President Obama announces health law fix

[webfact]

President Obama announces health law fix

WASHINGTON: -- US President Barack Obama has announced a one-year reprieve for millions of Americans facing cancelled insurance plans under his healthcare law.

A contrite Mr Obama said his administration "fumbled the rollout" of his flagship domestic achievement.

Companies discontinued the policies as they did not meet new minimum requirements under the legislation.

A separate problem with the law is the glitches plaguing the federal website set up to sell the new insurance.

On Thursday, Mr Obama said improvements to the website, which was launched last month, would be "marked and noticeable" by the end of November.

Full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24947202


-- BBC 2013-11-15

[beechguy]

He didn't fix anything, he simply made the situation even more confusing for the consumers and the insurance companies.

[HeijoshinCool]

A reprieve would be an accurate term.

reprieve |riˈprēv|verb [ with obj. ]cancel or postpone the punishment of (someone, esp. someone condemned to death): under the new regime, prisoners under sentence of death were reprieved.

[Ulysses G.]

It is not much of a "fix". He can't make the insurance companies reinstate policies that they have already cancelled and, in most cases, it does not make a lot of sense for them to do it for only one year. Obama continues to flail in the wind and damage his parties chances of keeping the Senate while he is at it.

[samran]

There is a fallacy that people want choice with their healthcare. But people don't choose when to get sick, nor do they get to select the variety of their ailment and how long they'll have it for.

As such having 'choice' in your level of insurance cover is in the main a dodgy practice. While I undertand the politics of the decision, allowing substandard insurance coverage to continue is a mistake.

[beechguy]

There is a fallacy that people want choice with their healthcare. But people don't choose when to get sick, nor do they get to select the variety of their ailment and how long they'll have it for.

As such having 'choice' in your level of insurance cover is in the main a dodgy practice. While I undertand the politics of the decision, allowing substandard insurance coverage to continue is a mistake.

Agreed, substandard coverage shouldn't be allowed to continue, but many of these policies were fine until the government decided to fix them.

[HeijoshinCool]

There is a fallacy that people want choice with their healthcare. But people don't choose when to get sick, nor do they get to select the variety of their ailment and how long they'll have it for.

As such having 'choice' in your level of insurance cover is in the main a dodgy practice. While I undertand the politics of the decision, allowing substandard insurance coverage to continue is a mistake.

Freedom of choice means freedom of choice. Even if it's a poor one.

At least, it did in the America I grew up in.

[NeverSure]

There is a fallacy that people want choice with their healthcare. But people don't choose when to get sick, nor do they get to select the variety of their ailment and how long they'll have it for.

As such having 'choice' in your level of insurance cover is in the main a dodgy practice. While I undertand the politics of the decision, allowing substandard insurance coverage to continue is a mistake.

I don't think you quite understand. Last night on TV I was watching a very smart and articulate man being interviewed about his canceled insurance.

He was obviously well-off and self-employed, and bought insurance for himself and his wife. He had opted for much the same thing I used to have - a high deductible policy. He said he and his wife had a $6,000 per year deductible, meaning that they had to pay for the first $6,000 of their health care every year. But after they paid $6,000 (which they had never needed) the full-blown insurance kicked in and covered everything with no lifetime limit.

So he was insuring against the catastrophic, and willing to pay up to $6,000 out of his own pocket if necessary.

By doing this, it cut his premium by 1/2 and he said he was paying about $400 a month, or $200 per person. His policy was canceled because that's not legal any more. That high deductible doesn't meet the Obamacare standards so he lost his freedom of choice.

His new policy's premium was going to double and he had no choice and he wasn't happy. If you do the math, his added premiums for his Obamacare policy will be an enforced additional $4,800 per year, or not far from the "maybe" $6,000 deductible he had, but never paid.

The only people I know who are "for" Obamacare don't understand it. They don't/won't grasp the fact that so many doctors and hospitals have said they won't accept it. They don't see how much it costs by mandating things that people don't need such as maternity care for a couple who are 60 years old and beyond the ability to have children. The list goes on.

I don't see how the Democrats weasel out of this one. I think they screwed the pooch.

[samran]

There is a fallacy that people want choice with their healthcare. But people don't choose when to get sick, nor do they get to select the variety of their ailment and how long they'll have it for.

