

"S.1642 -- Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act (Introduced in Senate - IS)

S 1642 IS
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1642
To permit the continuation of certain health plans.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 4, 2013

Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. MANCHIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance
A BILL



To permit the continuation of certain health plans.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act'.

SEC. 2. CONTINUATION OF GRANDFATHERED HEALTH PLANS.

• Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an individual may elect to continue enrollment under the health insurance coverage (offered in the individual market) in which such individual was enrolled on December 31, 2013, if such individual meets such other eligibility requirements (such as payment of premiums) as are applied with respect to such coverage, unless such issuer cancels all coverage offered in such market and ceases operations as a health insurance issuer. Any such coverage shall be deemed to be a grandfathered health plan for purposes of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or an amendment made by that Act). Coverage to which this section applies shall be deemed to be minimum essential coverage for purposes of section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

SEC. 3. TRANSPARENCY OF GRANDFATHERED HEALTH PLAN NOTIFICATIONS.

• Part 2 of subtitle C of title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18011 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1251 the following:

`SEC. 1251A. TRANSPARENCY OF GRANDFATHERED HEALTH PLAN NOTIFICATIONS.

• `(a) In General- A health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual market shall annually, at the time of enrollment and renewal, provide enrollees with a notice that states--

• `(1) if applicable, the reasons that such coverage does not meet the requirements under this Act (or amendment made by this Act) for a qualified health plan, including citations to the provisions of this Act involved;

• `(2) that the enrollee has the right to continue to enroll in such coverage; and

• `(3) that the enrollee has the right to enroll in a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange and instruction on how to access such Exchange.

• `(b) Cancellation Notices- A notification provided by a health insurance issuer, that offers health insurance coverage in the individual market, to an enrollee stating that such coverage is cancelled for such enrollee shall contain a statement of the reasons for such cancellation, including a reference to any provision of this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) that such issuer relied upon in making the determination to cancel such coverage.

• `(c) Application- Subsection (b) shall apply beginning on the date of enactment of this section, except that with respect to a health plan that has provided a notification of cancellation prior to such date that has not yet taken effect, an enrollee may elect to continue such coverage under such plan if the issuer continues to offer such plan as provided for in section 2 of the Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act and the issuer shall provide a subsequent notification to the enrollee that states--

• `(1) that such plan will remain in effect at the option of the enrollee; and

• `(2) the reasons that such plan does not otherwise meet the requirements under this Act for a qualified health plan.'."

 

[esmith]

Democrats are pretty much united in "Support" of the ACA. The issue of liking your insurance and you can keep it has been explained ad nauseum. Yes you can keep it if you like it....but it's obvious insurance companies get the final word whether they want to continue a policy or not. Landrieu may be mistaken in his understanding of the phrase and what "insurance" companies, NOT the President, are doing to people.

So you do not think that there are some Senators and probably some Representative, that are of the Democratic flavor, who are worried over the 2014 elections? You can be 100% positive that anyone running against an incumbent Democrat is going to use the fact that the incumbent supported the ACA. Now, it could be that by Nov of 2014 the ACA web site is up and running without any glitches and the current plans premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are what was promised and everyone will be blissful happy and vote for Democrats. Maybe so maybe not, I for one don't see it but only time will tell.

 

[tytlyf]

So you do not think that there are some Senators and probably some Representative, that are of the Democratic flavor, who are worried over the 2014 elections? You can be 100% positive that anyone running against an incumbent Democrat is going to use the fact that the incumbent supported the ACA. Now, it could be that by Nov of 2014 the ACA web site is up and running without any glitches and the current plans premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are what was promised and everyone will be blissful happy and vote for Democrats. Maybe so maybe not, I for one don't see it but only time will tell.

As mentioned before, these Democrats are in Red states. Where the majority of people vote republican. I wouldn't advise doing what they are doing. I'd stand by the support and not cater. Even if it costs the electability of myself.

 

[YmirGF]

As mentioned before, these Democrats are in Red states. Where the majority of people vote republican. I wouldn't advise doing what they are doing. I'd stand by the support and not cater. Even if it costs the electability of myself.

Personally speaking, I hope the Democrats push the glories of the ACA/Obamacare to the hilt. Indications are that that will go down well with the electorate. :angel2:

In regards to the OP, "Could the Democrats be in revolt over the ACA?"

Some would argue that the Democratic Party has been fairly revolting for a number of years. What's changed?

 

[esmith]

As mentioned before, these Democrats are in Red states. Where the majority of people vote republican. I wouldn't advise doing what they are doing. I'd stand by the support and not cater. Even if it costs the electability of myself.

I assume you mean continue to support the ACA as written and not cave to the possibility that they will lose to a more conservative opponent? I believe that you are right, they should stand up tall for the ACA (as it is written) and stand with Obama. Gee, wonder what happened to that idea when Obama went to Louisianian for some sort of speech and Senator Mary Landrieu flew down with him but isn't attending. Her staff says she has prior commitments. As I believe someone said "rearrange her closet" or something along that line.

 

[tytlyf]

Some would argue that the Democratic Party has been fairly revolting for a number of years. What's changed?

That's funny, I don't see it. Now, if you want to talk about a Party that is revolting amongst itself..

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Mary Landrieu is a female Democratic Senator from Louisiana.

It seems that the bill she introduced Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) contains wording that allows health plans to be grand-fathered in if they were in effect prior to the end of December 2013.

That indicates to me that she has seen some plans cancelled as a direct result of not fulfilling the requirements under ACA, but that they are policies that people want to keep.

edit: Sorry. It is very frustrating to me that the links to the texts of bills on the government website seem to never actually work. Here is the text, for anyone that is interested.

"S.1642 -- Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act (Introduced in Senate - IS)

S 1642 IS
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1642
To permit the continuation of certain health plans.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 4, 2013

Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. MANCHIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance
A BILL



To permit the continuation of certain health plans.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act'.

SEC. 2. CONTINUATION OF GRANDFATHERED HEALTH PLANS.

• Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an individual may elect to continue enrollment under the health insurance coverage (offered in the individual market) in which such individual was enrolled on December 31, 2013, if such individual meets such other eligibility requirements (such as payment of premiums) as are applied with respect to such coverage, unless such issuer cancels all coverage offered in such market and ceases operations as a health insurance issuer. Any such coverage shall be deemed to be a grandfathered health plan for purposes of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or an amendment made by that Act). Coverage to which this section applies shall be deemed to be minimum essential coverage for purposes of section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

SEC. 3. TRANSPARENCY OF GRANDFATHERED HEALTH PLAN NOTIFICATIONS.

• Part 2 of subtitle C of title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18011 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1251 the following:

`SEC. 1251A. TRANSPARENCY OF GRANDFATHERED HEALTH PLAN NOTIFICATIONS.

• `(a) In General- A health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual market shall annually, at the time of enrollment and renewal, provide enrollees with a notice that states--

• `(1) if applicable, the reasons that such coverage does not meet the requirements under this Act (or amendment made by this Act) for a qualified health plan, including citations to the provisions of this Act involved;

• `(2) that the enrollee has the right to continue to enroll in such coverage; and

• `(3) that the enrollee has the right to enroll in a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange and instruction on how to access such Exchange.

• `(b) Cancellation Notices- A notification provided by a health insurance issuer, that offers health insurance coverage in the individual market, to an enrollee stating that such coverage is cancelled for such enrollee shall contain a statement of the reasons for such cancellation, including a reference to any provision of this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) that such issuer relied upon in making the determination to cancel such coverage.

• `(c) Application- Subsection (b) shall apply beginning on the date of enactment of this section, except that with respect to a health plan that has provided a notification of cancellation prior to such date that has not yet taken effect, an enrollee may elect to continue such coverage under such plan if the issuer continues to offer such plan as provided for in section 2 of the Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act and the issuer shall provide a subsequent notification to the enrollee that states--

• `(1) that such plan will remain in effect at the option of the enrollee; and

• `(2) the reasons that such plan does not otherwise meet the requirements under this Act for a qualified health plan.'."

She put a tiny amount of new caveats in her legislation....but plans had been grandfathered in before her legislation above. The clause is actually in the Affordable Care Act. In her legislation she wants the insurance companies to provide a better explanation of the cancellation of insurance as well as how to access the exchange for a plan....The grandfathered clause here isn't much different than what's in the ACA.

Amendment to Regulation on ?Grandfathered? Health Plans under the Affordable Care Act - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

On June 17, 2010, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury (the Departments) issued the “grandfather” regulation which, by addressing how health plans can retain a “grandfathered” exemption from certain new requirements, helps protect Americans’ ability to keep their current plan if they like it. At the same time, Americans in grandfathered plans will receive many of the added benefits that the new law provides. The regulation also minimizes market disruption and helps put us on a path toward the competitive, patient-centered market of the future.

The grandfather regulation includes a number of rules for determining when changes to a health plan cause the plan to lose its grandfathered status. For example, plans could lose their grandfathered status if they choose to make certain significant changes that reduce benefits or increase costs to consumers. This amendment modifies one aspect of the original regulation.

Previously, one of the ways an employer group health plan could lose its grandfathered status was if the employer changed issuers – switching from one insurance company to another. The original regulation only allowed self-funded plans to change third-party administrators without necessarily losing their grandfathered plan status. Today’s amendment allows all group health plans to switch insurance companies and shop for the same coverage at a lower cost while maintaining their grandfathered status, so long as the structure of the coverage doesn’t violate one of the other rules for maintaining grandfathered plan status..

So while there a few new requirements in her legislation addressing notification by insurers...there doesn't seem to be anything in the way that challenges or changes the current ACA Grandfathered Clause.....So like the case with the lady with cancer in California...she was grandfathered in until the insurer decided to no longer support the policy which meant she was being dropped. Additionally the insurer said plainly they could not continue her plan because they couldn't afford to....

UnitedHealthcare Is The Second To Leave California's Individual Insurance Market Ahead Of Obamacare

"Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members in California."

This statement/decision meets the requirement to drop a grandfathered plan.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I assume you mean continue to support the ACA as written and not cave to the possibility that they will lose to a more conservative opponent? I believe that you are right, they should stand up tall for the ACA (as it is written) and stand with Obama.

We sure did here in VA. Which is why we elected a democrat that actually ran on expanding Medicaid and hopefully one day starting our own exchange....no thanks to our previous crook of a governor...and his crook sidekick attorney general....

 

[metis]

Since the elections for 2014 are almost a year away, and since most of us hope the ACA website is fixed by the end of this month, I don't think it's gonna be much of a negative issue then. If enough people sign up and it looks like it's working, the Republicans will drop this as an issue like a hot potato. OTOH, if not enough sign up or some other sticky-wicky shows up, who knows what'll happen.

 

[esmith]

• Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an individual may elect to continue enrollment under the health insurance coverage (offered in the individual market) in which such individual was enrolled on December 31, 2013, if such individual meets such other eligibility requirements (such as payment of premiums) as are applied with respect to such coverage, unless such issuer cancels all coverage offered in such market and ceases operations as a health insurance issuer. Any such coverage shall be deemed to be a grandfathered health plan for purposes of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or an amendment made by that Act). Coverage to which this section applies shall be deemed to be minimum essential coverage for purposes of section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

SEC. 3. TRANSPARENCY OF GRANDFATHERED HEALTH PLAN NOTIFICATIONS.

• Part 2 of subtitle C of title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18011 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1251 the following:

`SEC. 1251A. TRANSPARENCY OF GRANDFATHERED HEALTH PLAN NOTIFICATIONS.

• `(a) In General- A health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual market shall annually, at the time of enrollment and renewal, provide enrollees with a notice that states--

• `(1) if applicable, the reasons that such coverage does not meet the requirements under this Act (or amendment made by this Act) for a qualified health plan, including citations to the provisions of this Act involved;

• `(2) that the enrollee has the right to continue to enroll in such coverage; and

• `(3) that the enrollee has the right to enroll in a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange and instruction on how to access such Exchange.

• `(b) Cancellation Notices- A notification provided by a health insurance issuer, that offers health insurance coverage in the individual market, to an enrollee stating that such coverage is cancelled for such enrollee shall contain a statement of the reasons for such cancellation, including a reference to any provision of this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) that such issuer relied upon in making the determination to cancel such coverage.

• `(c) Application- Subsection (b) shall apply beginning on the date of enactment of this section, except that with respect to a health plan that has provided a notification of cancellation prior to such date that has not yet taken effect, an enrollee may elect to continue such coverage under such plan if the issuer continues to offer such plan as provided for in section 2 of the Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act and the issuer shall provide a subsequent notification to the enrollee that states--

• `(1) that such plan will remain in effect at the option of the enrollee; and

• `(2) the reasons that such plan does not otherwise meet the requirements under this Act for a qualified health plan.'."

She put a tiny amount of new caveats in her legislation....but plans had been grandfathered in before her legislation above. The clause is actually in the Affordable Care Act. In her legislation she wants the insurance companies to provide a better explanation of the cancellation of insurance as well as how to access the exchange for a plan....The grandfathered clause here isn't much different than what's in the ACA.

Amendment to Regulation on ?Grandfathered? Health Plans under the Affordable Care Act - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
So while there a few new requirements in her legislation addressing notification by insurers...there doesn't seem to be anything in the way that challenges or changes the current ACA Grandfathered Clause.....So like the case with the lady with cancer in California...she was grandfathered in until the insurer decided to no longer support the policy which meant she was being dropped. Additionally the insurer said plainly they could not continue her plan because they couldn't afford to....

UnitedHealthcare Is The Second To Leave California's Individual Insurance Market Ahead Of Obamacare


This statement/decision meets the requirement to drop a grandfathered plan.

I think if you read the parts that I highlighted I think you will understand that any plan that a person held or holds prior to Dec 31 2013 shall be considered a qualified plan whether it meets the ACA requirements or not. That is if this proposed bill is passed by Congress and signed by the President. In other words she is basically saying that since Obama said....If you like your health plan you can keep it Period. She is proposing a bill that means it. Not what Obama lied about.

 

[esmith]

We sure did here in VA. Which is why we elected a democrat that actually ran on expanding Medicaid and hopefully one day starting our own exchange....no thanks to our previous crook of a governor...and his crook sidekick attorney general....

I think you better reconsider your statement. Read the following from CNN about your election.

5 things we learned from Election Night 2013 - CNN.com


2. Obamacare mattered
Virginia was the first swing state to hold an election after the Affordable Care Act website's troublesome rollout, a controversy that has permeated national news coverage for weeks. Almost 30% of Virginia voters said health care was the most important issue in the race.
While Democrat Terry McAuliffe narrowly beat out conservative Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, analysts credit a GOP focus on Obamacare for boosting Cuccinelli's vote total.
"This is what kept this race close," CNN's John King said Wednesday on "New Day."


Among all Virginia voters, 53% said they oppose the president's health care law, while 45% said they support it, according to CNN exit polls. A huge majority of those Obamacare opponents -- 80% -- voted for Cuccinelli.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think if you read the parts that I highlighted I think you will understand that any plan that a person held or holds prior to Dec 31 2013 shall be considered a qualified plan whether it meets the ACA requirements or not. That is if this proposed bill is passed by Congress and signed by the President. In other words she is basically saying that since Obama said....If you like your health plan you can keep it Period. She is proposing a bill that means it. Not what Obama lied about.

Yes according to her bill, if you like your terrible insurance you can elect to grandfather it in. Thank goodness, that lady on CBS will be able to continue paying $650 per year in order to get $50 in ambulatory/ER coverage. Freedom!

But it's interesting, if you look closely, the amendment is holding insurers accountable, too. They would no longer be able to simply drop/cancel coverage and blame it on the ACA without citing the relevant section of the ACA, upon which the insured might become aware of the benefits their insurance wasn't providing, and aware of their right to affordable care via HealthCare.gov (yes, yes -- if they ever get it working, that is).

I think you better reconsider your statement. Read the following from CNN about your election.

5 things we learned from Election Night 2013 - CNN.com


2. Obamacare mattered
Virginia was the first swing state to hold an election after the Affordable Care Act website's troublesome rollout, a controversy that has permeated national news coverage for weeks. Almost 30% of Virginia voters said health care was the most important issue in the race.
While Democrat Terry McAuliffe narrowly beat out conservative Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, analysts credit a GOP focus on Obamacare for boosting Cuccinelli's vote total.
"This is what kept this race close," CNN's John King said Wednesday on "New Day."


Among all Virginia voters, 53% said they oppose the president's health care law, while 45% said they support it, according to CNN exit polls. A huge majority of those Obamacare opponents -- 80% -- voted for Cuccinelli.

It will be harder for the Right to fool voters about how horrible the ACA is the more it is implemented and the more people like it, which is the most probable outcome and really the GOP's greatest fear. 25 million will become insured because of the ACA by 2016 ... in other words, more than 10 times the number of people whose policies have been "canceled". And of those who have received "cancellations" many are getting better coverage for less, which will become apparent when (if?) HealthCare.gov is working. So reality setting in + time and implementation of the ACA can only hurt the GOP in elections. Unless they succeed in masking the reality (and I don't underestimate them on that score).

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm thinking the ACA will go the way of other boondoggles like Solyndra.

The new law will help many folks for sure, but at what expense?

Will even more folks be adversely affected by the ACA when they can no longer afford health insurance even with the subsidies?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

In revolt over the ACA? Seems highly unlikely.

Ticked off over how poorly it has been rolled out? Far more likely.

The two are very different things.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Attitude is everything and some folks will take out their frustrations at the voting booth.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Indeed.

Though that said, until the Rep's have some fundamental changes to their policy structures and systems of public relations - the number of people that the Dem's might lose over such a thing is unlikely to offset the continued growth of their base. Put simply, they might lose some votes - but not enough to change a darn thing (and indeed more than offset by the childishness that Rep's have been displaying of late such as their behavior to cause the shutdown after all of their legitimate courses of action were exhausted). It's actually quite worrying... if the Rep's don't fix adjust their course, they will become less and less competitive (due to the continued and escalating shift in demographics); and that would be disastrous for the supposedly two party system.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Indeed.

Though that said, until the Rep's have some fundamental changes to their policy structures and systems of public relations - the number of people that the Dem's might lose over such a thing is unlikely to offset the continued growth of their base. Put simply, they might lose some votes - but not enough to change a darn thing (and indeed more than offset by the childishness that Rep's have been displaying of late such as their behavior to cause the shutdown after all of their legitimate courses of action were exhausted). It's actually quite worrying... if the Rep's don't fix adjust their course, they will become less and less competitive (due to the continued and escalating shift in demographics); and that would be disastrous for the supposedly two party system.

This will not be about Dems and Pubs. This will be about Moderates who hold no allegiance to either party.

If you really think about it, 5% of the folks swaying one way or the other can choose the next President.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I completely agree (unfortunately for a good many years now perhaps near two decades even) the Reps have becoming increasingly inwardly focused - they really make little attempt to appeal to American people who are not already Reps... this is particularly evident when you look at both the type of people, the process and resulting rhetoric that arises from their primaries... The sorts of people who poll well and end up getting elected as the nominee is the individual who best appeals to the rep base - and this is done by catering to a very narrow band of reps (let alone Americans) - they do their best to choose someone who appears presidential yet on policy matters is almost unequivocally not electable by choosing candidates that demonstrate policy positions entirely divorced from mainstream (basically the more far right they are the better) - someone moderates are extremely unlikely to vote for (as their polling shows). Yet the rep primaries continue to churn them out... if they weren't so bloody minded about having the most far right candidate they can find, there is a much higher chance they might get into office - but the rep primaries havent been about that in a long time.

... but back to the ACA and effects on democrats.

In principle, I dont think many democratic supporters will be at all unhappy with the idea of the ACA, the structuring of the legislation might irritate some and the implementation of the legislation infuriate more; the concept itself resonates strongly with their base and indeed appears to have widespread support nation wide - the implementation on the other hand has justifiably received strong criticism as it demonstrates management failure of a significant government program.