Obama does about face on insufficient health insurance policies

[esmith]

Well, it seems that the Obama administration has changed their mind about what they original called insufficient health insurance plans. In a so called 11th hour reversal of policy they are telling insurance companies to allow "catastrophic" insurance plans to those that lost their plans due to HSS requirements. However, it seems that the insurance companies are not to pleased with this move.

Administration announces new ObamaCare exemption | Fox News

When is Congress going to finally realize that Obama is not the ruler of this country. There is a law that is called the ACA (aka Obamacare), in that law is a regulation that specifies what the minimum requirements for health insurance is. Now, I may be a "stupid conservative" in the eyes of some on here, but I thought that only Congress had the legal right to change a law. However, maybe Congress has not called him on his past transgressions in this manner in the past and he just figures he can do it again. Now, I am glad that he is attempting to right his wrongs but not by violating the Constitution.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Damned if you do...damned if you don't...eh?

You had long drawn out threads about keeping junk policies and insufficient plans...now that he's trying to appease a small group of people you charge him with making and about face.....

Aren't you getting tired of spinning this non-issue......:help:

 

[esmith]

Damned if you do...damned if you don't...eh?

You had long drawn out threads about keeping junk policies and insufficient plans...now that he's trying to appease a small group of people you charge him with making and about face.....

Aren't you getting tired of spinning this non-issue......:help:

I edited my post probably just before you replied and added to it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Damned if you do...damned if you don't...eh?

You had long drawn out threads about keeping junk policies and insufficient plans...

Junk policies. Lol.

I just love my mandated obamacare maternity coverage.

Perfectly useful. Not junk at all. ....afterall.....I might get pregnant.

 

[tytlyf]

I just love my mandated obamacare maternity coverage.

.

Good, as do I. I won't need it of course, but the reason it's included is to stop discrimination against women. I'm hoping you knew that.

 

[Reverend Rick]

For the ACA to work, you cannot dilute the risk pool. This just goes to show Obama fails miserably at running anything. The insurance companies are pulling their hair out trying to hit a moving target.

Next year the rate increases will hardly be affordable and folks will be very upset.

Another issue I have is, on what authority does Obama have to keep changing the law?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Junk policies. Lol.

I just love my mandated obamacare maternity coverage.

Perfectly useful. Not junk at all. ....afterall.....I might get pregnant.

This is such a weak talking point and it underlines the ignorance of the insurance industry. Do you truly believe you weren't already being charged maternity coverage "before" the ACA. How about the other hidden fees insurance companies charge you that you believe you don't use or need. On average you're charge a $1000 per year to help cover the uninsured who show up at the emergency room. Ever wonder why your premiums and co-pays go up even though you might be one of those people who don't get sick often and rarely use your insurance...it's because whether you have a group plan or a single plan insurance companies pool risk. You're helping to cover the cost of others. This happens with pretty much every facet of insurance...(car, home, renters and life insurance). Insurance companies pool their customers and shift the cost.....So yes..you were most definitely paying for maternity as a man well before the ACA....

 

[Tarheeler]

Another issue I have is, on what authority does Obama have to keep changing the law?

He's not changing the law. As the Fox News article clearly states, this is a policy shift. Presidents, as head of the executive branch, have the power to direct all of the agencies through their policy directives. They've been doing it pretty much since the beginning of the republic.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

For the ACA to work, you cannot dilute the risk pool. This just goes to show Obama fails miserably at running anything. The insurance companies are pulling their hair out trying to hit a moving target.

Risk pooling is common in that industry. You don't have to have a group plan for risk pooling to work. It happens throughout the industry. We know it works. I have a group plan and my insurance is more comprehensive and cheaper in most cases than those on single plans. We already have a model....(Massachusetts) where it's been working since 2006 and about 98% of the population is covered and the legislature there has no plans of getting rid of it.

Next year the rate increases will hardly be affordable and folks will be very upset.

You have evidence that this will be the case or is this wild speculation as usual...?

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is such a weak talking point and it underlines the ignorance of the insurance industry. Do you truly believe you weren't already being charged maternity coverage "before" the ACA. How about the other hidden fees insurance companies charge you that you believe you don't use or need. On average you're charge a $1000 per year to help cover the uninsured who show up at the emergency room. Ever wonder why your premiums and co-pays go up even though you might be one of those people who don't get sick often and rarely use your insurance...it's because whether you have a group plan or a single plan insurance companies pool risk. You're helping to cover the cost of others. This happens with pretty much every facet of insurance...(car, home, renters and life insurance). Insurance companies pool their customers and shift the cost.....So yes..you were most definitely paying for maternity as a man well before the ACA....

Yep. Lots of junk in it. As you mentioned. Cept I never had maternity coverage disclosed before. Perhaps I should be thankful for the new transparency here.

 

[esmith]

He's not changing the law. As the Fox News article clearly states, this is a policy shift. Presidents, as head of the executive branch, have the power to direct all of the agencies through their policy directives. They've been doing it pretty much since the beginning of the republic.

Ok,, I'm just a simple person and do not have a Constitutional Law degree, so would you care to explain how what he just did is not changing the law. Were not insurance plans that did not meet the minimum requirements under the ACA and not grandfathered in deemed in violation of the ACA minimum requirements. Those that did not have a health insurance plan meeting these requirements would be taxed. Is this not the law as it stands now? Is there anywhere in the ACA that says that the President can change the law without Congressional approval? Let say that in Jan of 2016 a President that is opposed to Obamacare issue a order or whatever you want to call it, that says that the minimum requirements under the ACA is now null and void, that if a person does not have insurance they will not be taxed. Now would you say that this is just a "policy" change, and that the President has the legal right to do so.?

 

[freethinker44]

The insurance companies are pulling their hair out trying to hit a moving target.

Good, now they know all the crap they put their customers through, canceling policies and denying coverage over any ridiculous excuse they can think of. I have no sympathy for insurance companies, I hope they all go bankrupt.

 

[TheKnight]

It should be noted that no one has changed the law. The law itself allows the HHS Secretary to give hardship exemptions. From what it sounds like in what I've read, that's all that has been done.

Utter Chaos: White House Exempts Millions From Obamacare's Insurance Mandate, 'Unaffordable' Exchanges - Forbes


While the article is biased against ACA, it does mention that the HHS Secretary has the power to do what was done based on provisions already in the law.

 

[Tarheeler]

Ok,, I'm just a simple person and do not have a Constitutional Law degree, so would you care to explain how what he just did is not changing the law. Were not insurance plans that did not meet the minimum requirements under the ACA and not grandfathered in deemed in violation of the ACA minimum requirements. Those that did not have a health insurance plan meeting these requirements would be taxed. Is this not the law as it stands now? Is there anywhere in the ACA that says that the President can change the law without Congressional approval? Let say that in Jan of 2016 a President that is opposed to Obamacare issue a order or whatever you want to call it, that says that the minimum requirements under the ACA is now null and void, that if a person does not have insurance they will not be taxed. Now would you say that this is just a "policy" change, and that the President has the legal right to do so.?

I've explained it to you several times already. I doubt once more is going to be of any benefit.

 

[esmith]

I've explained it to you several times already. I doubt once more is going to be of any benefit.

Sorry, I have that seniors disease "CRS" (can't remember sh**). However, I would like your take on the hypothetical question I poised about a new President in 2016.

 

[Tarheeler]

Sorry, I have that seniors disease "CRS" (can't remember sh**). However, I would like your take on the hypothetical question I poised about a new President in 2016.

I'm not a big fan of hypotheticals as the details mean so much. But, generally speaking, yes it could be considered a policy change; the President can order an agency to not enforce part of a law. Presidents have been doing it since the first agencies were created, and it's been going strong every since: GW Bush did it with regards to EPA enforcement of certain guidelines, and Obama more recently with the DOJ's refusal to defend DOMA.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm not a big fan of hypotheticals as the details mean so much. But, generally speaking, yes it could be considered a policy change; the President can order an agency to not enforce part of a law. Presidents have been doing it since the first agencies were created, and it's been going strong every since: GW Bush did it with regards to EPA enforcement of certain guidelines, and Obama more recently with the DOJ's refusal to defend DOMA.

And they're easing their stance on blocking states on medical marijuana.... and theasing their stance on the states that have recently approved marijuana for recreational use. It's still illegal under federal law but they have made the decision not to peruse action.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/us/20cannabis.html?_r=0

People who use marijuana for medical purposes and those who distribute it to them should not face federal prosecution, provided they act according to state law, the Justice Department said Monday in a directive with far-reaching political and legal implications.

U.S. Won

The U.S. won’t challenge laws in Colorado and Washington that legalized the recreational use of marijuana and will focus federal prosecutions on ties to organized crime, distribution to minors and transportation across state lines, the Justice Department said.

I'm sure there are very few people upset about them making these decisions.