As such having 'choice' in your level of insurance cover is in the main a dodgy practice. While I undertand the politics of the decision, allowing substandard insurance coverage to continue is a mistake.

Agreed, substandard coverage shouldn't be allowed to continue, but many of these policies were fine until the government decided to fix them.

I see where you are coming from, but I guess all things have to evolve. Just like seatbelt laws, public safety regulations, automobile safety standards, etc etc, things have to get better, and the beneficiaries of the sub optimal status quo will always whinge loudest.

[NeverSure]

There is a fallacy that people want choice with their healthcare. But people don't choose when to get sick, nor do they get to select the variety of their ailment and how long they'll have it for.

As such having 'choice' in your level of insurance cover is in the main a dodgy practice. While I undertand the politics of the decision, allowing substandard insurance coverage to continue is a mistake.

Agreed, substandard coverage shouldn't be allowed to continue, but many of these policies were fine until the government decided to fix them.

I see where you are coming from, but I guess all things have to evolve. Just like seatbelt laws, public safety regulations, automobile safety standards, etc etc, things have to get better, and the beneficiaries of the sub optimal status quo will always whinge loudest.

Well right now would be a good time for Obamacare to either evolve or devolve. Read my post above. Obamacare sucks.

First Obama apologizes, and now he delays it a year. (Not sure how he does that when it's the law and presidents don't make or break laws.) But whatever it is, he has massive loss of face right now.

[samran]

There is a fallacy that people want choice with their healthcare. But people don't choose when to get sick, nor do they get to select the variety of their ailment and how long they'll have it for.

As such having 'choice' in your level of insurance cover is in the main a dodgy practice. While I undertand the politics of the decision, allowing substandard insurance coverage to continue is a mistake.

I don't think you quite understand. Last night on TV I was watching a very smart and articulate man being interviewed about his canceled insurance.

He was obviously well-off and self-employed, and bought insurance for himself and his wife. He had opted for much the same thing I used to have - a high deductible policy. He said he and his wife had a $6,000 per year deductible, meaning that they had to pay for the first $6,000 of their health care every year. But after they paid $6,000 (which they had never needed) the full-blown insurance kicked in and covered everything with no lifetime limit.

So he was insuring against the catastrophic, and willing to pay up to $6,000 out of his own pocket if necessary.

By doing this, it cut his premium by 1/2 and he said he was paying about $400 a month, or $200 per person. His policy was canceled because that's not legal any more. That high deductible doesn't meet the Obamacare standards so he lost his freedom of choice.

His new policy's premium was going to double and he had no choice and he wasn't happy. If you do the math, his added premiums for his Obamacare policy will be an enforced additional $4,800 per year, or not far from the "maybe" $6,000 deductible he had, but never paid.

The only people I know who are "for" Obamacare don't understand it. They don't/won't grasp the fact that so many doctors and hospitals have said they won't accept it. They don't see how much it costs by mandating things that people don't need such as maternity care for a couple who are 60 years old and beyond the ability to have children. The list goes on.

I don't see how the Democrats weasel out of this one. I think they screwed the pooch.

I very much understand. Living in Thailand I have private coverage in addition to what I'm eligible for publicly.

As you have made very clear elsewhere, and I agree with you, the cost side of the equation also needs to be dealt with. But don't shoot down this part of the solution, take it and move onto the next set of challenges, or take a leap of faith, and do what the other 99% of OECD countries are doing.

Edited November 15, 2013 by samran

[Ulysses G.]

First Obama apologizes, and now he delays it a year. (Not sure how he does that when it's the law and presidents don't make or break laws.) But whatever it is, he has massive loss of face right now.

I am not a fan of the shutdown or Ted Cruz, but the Republicans are looking pretty good right about now. They wanted to delay Obamacare for one year and it looks more and more like that is what will end up happening.

[impulse]

There is a fallacy that people want choice with their healthcare. But people don't choose when to get sick, nor do they get to select the variety of their ailment and how long they'll have it for.

As such having 'choice' in your level of insurance cover is in the main a dodgy practice. While I undertand the politics of the decision, allowing substandard insurance coverage to continue is a mistake.

Agreed, substandard coverage shouldn't be allowed to continue, but many of these policies were fine until the government decided to fix them.

