“Mr. Chairman, there was no change,” Sebelius said. “The regulation involving grandfathered plans, which applied to both the employer market and the individual market, indicated that if a plan was in effect in March of 2010, stayed in effect without unduly burdening the consumer with reducing benefits and adding on huge costs, that plan would stay in effect and never have to comply with any regulations of the Affordable Care Act.”*
“That’s what the grandfather clause said. The individual market which affects about 12 million Americans, about 5 percent of the market. People move in and out. They often have coverage for less than a year. A third of them have coverage for about six months. And if a plan was in place in March of 2010 and again did not impose additional burdens on the consumer, they still have it. It’s grandfathered in.”In what universe? My policy dates back over a decade. Blue Cross didn't reduce my benefits or add any "huge costs" to my old policy. They just canceled it and offered a new and improved consumer-friendly policy that costs $4,800 a year more in return for a $3,750 reduction in deductible.
Ms. Sebelius announced that she was now shouldering the blame: "I'm accountable." Resign, lady, and forfeit your public pension benefits, then we'll talk.
Anyone who thinks this treatment isn't scheduled to land next on people with employer-provided insurance is a fool. They're just coming for us in manageable chunks, hoping we won't stick together.
8 comments:
I'm going to write my health insurance company, addressing the person who signed my cancellation letter. My letter will say that, although his letter said my policy was being cancelled because of the ACA, Secretary Sebelius is saying otherwise and I'll ask for an explanation. I have no mechanism for putting pressure on the Administration or on my Congressmen (I'm in NJ) but I can put pressure on my insurance company to - I hope - push back on this dishonesty.
Have a lawyer write the letter.
Sebelius actually isn't lying...all that much. The lie was Obama's blanket, and repeated statement with its categorical "period." Not even these 5% would be affected.
Sebelius is accurately describing the law. What she's doing though--her version of the lie--is her claim that it's the cat that's pulling the tail; she's just holding on. ...without unduly burdening the consumer with reducing benefits.... That undue burden is the standards all those privately obtained policies no longer meet, and so the law requires they be altered to comply--which then takes the policies out of the reach of the grandfathering clause--a grandfathered policy could not be altered in any way, even to comply with Obamacare-required standards.
Which required their cancellation.
In the end, though, who in this administration actually has lied on this matter? Answer: whose lips are moving?
Eric Hines
There seems to be a leadership role being played by Mrs. Clinton here, too: at least, she's leading the way in terms of this concept of what it means to take responsibility and be accountable.
Have a lawyer write the letter.
Good idea but I can achieve the same effect - much more cheaply - by cc'ing the letter to a lawyer. I suppose it doesn't even have to be a real lawyer, just some made-up name with and "Esq" after it. :+)
Of course, that would be lying. But it would be in a good cause (at least good by my lights) so no problem.
"Dear Mr. Blue Cross:
"Why did you burden me by reducing my benefits, so that Kathleen Sebelius had to force you to cancel my policy? And by the way, what benefits were reduced? I can't find any reductions in my benefits. In fact, in the last year you actually added some goodies, like well-woman visits and mammograms, without raising my premium.
"Sincerely,
"A puzzled customer."
One of the country's largest individual-policy writers is in Milwaukee (Assurant, formerly Time Insurance).
Yesterday, they announced the layoff of 100+ underwriters, because the Obozo-mandated policy is "one size fits all." Who needs underwriters for that?
(In their marketplace, policyholders were very transient, indeed--generally not more than 2 years, most for less than 1.)
they announced the layoff of 100+ underwriters, because the Obozo-mandated policy is "one size fits all." Who needs underwriters for that?
Indeed. Insurers need underwriters. Welfare providers don't.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment