"Loyal Obama Supporters" Dumped By ObamaCare
"I Don't Mind A Parasite. I Object To A Cut-Rate One."
Last comment by sebekm 8 months, 3 weeks ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form


Yes they were. And they've gone public with their story via an interview by Charles Ornstein of propublica.com. Here are the highlights:

"San Francisco architect Lee Hammack says he and his wife, JoEllen Brothers, are “cradle Democrats.” They have donated to the liberal group Organizing for America and worked the phone banks a year ago for President Obama’s re-election.

Since 1995, Hammack and Brothers have received their health coverage from Kaiser Permanente, where Brothers worked until 2009 as a dietitian and diabetes educator. “We’ve both been in very good health all of our lives – exercise, don’t smoke, drink lightly, healthy weight, no health issues, and so on,” Hammack told me.

The couple — Lee, 60, and JoEllen, 59 — have been paying $550 a month for their health coverage — a plan that offers solid coverage, not one of the skimpy plans Obama has criticized. But recently, Kaiser informed them the plan would be canceled at the end of the year because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. The couple would need to find another one. The cost would be around double what they pay now, but the benefits would be worse.

Hammack recalled his reaction when he and his wife received letters from Kaiser in September informing him their coverage was being canceled. “I work downstairs and my wife had a clear look of shock on her face,” he said. “Our first reaction was clearly there’s got to be some mistake. This was before the exchanges opened up. We quickly calmed down. We were confident that this would all be straightened out. But it wasn’t.”

Th(eir) plan was ending, Kaiser’s letters told them, because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. “Everything is taken care of,” the letters said. “There’s nothing you need to do.”

The letters said the couple would be enrolled in new Kaiser plans that would cost nearly $1,300 a month for the two of them (more than $15,000 a year).

And for that higher amount, what would they get? A higher deductible ($4,500), a higher out-of-pocket maximum ($6,350), higher hospital costs (40 percent of the cost) and possibly higher costs for doctor visits and drugs.

When they shopped around and looked for a different plan on California's new health insurance marketplace, Covered California, the cheapest one was $975, with hefty deductibles and copays.

In a speech in Boston last week, President Obama said those receiving cancellation letters didn’t have good insurance. “There are a number of Americans — fewer than 5 percent of Americans — who've got cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident,” he said.

“Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad-apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received, or use minor preexisting conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy. So a lot of people thought they were buying coverage, and it turned out not to be so good.”

What is going on here? Kaiser isn’t a “bad apple” insurer and this plan wasn’t “cut rate.” It seems like this is a lose-lose for the Hammacks (and a friend featured in a report last month by the public radio station KQED.)

(Ornstein) called Kaiser Permanente and spoke to spokesman Chris Stenrud, who used to work for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He told me that this was indeed a good plan. Patients in the plan, known as 40/4000, were remarkably healthy, had low medical costs and had not seen their premiums increase in years. “Our actuaries still aren’t entirely sure why that was,” he said.

While many other insurance companies offered skimpier benefits, Stenrud said, “our plans historically have been comprehensive.”

Kaiser has canceled about 160,000 policies in California, and about one third of people were in plans like Hammack’s, Stenrud said. About 30,000 to 35,000 were in his specific plan.

“In a few cases, we are able to find coverage for them that is less expensive, but in most cases, we’re not because, in sort of pure economic terms, they are people who benefited from the current system ... Now that the market rules are changing, there will be different people who benefit and different people who don’t.”

“There’s an aspect of market disruption here that I think was not clear to people,” Stenrud acknowledged. “In many respects it has been theory rather than practice for the first three years of the law; folks are seeing the breadth of change that we’re talking about here.”

That’s little comfort to Hammack. He’s written to California’s senators and his representative, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., asking for help.

“We believe that the Act is good for health care, the economy, & the future of our nation. However, ACA options for middle income individuals ages 59 & 60 are unaffordable. We’re learning that many others are similarly affected. In that spirit we ask that you fix this, for all of our sakes,” he and Brothers wrote.

Consumer advocate Anthony Wright said it’s important to remember the way the insurance market worked before the act was passed, when insurers could deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. “It’s impossible to know what the world would have looked like for these folks in the absence of the law,” said Wright, executive director of the group Health Access.

“We certainly had an individual market, especially in California which was the Wild Wild West, where there was huge price increases, cancellations, a range of other practices.

“That doesn't mean that there were certain people who lucked out in the old system, who wound up in a group with a relatively healthy risk mix and thus lower premiums,” he added. “The question is: Is health insurance something where people get a rate based on the luck of the draw or do we have something where we have some standards where people who live in the same community, of the same age, with the same benefit package are treated equally?”

Wright said discussions should focus on how to provide consumers like Hammack with assistance if they barely miss qualifying for subsidies.

So what is Hammack going to do? If his income were to fall below four times the federal poverty level, or about $62,000 for a family of two, he would qualify for subsidies that could lower his premium cost to as low as zero. If he makes even one dollar more, he gets nothing.

That’s what he’s leaning toward — lowering his salary or shifting more money toward a retirement account and applying for a subsidy."

(Said Hammack): "....it hurt to hear Obama saying, just the other day, that if our plan has been dropped it’s because it wasn’t any good, and our costs would go up only slightly,” he said. “We’re gratified that the press is on the case, but frustrated that the stewards of the ACA don’t seem to have heard.”"

Hmmm...."the(re) are people who benefited from the current system ... Now that the market rules are changing, there will be different people who benefit and different people who don’t.” And those with lower rates in the "Wild Wild West" just got those rates because they were LUCKY?

Male bovine scatology. What has happened is that before ObamaCare some people were getting screwed - and now OTHER people are getting screwed. And by and large those that appear to be getting the shaft are middle class, taxpaying individuals who supposedly had "lucked out" with their prior insurance plans.

On top of it all, health care professionals are quitting or retiring because of ObamaCare, and the word is out to prospective health care workers that ObamaCare's effect on the entire health care industry is not going to be good. This effectively acts as a deterrent to them joining the health care ranks to offset the losses. The result? Fewer doctors. Fewer health care choices. More uncertainty - except when it comes to higher taxes. You better believe that those - and higher insurance rates for the 85% - are sure to follow.

THIS IS A GOOD DEAL?


Latest Activity: Nov 06, 2013 at 7:15 PM


Bookmark and Share
Forward This Blog
Print Blog
More Blogs by sebekm
Send sebekm a Message
Report Abuse


Blog has been viewed (310) times.

sebekm commented on Wednesday, Nov 06, 2013 at 19:20 PM

The link to the entire story above is here: http://www.propublica.org/article/loy...

timeontarget commented on Thursday, Nov 07, 2013 at 06:49 AM

I have been fearful that this was what ACA was doing to the previously covered policyholders.

sebekm once again I must thank you for providing meaningful commentary on this community blog site.

Please continue.

sebekm commented on Thursday, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:11 AM

It shall be done. The latest side effect of ObamaCare is that it is making divorce look good. That's what a young Brooklyn couple (BLUE STATE ALERT) is considering in order to avoid huge insurance premium increases under ObamaCare. As reported by CBS News:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/11/0...

And the tally has been updated in Colorado and reported by the Denver Post. Nearly a quarter-of-a-million healthcare plans have been cancelled in Colorado, "many" as a direct result of ObamaCare. The article reports the facts and relays the feelings of people who are "furious" over the cancellations:

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci...

The Republicans and Democrats can spin their stories all they want, but it will be the REAL EXPERIENCES of REAL PEOPLE who decide how much of an issue ObamaCare is in the upcoming elections. Some people may be helped, but IMHO this legislation will make far, far more people "furious" about its effects than those who will be happy with it. The impact of cancelled plans, fewer choices (doctors/hospitals) and higher premiums will stay with people and give them a big reason to vote against the party that foisted this program on them.

The numbers show that independents - those who swayed the election for Obama and the Democrats in many states since 2008 - are the ones who will be hardest hit by ObamaCare changes. They are having their insurance policies cancelled in large numbers and they make too much to qualify for the "subsidies" which would lower their costs. Their extra whammy will come when they realize that THEY ARE THE TAXPAYERS WHO WILL BE PAYING FOR THE SUBSIDIES FOR WHICH THEY DO NOT QUALIFY.

That's the story that's getting reported across the country now. And unless the Democrats pull one out of their rear ends to satisfy these people, they are going to vote Republican in DROVES in 2014. That's why the Dem Senators in "red" or "purple" states (11 at last count) are now pushing the Administration for delays. I predict that unless overwhelming pressure is brought to bear on Mr. Obama, he will not approve any delays because he sees doing that as letting the GOP "win." At this point, he has shown that he cares more about winning political points than anything else.

timeontarget commented on Friday, Nov 08, 2013 at 06:21 AM

It appears to me that President Obama is content to continue to divide Americans and drag down the economy.

May God forgive us.

sebekm commented on Friday, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:38 AM

...those of us who voted for him, that is....


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by sebekm
 
Obama’s “Legislative” Strategy
July 30, 2014
According to our Constitution, the Congress is supposed to MAKE the laws; the President is supposed to “faithfully EXECUTE” the laws, and the Judiciary is supposed to INTERPRET the laws (in a constitutional and legislative context). But now comes our President who believes his oath of office is not to ...
Read More »
 
GOP On Track To Win Majority In U.S. Senate
July 30, 2014
That’s the consensus of several recent news articles – as well as a recent New York Times/CBS News/YouGov poll. For you political junkies (like me), here’s the analysis in detail: *As pointed out in the article at weeklystandard.com, titled: “NYT Poll: Signs Point to GOP Majority in Senate”: “If the ...
Read More »
 
In Case You Missed It……
July 29, 2014
….here are some items of interest from last week’s political headlines: *Let’s Go Polling --As reported by Yahoo News: “If a rematch of the 2012 presidential election were held today, Mitt Romney would win the popular vote over President Barack Obama, a new CNN/ORC International poll finds. Romney, who lost ...
Read More »
 
Speaking Of Polls....
July 23, 2014
….according to an article posted a short while ago in the Washington Examiner: “Survey: Fewer than 1 in 5 better off because of Obamacare; many more worse off Eighteen percent of Americans, or fewer than one in five, say they or someone in their family is better off because of ...
Read More »
 
Lost Emails/Hard Drives Plague Obama Admin
July 20, 2014
Here’s further proof that the Obama administration STILL isn’t taking IRS-Gate seriously. As reported last week in an exclusive by Larry O'Connor of the Independent Journal Review: “Group At Center Of IRS Scandal Has Never Been Interviewed By FBI Investigators No one from True The Vote, the highest profile organization ...
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]





 
Powered by
Morris Technology