I see where you are coming from, but I guess all things have to evolve. Just like seatbelt laws, public safety regulations, automobile safety standards, etc etc, things have to get better, and the beneficiaries of the sub optimal status quo will always whinge loudest.

Agreed. Sadly, many people think they have great health insurance right up until they get really sick and need to make a big claim. Then they find out why their policy was so "reasonably priced". If the new rules weed out those financial landmines, so be it.

I do have some empathy for the guys who buy insurance with high deductibles because they have the bucks to cover the first $10-20,000 of their healthcare. But there are a lot more policies out there that cap annual and lifetime benefits at a tiny fraction of the cost of, for example, cancer treatment or long term care for a stroke. It's all great, until you actually need the coverage.

Edited November 15, 2013 by impulse

[NeverSure]

Will people never get it that this isn't national health care, but rather a mandate to buy "Obamacare approved" health care or pay a fine?

First Obama apologizes because people can't keep their health care and their doctors as he promised, and now he is delaying the roll-out for a year, and people still can't see the screw ups?

He's delaying the roll-out not only because it's a total disaster, but also because there's a national election next year and HIS Democrats are scratching his eyeballs out over the mess he led them into?

[NeverSure]

"Like Obama, Obamacare starts collapsing in Gallup poll: 40% approve, 55% disapprove."

@MarcACaputo

"Public approval of President Obama's signature healthcare law reached an all-time low since his reelection, with 40 percent of Americans approving Obamacare and 55 percent disapproving in Gallup's latest survey."

Miami Herald

[rotary]

"Like Obama, Obamacare starts collapsing in Gallup poll: 40% approve, 55% disapprove."

@MarcACaputo

"Public approval of President Obama's signature healthcare law reached an all-time low since his reelection, with 40 percent of Americans approving Obamacare and 55 percent disapproving in Gallup's latest survey."

Miami Herald

I believe true figures are much lower than 40% approval on this health care thing. I also believe unemployment is nearer 20% or 25% and not less than 10% as they wish us to believe.

[samran]

There is a fallacy that people want choice with their healthcare. But people don't choose when to get sick, nor do they get to select the variety of their ailment and how long they'll have it for.

As such having 'choice' in your level of insurance cover is in the main a dodgy practice. While I undertand the politics of the decision, allowing substandard insurance coverage to continue is a mistake.

Agreed, substandard coverage shouldn't be allowed to continue, but many of these policies were fine until the government decided to fix them.

I see where you are coming from, but I guess all things have to evolve. Just like seatbelt laws, public safety regulations, automobile safety standards, etc etc, things have to get better, and the beneficiaries of the sub optimal status quo will always whinge loudest.

Agreed. Sadly, many people think they have great health insurance right up until they get really sick and need to make a big claim. Then they find out why their policy was so "reasonably priced". If the new rules weed out those financial landmines, so be it.

I do have some empathy for the guys who buy insurance with high deductibles because they have the bucks to cover the first $10-20,000 of their healthcare. But there are a lot more policies out there that cap annual and lifetime benefits at a tiny fraction of the cost of, for example, cancer treatment or long term care for a stroke. It's all great, until you actually need the coverage.

Indeed.

The only reason I am happy with my private insurance in Thailand is that it includes repatriation. If shit hits the fan, as I've seen it happen with some close friends,they are on the first flight, chartered if necessary, back to OZ where there is no such thing as a policy limit under Medicare. You are treated until you get better.

Edited November 15, 2013 by samran

[impulse]

Will people never get it that this isn't national health care, but rather a mandate to buy "Obamacare approved" health care or pay a fine?

Or you can look at it as "You must provide for the possibility that you'll need health care, or pay something into the system for the real possibility that the taxpayers are going to have to pay for your treatment because you couldn't"

I, for one, am tickled pink at the prospect of not having to depend on being a corporate employee to even be able to find health insurance. Last time I shopped for private health insurance, 90% of the policies wouldn't accept me, and those that would ruled out any treatment for the bits and pieces most likely to give me troubles. The cost was going to be in the neighborhood of $800-1000 per month with no confidence whatsoever that I'd be covered because 3 years earlier, a blood test showed my XXXX may have a pre-existing problem.

So I hopped back into corporate life, giving up any dream I may have had of self employment. Maybe the door to that aspiration is opening. I hope so, for me and millions of others who choose a life of "responsible" corporate misery.

I don't know how Obamacare is going to work out in the long term. But the status quo was a economic trainwreck in slow motion. Personally, I'd like to see the gov't get into competition with the private insurers, and give us all a choice between gov't insurance and private insurance, but I don't think that's feasible given the money tossed around DC by insurance lobbyists.

Is it great? No. Is it a step in the right direction? Probably.

[samran]

There is a fallacy that people want choice with their healthcare. But people don't choose when to get sick, nor do they get to select the variety of their ailment and how long they'll have it for.

As such having 'choice' in your level of insurance cover is in the main a dodgy practice. While I undertand the politics of the decision, allowing substandard insurance coverage to continue is a mistake.

Freedom of choice means freedom of choice. Even if it's a poor one.

At least, it did in the America I grew up in.

The only choice, if you want to call it that, is a binary one. Opting out, or opting in. Medical care and the consumption of medical care is fundamentally different to every other consumer good. You have about as much choice in the matter as if you get to choose if need to take a crap. But funnily enough, no one is decrying the provision of public lavatories as an assault on your civil liberties are they?

[Credo]

Will people never get it that this isn't national health care, but rather a mandate to buy "Obamacare approved" health care or pay a fine?

Or you can look at it as "You must provide for the possibility that you'll need health care, or pay something into the system for the real possibility that the taxpayers are going to have to pay for your treatment because you couldn't"

I, for one, am tickled pink at the prospect of not having to depend on being a corporate employee to even be able to find health insurance. Last time I shopped for private health insurance, 90% of the policies wouldn't accept me, and those that would ruled out any treatment for the bits and pieces most likely to give me troubles. The cost was going to be in the neighborhood of $800-1000 per month with no confidence whatsoever that I'd be covered because 3 years earlier, a blood test showed my XXXX may have a pre-existing problem.

So I hopped back into corporate life, giving up any dream I may have had of self employment. Maybe the door to that aspiration is opening. I hope so, for me and millions of others who choose a life of "responsible" corporate misery.

I don't know how Obamacare is going to work out in the long term. But the status quo was a economic trainwreck in slow motion. Personally, I'd like to see the gov't get into competition with the private insurers, and give us all a choice between gov't insurance and private insurance, but I don't think that's feasible given the money tossed around DC by insurance lobbyists.

Is it great? No. Is it a step in the right direction? Probably.

My situation is somewhat similar. I simply could not get insurance.

[Scott]

Off-topic post deleted.

[Loptr]

107,000 ACA applications vs 5,000,000 cancellations, and climbing. Hardly an equitable exchange by anyone's estimation. With the money spent creating the ACA, the federal government could have just put the 30,000,000 under-insured on Medicaid and called it a day.

The real question here is whether the President is within his rights to selectively enforce the law. There are many that are opening questioning this decision, including staunch supporters such as Howard Dean. Many Presidents have chosen to selectively enforce the law on matters of national security, but this guy takes the cake.

What do you suppose would happen if a political adversary of the Democrats did not toe the line when adhering to the letter of the law? The DOJ would use their "discretion" to selectively prosecute them to the limits to the law. Does everyone have a short memory or are we not still in the midst of a Congressional investigation into the IRS targeting of political adversaries of the current administration? What has changed other than the President's "promise", which of course we all know is as good as gold

[kennedy]

107,000 ACA applications vs 5,000,000 cancellations, and climbing. Hardly an equitable exchange by anyone's estimation. With the money spent creating the ACA, the federal government could have just put the 30,000,000 under-insured on Medicaid and called it a day.

The real question here is whether the President is within his rights to selectively enforce the law. There are many that are opening questioning this decision, including staunch supporters such as Howard Dean. Many Presidents have chosen to selectively enforce the law on matters of national security, but this guy takes the cake.

What do you suppose would happen if a political adversary of the Democrats did not toe the line when adhering to the letter of the law? The DOJ would use their "discretion" to selectively prosecute them to the limits to the law. Does everyone have a short memory or are we not still in the midst of a Congressional investigation into the IRS targeting of political adversaries of the current administration? What has changed other than the President's "promise", which of course we all know is as good as gold

OR Yellow Cake

[Asiantravel]

now they are turning on each other.....nasty .....

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/trust-frayed-between-obama-dems-99897_Page2.html

[impulse]

107,000 ACA applications vs 5,000,000 cancellations, and climbing. Hardly an equitable exchange by anyone's estimation.

If that means 5 million people are no longer being cheated with wonky health insurance policies, that's great news.

It's a trade-off. The government is forcing people to buy insurance. Great for insurance companies.

The flipside is that insurance companies will no longer be able to continue some extremely abusive practices. My suspicion is that well managed insurance companies will thrive, and some of the shysters will be peddling something else next week.

[samran]

107,000 ACA applications vs 5,000,000 cancellations, and climbing. Hardly an equitable exchange by anyone's estimation.

If that means 5 million people are no longer being cheated with wonky health insurance policies, that's great news.

It's a trade-off. The government is forcing people to buy insurance. Great for insurance companies.

The flipside is that insurance companies will no longer be able to continue some extremely abusive practices. My suspicion is that well managed insurance companies will thrive, and some of the shysters will be peddling something else next week.

Odds are that those 5million will continue to get some form of insurance. Change is hard folks.

[impulse]

There is a fallacy that people want choice with their healthcare. But people don't choose when to get sick, nor do they get to select the variety of their ailment and how long they'll have it for.

As such having 'choice' in your level of insurance cover is in the main a dodgy practice. While I undertand the politics of the decision, allowing substandard insurance coverage to continue is a mistake.

I don't think you quite understand. Last night on TV I was watching a very smart and articulate man being interviewed about his canceled insurance.

He was obviously well-off and self-employed, and bought insurance for himself and his wife. He had opted for much the same thing I used to have - a high deductible policy. He said he and his wife had a $6,000 per year deductible, meaning that they had to pay for the first $6,000 of their health care every year. But after they paid $6,000 (which they had never needed) the full-blown insurance kicked in and covered everything with no lifetime limit.

So he was insuring against the catastrophic, and willing to pay up to $6,000 out of his own pocket if necessary.

By doing this, it cut his premium by 1/2 and he said he was paying about $400 a month, or $200 per person. His policy was canceled because that's not legal any more. That high deductible doesn't meet the Obamacare standards so he lost his freedom of choice.

His new policy's premium was going to double and he had no choice and he wasn't happy. If you do the math, his added premiums for his Obamacare policy will be an enforced additional $4,800 per year, or not far from the "maybe" $6,000 deductible he had, but never paid.

It's easy to look at the one side of the equation: $2400 per head more for insurance than last year. And that sucks.

The other side of the coin is that they're no longer subject to as large a deductible. Given that the average health care spending per capita in the USA is over $8,000- they seem to fall under the "I'm healthy, so why should I pay for insurance I don't need" crowd. So far, they have dodged the bullet- but then, so do most of the folks who will be bankrupted by next years' cancer.

Maybe having the lower deductible will make it less costly to get preventive care they seem to be forgoing if they've never hit their deductible as they claim.

Let's talk to the same guy in 3-5 or in 10 years and see how he has really fared for his insurance dollar. The reality may be a lot different than the fear..

To your statement: They don't/won't grasp the fact that so many doctors and hospitals have said they won't accept it.

The medical profession may not like it. But they've had their way for too many years and the cost of healthcare has spiraled out of control. When every man, woman and child is required to be covered under a policy acceptable to these rules, the medical profession will either accept it, or they'll go out of business or they'll move to Thailand to retire. And when they're gone (doubtful), a new batch will take their place with the understanding that it's a different ballgame.

Edited November 15, 2013 by impulse

[Frank James]

As Barry Goldwater once said of Richard Nixon, "No man ever disappointed me more."

Effectively, we are in George W. Bush's 4th term. Policies foreign and domestic more or less the same, with a guy at the top even more committed to looking good at all costs, lying and jiving smiling through it all. Makes Tony Blair look like a choir boy.

We could have had low cost, high quality universal health care for all, years ago, instead of this pile of dung written by the insurance industry.

How long, O Lord, how long?

[realenglish1]

No Fix one year reprieve. Obama is a lyre

Prediction come 2014

House has election the electorate are pissed at the Dems and vote in the Republicans with a majority. Now the republicans control the house and senate

Repeal Obama Care and pass laws that will not destroy the health system like guaranteed coverage regardless of your medical condition and no policies have been cancelled

Ok all you Dems out there Can you really say Obama has done a good job. You know the answer.!!!!

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted.