Sticker shock often follows insurance cancellation

Some receiving word they're losing coverage because their policy doesn't cover benefits required under Affordable Care Act
Associated Press
Nov 3, 2013

Dean Griffin liked the health insurance he purchased for himself and his wife three years ago and thought he'd be able to keep the plan even after the federal Affordable Care Act took effect.

But the 64-year-old recently received a letter notifying him the plan was being canceled because it didn't cover certain benefits required under the law.

The Griffins, who live near Philadelphia, pay $770 monthly for their soon-to-be-terminated health care plan with a $2,500 deductible. The cheapest plan they found on their state insurance exchange was a so-called bronze plan charging a $1,275 monthly premium with deductibles totaling $12,700. It covers only providers in Pennsylvania, so the couple, who live near Delaware, won't be able to see doctors they've used for more than a decade.

"We're buying insurance that we will never use and can't possibly ever benefit from. We're basically passing on a benefit to other people who are not otherwise able to buy basic insurance," said Griffin, who is retired from running an information technology company.

The Griffins are among millions of people nationwide who buy individual insurance policies and are receiving notices that those policies are being discontinued because they don't meet the higher benefit requirements of the new law.

They can buy different policies directly from insurers for 2014 or sign up for plans on state insurance exchanges. While lower-income people could see lower costs because of government subsidies, many in the middle class may get rude awakenings when they access the websites and realize they'll have to pay significantly more.

Those not eligible for subsidies generally receive more comprehensive coverage than they had under their soon-to-be-canceled policies, but they'll have to pay a lot more.

Because of the higher cost, the Griffins are considering paying the federal penalty — about $100 or 1 percent of income next year — rather than buying health insurance. They say they are healthy and don't typically run up large health care costs. Dean Griffin said that will be cheaper because it's unlikely they will get past the nearly $13,000 deductible for the coverage to kick in.

Individual health insurance policies are being canceled because the Affordable Care Act requires plans to cover certain benefits, such as maternity care, hospital visits and mental illness. The law also caps annual out-of-pocket costs consumers will pay each year.

In the past, consumers could get relatively inexpensive, bare-bones coverage, but those plans will no longer be available. Many consumers are frustrated by what they call forced upgrades as they're pushed into plans with coverage options they don't necessarily want.

Ken Davis, who manages a fast food restaurant in Austin, Texas, is recovering from sticker shock after the small-business policy offered by his employer was canceled for the same reasons individual policies are being discontinued.

His company pays about $100 monthly for his basic health plan. He said he'll now have to pay $600 monthly for a mid-tier silver plan on the state exchange. The family policy also covers his 8-year-old son. Even though the federal government is contributing a $500 subsidy, he said the $600 he's left to pay is too high. He's considering the penalty.

"I feel like they're forcing me to do something that I don't want to do or need to do," Davis, 40, said.

Owners of canceled policies have a few options. They can stay in the same plan for the same price for one more year if they have one of the few plans that were grandfathered in. They can buy a similar plan with upgraded benefits that meets the new standards — likely at a significant cost increase. Or, if they make less than $45,960 for a single adult or $94,200 for a family of four, they may qualify for subsidies.

Just because a policy doesn't comply with the law doesn't mean consumers will get cancellation letters. They may get notices saying existing policies are being amended with new benefits and will come with higher premiums. Some states, including Virginia and Kentucky, required insurers to cancel old policies and start from scratch instead of beefing up existing ones.

It's unclear how many individual plans are being canceled — no one agency keeps track. But it's likely in the millions. Insurance industry experts estimate that about 14 million people, or 5 percent of the total market for health care coverage, buy individual policies. Most people get coverage through jobs and aren't affected.

Many states require insurers to give consumers 90 days' notice before canceling plans. That means another round of cancellation letters will go out in March and again in May.

Experts haven't been able to predict how many will pay more or less under the new, upgraded plans. An older policyholder with a pre-existing condition may find that premiums go down, and some will qualify for subsidies.

In California, about 900,000 people are expected to lose existing plans, but about a third will be eligible for subsidies through the state exchange, said Anne Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for the exchange, called Covered California. Most canceled plans provided bare-bones coverage, she said.

"They basically had plans that had gaping holes in the coverage. They would be surprised when they get to the emergency room or the doctor's office, some of them didn't have drug coverage or preventive care," Gonzalez said.

About 330,000 Floridians received cancellation notices from the state's largest insurer, Florida Blue. About 30,000 have plans that were grandfathered in. Florida insurance officials said they're not tracking the number of canceled policies related to the new law.

National numbers are similar: 130,000 cancellations in Kentucky, 140,000 in Minnesota and as many as 400,000 in Georgia, according to officials in those states.

Cigna has sent thousands of cancellation letters to U.S. policyholders but stressed that 99 percent have the option of renewing their 2013 policy for one more year, company spokesman Joe Mondy said.

Cancellation letters are being sent only to individuals and families who purchase their own insurance. However, most policyholders in the individual market will receive some notice that their coverage will change, said Dan Mendelson, president of the market analysis firm Avalere Health.

The cancellations run counter to one of President Barack Obama's promises about his health care overhaul: "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan."

Philip Johnson, 47, of Boise, Idaho, was shocked when his cancellation notice arrived last month. The gift-shop owner said he'd spent years arranging doctors covered by his insurer for him, his wife and their two college-age students.

After browsing the state exchange, he said he thinks he'll end up paying lower premiums but higher deductibles. He said the website didn't answer many of his questions, such as which doctors take which plans.

"I was furious because I spent a lot of time and picked a plan that all my doctors accepted," Johnson said. "Now I don't know what doctors are going to take what. No one mentioned that for the last three years when they talked about how this was going to work."

Comments

From the Grave

Hey, I didn't vote for him.

Licorice Schtick

The media is rife with horror stories like this and most of it is poppycock. Some old cheap policies were nearly worthless, with crazy exclusions, foot-dragging payouts, low caps, and no docs willing to participate. Most people will see cost decreases, especially total cost after claims. In the atypical cases where people pay more for coverage, they will probably have a lower overall health care bill because they'll pay less out-of-pocket, due in part to higher caps. The caps on your coverage were a hidden cost of the old cheap policies. Obamacare caps insurance company profits, not your coverage.

anthras

I did have a very good policy and was very pleased with it, Very little out of pocket and they did pay the claims quickly,

Just read a article from "US News and World report" advising that some of the top hospitals are opting out of Obamacare. The Cleveland Clinic advised that out of all the Obamacare exchanges they would only cater to Medical Mutual of Ohio.

Also the topic has been the cost and coverages of the different policies but what about the millions of workers that will be part time in lieu of full time ? Many of the prevous full time jobs had a decent health coverage and now they will be regulated to part time with no health benefits so that means less hours equals less pay and now in lieu of company health care they will have to purchace it out of pocket.

mikesee

licorice, the point is that is what those people wanted!!! More and more doctors and healthcare facilities are opting out of participation in the ACA. What good does it do for a person to have the best coverage in the world if they have to drive 3 hours to get to their doctor?

usea611

----Google is paying 80$ per hour! Just work for few hours & spend more time with friends and family. Yesterday I bought a top of the range Lancia after having made $9458 this month. Its the most-financialy rewarding I've had. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out http://goo.gl/w7ceUX

There you go again

I didn't vote for him either. Maybe next time folks will listen to us "wack job" right wingers!!!!

Pete

Never happen. The bottom feeding parasites in this country will perpetually demand others pay more so they can have "free" things. It is so deeply a part of their mental illness that it cannot be fixed.

The Big Dog's back

Typical self centered teabaggers. "I'm in good health, I don't need all that coverage". Until they need it. Then who is suppose to pay? The rest of us because the hospital "writes it off"? Hospitals never write anything off, somebody pays. The rest of us.

mikesee

Typical DUMBOcrap. Can't comprehend what they read. This couple had insurance, wants insurance, needs insurance. But the idiot who wanted to implement Obamacare (I am sure you know him) LIED to every and anyone just to get this passed. A $500 per month increase in premium plus a HUGE increase in deductible. Sure that's reasonable (sarcasim). Dumba$$es. My hope is that everyone that voted for our current president loses their insurance and has to pay 5 times as much for new insurance.

SamAdams

"Until they need it...?" Really? And when, pray tell, is a man going to need prenatal care? For that matter, when is somebody like ME going to need it? (None of your business, but pregnancy isn't a possibility for me. So why should I have to pay extra for "free" contraceptives? Why should pregnancy be a covered charge for ME?)

Insurance isn't a "one size fits all" kind of deal, but that's what Obamacare is, only with higher deductibles and all sorts of "freebies" that AREN'T.

The poor were already qualified under Medicaid. The retired elderly? Medicare. Obamacare is doing NOTHING but destroying the healthcare and health insurance industries, and jacking up our effective taxes (I know it's a tax because John Roberts SAID it's a tax). It's just that, now that a lot of people have seen what it's doing to premiums and coverage, they know it as well as I do.

You can sit there all smug with your employer-provided benefits for another year. But wait 'til THAT mandate kicks in, and you'll almost certainly feel my pain for yourself. Unless, of course, you're an exempted union member (have you bothered to ask yourself WHY unions and many others of the Democrat base are being exempted, by the way?). In that event, I hope you enjoy your job and your freebies while they last because, given the unsustainability of overall government entitlement spending, they won't be lasting long!

The Big Dog's back

sam, was everybody's home hit by a tornado? If not you shouldn't have to have insurance that covers tornadoes right? Have you ever had an emergency medical condition while driving a car and ran into and did damaged to something? If not, why should you have to pay for that coverage? Get my drift?

Sam

Driving is a privilege not a right, only if you CHOOSE to drive would auto liability insurance be mandatory. I can't be forced to buy auto insurance by the government if I don't drive. If someone chooses not to have health insurance they should have that right. If they incur major medical costs they are still financially responsible to pay them. Your theory of the hospital "writing them off" is false they file a civil action against the individual, obtain a judgment and pursue garnishment of wages and other civil remedies. Yes I get your "drift" far to the far left..

looking around

Sam some who drive opt not to have insurance this is where no fault comes in. You can't get blood out of a turnip with civil action so who pays? Same with health service debts. You may choose to drive or not but as long as your breathing fresh air on this earth you are pron to health issues needing medical services that will result in debt. They can spend money to take you to court civilly and probably settle on a percentage of the debt after your bankruptcy, but they will pass along their losses to the rest of us. Get it?

anthras

In many states liability insurance is not mandatory a person just has to comply with the state's financial responsibility laws. Ergo if you can prove that you have enough assets that you could be financially responsible to cover an accident you would not need to purchace insurance

looking around

I don't think many people with enough money to hold a bond to be self insured would be dumb enough to do it, it's cheaper to buy the insurance. Being responsible is mandatory by law either way.

anthras

It may not be a wise choice however it is not something that government forces them to do as they do have a choice.

mikesee

So doggie how would you feel if the gov't said everyone has to carry $5,000,000 in homeowner insurance coverage? That $20,000 dollar house that you live in is now insured at $5,000,000 and your premium is adjusted for that. Seem fair? Wow, I should send that thought to your hero.

The Big Dog's back

And sam, answer the question as who is suppose to pay if they have a catastrophic health problem costing millions that their previous insurance wouldn't cover?

Sam

Great logic for all 60 plus women now having full contraceptive and paid abortion coverage, or non drinkers having booze counseling paid for, you might know about that. As for the tornado coverage on my homeowners insurance, if I don't have a mortgage that's my choice, oh I forgot the government must choose anything for me. Still didn't your answer if by your or definition if you are a tea bagger? Are you on the government exchange or on a funded pension plan, if the government plan is so great why don't you change?

The Big Dog's back

If it was single payer I would go on the Gov plan. If I had a fly by night insurance company I would go on the Gov plan. But I have a choice. OH MY GOD, a choice!

SamAdams

Okay, Big Dog, here's a challenge for you: Go to healthcare.gov and research the costs for insurance coverage. Use your own information. Whatever the premium is per the Website, add about another 50% since, in many cases, the site is quoting premiums as much as HALF of the actual costs. Then come back here and tell us what a GREAT and AFFORDABLE deal you could get! I won't hold my breath.

The Big Dog's back

Oh, and you're right, you didn't answer.

Sam

typical far left winger, you still didn't answer are you on a funded pension plan health insurance and why don't you switch right now if the unaffordable care act is so great?

looking around

Sam? mortgage paid no insurance? whats your address? Bet your steps get real slippery in the winter! CHA CHING!

Peninsula Pundit

'Obamacare is doing NOTHING but destroying the healthcare and health insurance industries....'. With the huge increases in premiums and deductibles, how do you figure that this plan destroys health insurance companies? To the contrary of your statement, insurance companies are going to make out big time. The president is supporting an industry and all you can cry about is how it's going to affect you. C'mon, it supports business! Pull out yer wallet and quicher crying.

SamAdams

Actually, the pre-existing conditions mandated coverage alone will hurt insurance companies. Between that and the "freebies," it's understandable the rates went way up. I'm not questioning that. What I AM questioning is why I have to have coverage for things it's literally not possible for me to ever use.

Big Dog's tornado example is a terrible one. Is it possible for my home to be hit by a tornado someday? Yes. Is it possible for me to get pregnant? No. See the difference NOW?

With my auto insurance and my homeowner's insurance, I choose my level of coverage such as the deductible amount and just how comprehensive the coverage should be. Why not with my health insurance? With my auto insurance, if I'm a terrible driver with a history of tickets and/or accidents, my premium is higher. Why not the same thing with pre-existing health conditions?

There's no difference between FORCING you to get earthquake or flood insurance coverage for your house when you live in a close-to-zero risk area, and FORCING you to get health insurance at a level you don't want and/or with provisions you'll never need. What Obamacare does is MAKE you get earthquake insurance and, while you're at it, pay for your NEIGHBOR's earthquake insurance, too.

As for me complaining about how it affects me, of COURSE I am! Isn't that what people like you were complaining about when you thought your hospital bills were "padded" to make up for those who couldn't/wouldn't pay? Did you just pull out your wallet and quicher crying? In my case, I can pull out my wallet and cry all I want to (or YOU want me to). It's still not going to make the premiums even CLOSE to affordable.

sash

Like most people, you've been paying for coverage you will never use for years. As a woman, I will never have any need for a PSA test for prostrate cancer nor will I ever need a prescription for viagra. I have never needed, nor do I anticipate ever needing alcohol or drug counseling, but they are also included in my coverage. My plan may not break down a per item cost, but you can be sure all of these benefits are counted when they determine my premiums. Same song, different verse.

mikesee

Come on sash my two sons are so happy to have maternity coverage! bahaha.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Big Dog, can I have you write me a check next time some kid steals something from my store? Otherwise I will have to write it off. Or will I have to pay as an intrinsic hazard of owning a business, providing a service, or otherwise interacting with other people? We can't have that! Even though hospitals only write off somewhere around 5% of their cases, that is just 5% too much. There should be NO risk in anything anywhere to anyone, hmm?

I will provide you an itemized list and a bill. Thanks for doing your part to preserve our society. Make all checks payable to "The Hero Zone". If you don't, I will impose a tax penalty on you for not being personally responsible for my hazard. It's only fair and civil.

SamAdams, if you have suffered a loss of something in the matter of the course of your own business you should send Big Dog an invoice, too. He is very generous with his own money (and not the money of others) enough to compensate you for any/all loss you may incur in your life.

The Big Dog's back

sappy (h z), am I talking to much above your comprehension?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

You inflict upon everyone under tax penalty something that many may not want nor need. It is done under the presumption that that are all paying for other people not paying a hospital.

So, please Big Dog, explain that. How are you, presumably an Ohio resident, paying for someone in South Dakota not paying their hospital bill? Talk down to me using clear examples, large font, and mental pictures since I am clearly not past a fifth grade level of comprehension and critical thinking.

The Big Dog's back

How do you cover your losses?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

In most cases, I eat my losses (and offer a lecture on what such behavior is bad and destructive). It is a risk of doing business. I am not compelled to do what I do. Interacting with the public opens you up to risk. For the risk, there is potential but not guaranteed reward. Someone can come into my store tomorrow and shoot me when I otherwise could have just been at home not doing what I do. But, I like what I do and while I don't like being shot, it s risk I must assume. Same with theft. Property damage.

Fortunately, like with hospitals, my losses/shrinkage is a minimal part of my books.

But where there is a fallacy in saying that you pay for hospital losses is you making the presumption that a hospital's money is the government's first and theirs second. Let's say they, like I, "write off a loss". So that means I am presumably paying less in taxes because of the discount I get from theft/nonpayment/charity (which I DO give away product to various nonprofit charities as I am not a heartless person). Presuming that the taxes I would have paid on that are somehow yours (if you were the government) first and that you are owed everything you think I should pay but don't for uncountable circumstances is absurd.

I don't know if you have kids, it's none of my business. But let's say you give your minor son $20 for good grades. Did that increase your household income you report by $20? Did you pay taxes on that $20 of presumably generated income? If you didn't, did you rob "us" of the tax on that income? Do we need to come after you for that for unfairly not contributing?

Again, whose money is it we're talking about? The government's or your's/your business's? Do you not own your money...your proof of your physical and/or intellectual contributions to society? That's why we get this absurd "cost" to the shutdown when everyone still received pay for the work they did or otherwise would have provided. Does a government write laws expecting 100% return on participation and funding? Wow...must be nice! Are our margins so thin that in the case of something like a 17% "shutdown" of the government for two weeks that we are somehow in financial collapse?

Must be nice to never have to expect to go through lean times. Any retailers or restaurateurs on here reading this want to talk about fall in this area? Say, oh, late August through mid-November? Are you all guaranteed 100% returns every day of every season? Cedar Point managers, are you out there? Does a rainy day collapse the company because you don't get what you expected to? If so, why in the heck did you make your year (or longer) projections off of 100% funding of every day you were open? Who hired you?

So, just because an entity isn't producing as much tax as someone in a distant place THINKS they should doesn't mean the system is being robbed. In fact, I don't believe there is anything in the ACA that prevents this same practice from happening! So now we have gone through all the pain, frustration, and arguments to solve absolutely nothing all while allowing someone behind a desk to tell us our money is the government's first and not ours because we aren't producing to their far-removed and detached speculations.

= = = = = = = = = =

On a separate note:

1. How does the ACA prevent policy lapses?
2. How does the ACA get people to pay money they owe a hospital or insurer when they already don't have the money nor interest in doing so?
3. What prevents someone from buying a policy after X diagnosis, getting it treated, then dropping it only to renew it again when needed? Does that not game the system or deny "us" tax services?
4. If 10% of the population who could have coverage didn't have it for whatever reason, how is this going to convince them or make it more "affordable"? It's not the best option, but why not just expand a government health service to them (which I won't even get into the hassle, rejection of service, extreme debt, and diminished payments those programs offer to those who accept them).
5. Do you have so much faith in our government and the track record it has had over the last century or longer that you are 100% convinced they can actually manage a functional, efficient system for three hundred and ten plus million people from almost every conceivable walk of life, financial circumstance, geographic location, and medical requirement? Especially from a distant, centralized office?

anthras

Now I hear that many will pay less with the subsidies well who is going to pay the subsidies "THE REST OF US"

Kottage Kat

There u go
Amen and ditto

Sam

Typical of this regime, they lie to pass the Unaffordable Care Act, then they punish the working middle class to cater to the free government hand out crew who votes for them.
Question, piddle puppy are you buying the government insurance, or are you on a private supplemented pension funded plan, maybe you are a "self centered teabagger".
The "entitled group" are not the good hard working folks who pays and work for what they have, the "entitled group" are those who think they are entitled to everything and the taxpayers and government should provide it to them at little or no cost..

grandmasgirl

sam: good reply. I agree with you. I am one of the lucky ones who worked for 43 years and am now getting medicare at a cost of $105 a month and paying close to $200 a month for supplemental insurance. I also pay close to $75 for drug coverage. That's a bargain price compared to what other middle income people are paying. I am also lucky to be in fairly good health so I don't see the doctor more than twice a year. As far as "Big Dog" goes, I learned quite a while ago that his comments are not worth reading. Obama can do no wrong in his sight. I still read his comments just to realize how smart I really am and how others don't have a clue.

Peninsula Pundit

'I still read his comments just to realize how smart I really am and how others don't have a clue.'
Well, aren't you special.

The Big Dog's back

g g,So you are for Medicare for all (single payer)?

KURTje

Welcome to our world. The article says much. Entitled group now having to deal with things those behind them endure daily. (Unless you missed the free food hand-out)

Licorice Schtick

Obamacare was a compromises. Something without all those leaches would have been better. The Canadian approach (single payer) would be better, but we've been brainwashed to think Canadians hate there healthcare, even though they love it. Medicare for Everyone would be good, too.

looking around

"But the 64-year-old recently received a letter notifying him the plan was being canceled because it didn't cover certain benefits required under the law."

He will be eligible for Medicare this year then it's a different story, there is no mention of his wife's age but if she is not 65 she should look at single coverage for herself until she catches up to him.

mikesee

So it's ok if he has to pay an extra $6000 in premiums for one year to keep his new crappy coverage?

Hey, at least he will get maternity coverage!

looking around

"Philip Johnson, 47, of Boise, Idaho, was shocked when his cancellation notice arrived last month. The gift-shop owner said he'd spent years arranging doctors covered by his insurer for him, his wife and their two college-age students.

After browsing the state exchange, he said he thinks he'll end up paying lower premiums but higher deductibles"

Obviously if the policy he had did not meet the standards set by law more coverage needed to to be extended be it by the company he has had or the exchange plan. Just as with any insurance auto, home etc. the way they make the premium look affordable is to raise deductibles.

That said, the holes the new policy closes may be far more desirable even with higher deductibles versus the cost of the uncovered care.

looking around

" their policy doesn't cover benefits required under Affordable Care Act "

I wish the media would list exactly what was not covered that these company's would rather terminate the coverage rather than step up to the plate. The problem with low coverage high deductible plans are that the insurance company is banking on that their pockets will never be reached. Sans an all out catastrophic event in the insureds health they simply pay and pay with no return. Much like any other form of insurance. These burial and final debts insurance plans are a notorious scam that seldom pay anything out.

It is a necessary evil for one to CYA for events that could bankrupt yourself and family, but it would be nice to see laws that would force these insurance plans to be more proactive in health care to prevent post high cost care rather than keeping the insured from seeking early treatment and checkups.

I think the Affordable Health Care Act is a good starting point, but obviously the insurance company's are waging a war of their own. If they don't want to play ball, I'm all for riding heard on them.

Erie Sniper

The Affordable Care Act isn't a CYA choice that consumers are choosing to make, they are mandated by law to do this which results in higher premiums and deductible ($770 to $1275 and $2500 to $12700). To say that the things that need to be covered (by law)but aren't covered by the current insurance makes up the cost difference is crazy. Why do I need coverage for something that I will never need? Keep the government out of life. If you need government assistance fine, but don't tell me that I need it!

The Big Dog's back

Do you understand what the definition of insurance is?

Erie Sniper

Yes I do. I have insurance. I pay a premium for my insurance. I pay a deductible for my insurance. Why would I want something that is demanded by the government that is going to cost me more money?
If the government demanded that you buy their version of a gallon of milk, that costs more than double the price you pay now, would that be okay with you?

The Big Dog's back

Not the same comparison. Nobody is responsible if you don't buy the milk. If you suffer a catastrophic medical event without proper coverage who pays?

Erie Sniper

It is a great comparison for exactly what I said. Why pay more for something that I can get at a cheaper price. Do you ever buy anything that is on sale, or do you always want to pay the higher price?
Responsible for what, your catastrophic event that you keep bringing up, that MIGHT happen, and that is already covered by my insurance? I should be allowed to have MY CHOICE of what insurance I pay for and not be told that I now have to buy what the government says I have to.

The Big Dog's back

You are not getting the same thing, you're getting more. So you have unlimited coverage? Not!

Erie Sniper

You don't get it and obviously never will. How would I be getting more? You have no idea what I have. Why would I want something that I will never need, maternity leave coverage? Still my point is that its more expensive and being forced onto people.
You're s-t-o-o-p-u-d!

Peninsula Pundit

In an odd twist to your statement, the price of milk WILL be doubling soon. Why should the govt pay a farmer for dairy supports? If milk goes to $8 a gallon, like they've mentioned it will if Congress let's dairy price supports end, that's what it costs, right? To co-opt a line from these boards: 'Why should the lactose-intolerant help subsidize a commodity they cannot use?'

Erie Sniper

Your comment is totally irrelavent. Anyways, the government should not be subsidizing anything. The corn susidies have raised the prices for everything, just so that we have to buy ethanol to put into our fuel tanks, which results in lower miles per gallon, costs more and increased wear on your vehicle. The government does more damage than good to everything they touch!

Pterocarya frax...

This article is just more proof that the media is not liberal as all the right wingers try to claim. From the article:

"the Griffins are considering paying the federal penalty — about $100 or 1 percent of income next year —rather than buying health insurance"

That means their income is $10,000/year. We don't know her age so I guessed at 62, and we know his is 64. With those ages and income of $10,000/year the Delaware health exchange website says they are eligible for Medicaid and don't need to buy a plan at all. The possibility exists that they lied about their income so I changed it to $25,000/year. At that income and ages Delaware says they could get a silver plan with max out of pocket of $4500/year and premiums of less than $100/month after tax credits, for both of them.

In other words, either they or the author...most likely both...are not presenting the entire story on purpose. These people are eligible for a better plan for a lot less money than they have been paying.

This author should be ashamed of herself.

looking around

Pterocarya frax.... Thank you for pointing out the facts!

Peninsula Pundit

Great critical, investigative comment.
Wish the other side of this issue would employ some of that.
Might tamp down some of the wild ASSertions we read here.
Yeah, that ol' left-wing media strikes again, I tell ya.

sash

The first thing I caught was that they said they went to the state exchange. Penn doesn't have a state insurance exchange. Figured they must live in Maryland because they said they wouldn't be able to use their Delaware doctors and both NJ and Penn citizens would get insurance off the federal exchange. The Maryland state exchange has some of the lowest rates in the country. I did the same as you and assumed his wife was 62 and checked out rates on the federal and state exchange. Found Bronze family plans as low as $366 a month and a better Silver plan for $702($5000 family deductable/20% copay). The $12,700 deductable they claim isn't a deductable, but the maximum allowable out of pocket expenses which includes deductables and copays. Those are straight rates with no credits. Reminds me of some guests on Hannity last month who were bemoaning their costs/loss because of the ACA. A reporter, I think with Forbes, followed up on their stories for more details and found they were almost complete nonsense. One claimed to be an employer who had to cut his employees to part-time because of ACA requirements. The reporter found that the man employed 4 people and his "requirement" under ACA was to notify them that they could get insurance through healthcare.gov. So...$.30 to print and post a notice? The man admitted there were other reasons he cut hours, but then hung up on the reporter and refused to talk to him again. Another woman could have gotten the same policy, from the same company, on her state exchange for nearly $400 dollars a month less than what she was going to pay purchasing it directly. Her only response was that she wasn't getting any government insurance. BC/BS is the same company whether you buy direct or through an exchange. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will end up paying more for insurance they feel they don't need, but it doesn't help their arguments when the media showcases people that either lie outright, or are too stubborn or dumb to take advantage of the exchanges.

looking around

Thank you again for the facts!

The Big Dog's back

You would think this is something we all could agree on, personal responsibility for insurance. But the right wingnut crowd hates that Black guy at the WHITE house so much, they won't agree with anything he does.

deertracker

Agreed!

grandmasgirl

Here we go again. Like I said, your comments are worth reading, but for some reason I still do. LEAVE IT TO YOU TO BRING RACE INTO THE PICTURE! You have to be a racist to use that excuse so much!

The Big Dog's back

A Conservative's main virtue is personal responsibility right? This is personal responsibility. Just like child support, some people need to be forced.

Erie Sniper

Wouldn't have to pay child support if the low-life would have actually been a good husband or father in the first place. Just like common sense, some people need to be forced to use it.

shucks

"..You have to be a racist to use that excuse so much!"...or belong to the Tea Party.

Peninsula Pundit

ZING!

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

[release]

Big Dog, please identify where the "personal" comes in personal responsibility when a government is forcing you as a private citizen to enter into private contracts with private companies. Why is my ability to enter into private contracts, a private property right, infringed upon? How is it personal when you are told what to choose from by a small group of individuals hundreds of miles away who will never know nor care about you. Forget personal, how is that responsible?

My grief with the content of the tax aside, how about HOW the bill was passed. All the closed-door deals? Rushed? No reading it? Passing it as a budgetary item instead of a traditional law to avoid having to argue it? Where is my $2,500/year premium reduction I was promised?

It's amazing to hear this administration blame insurance companies, their VERY MEDIUM through which they are inflicting this law on us as the ones who are responsible for the cancellations. It is astonishing to hear politicians blame their constituents for being so stupidly duped by evil insurance companies, THE VERY MEDIUM THROUGH WHICH WE ARE COMPELLED BY LAW UNDER PENALTY TO PURCHASE COVERAGE, as to have gotten plans that until they tooted their own horn were "sub-standard". The Federal Government which runs many other failing projects actually thinks they can manage a private industry in which they do not participate and I doubt many have even worked in?

SEE?! People who don't even know you, will never meet you, and probably live nowhere near you let alone your city/state just know that what you bought was garbage based on what? What proof? Where are charges against insurance companies then for lying to people about the quality of their prior coverage? What, there are none? How odd! Why can't our central, distant authority know me and my personal circumstances?

Are there absolutely NO red flags nor hesitations you have about this tax? Nothing? This is as pure and clean as the wind-driven snow to have a central, distant authority failing to meet the needs of the citizens (in many other aspects let alone this one) as it will never be able to do? Ever? Never in history nor ever in the future of humanity anywhere? Or...is this time different? Why? How?

If you want an authoritative fist to rule your life because you can't do it yourself that is your business. But you can at least do those of us who don't want the drivel and pet projects of lifelong bureaucrats a favor and at least advocate for it to move to Columbus instead of D.C. At least then our promises of paradise can be confronted only 2 hours away and against 11 million others instead of 310+.

Our dystopia would have to compete against 49 others.

What is your end-game, Big Dog? What do you want? One-party rule? An all-powerful, non-termed government to make decisions for us? What is your utopia and how does this law fit into it (presuming you are participating in it as it seems our rulers don't have to for some reason)?

And as a P.S. - Shame on you for bringing race into something with which it has nothing to do. The color of the president nor the office he lives in are irrelevant to this discussion and many, many others that actually matter. Bringing that up is, going back to your point, a LACK of personal responsibility to discuss things civilly and rationally.

[/release]

The Big Dog's back

Race has nothing to do with it? What planet do you live on sappy?

The Big Dog's back

Oh, and sappy, For the umpteenth time, I wanted Medicare for all. (single payer)

The Big Dog's back

Also sounds like you want a Fascist Gov, where business and industry controls everything.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Incorrect. Industry cannot rule people, only serve their needs, wants, and desires. A facist government is no better than any other totalitarian one. My dream government for the U.S.?

Representative Republic. The Federal government serves only to facilitate interstate commerce, provide national defense, and a few other inter-governmental services. Welfare and economic manipulation in its various forms not being one of them. The Federal government is rather inconspicuous and behind the scenes, being smaller and more efficient.

The states are where most of the major policy, including entitlements, are decided upon. Laws and regulations are made in state capitals that are closer and more accessible to the people. Each state, almost its own country, competes against the others for the benefit of citizen and company alike. Ohio taking care of Ohioans as best we can since we are more intimately familiar with the demographics, geography, and economic conditions of our population.

Decisions and representation are literally closer to home. Those we send to D.C. will be done through popular election for House members to represent the citizens on a national level. Those in the Senate are sent by state legislatures to represent the states on the national level. On top of that, service will be term-limited.

Tax Day will be the Monday before elections in November and the tax system will be "universal" with no exceptions/loopholes. Everyone pays, everyone benefits. On the Federal level it won't be so bad since they will require a minimum of your money to provide their services. It will be the State that may ask for more of your money to provide whatever services it offers.

Education would be a priority in tax use with a focus on life skills, financial literacy, and the options to specialize in a direction of your choice. But of course, that is a decision for Ohio to make and not impose on other states. If Indiana doesn't want their kids to be financially literate that is their decision.

The individual is empowered. The individual is educated. The individual is trusted to be a part of civil society and the tools are made available to do so. The individual chooses which faiths, markets, neighborhoods, schools, etc. they wish to interact with for the myriad and impossible-to-know reasons they want to. The economy works along the guidelines and principles of spontaneous order for most of its function.

Private charity in all its forms is encouraged. Public charity is more directly voted by those who will both receive and pay for it. There will be more direct accountability and stability than from a centralized state. If Ohio goes bankrupt for incompetence, unwieldy laws, or some other reason it doesn't take down the rest of the states because it is "too big to fail". If a politician in Columbus makes an error of judgment it will no less be a scandal or tragedy but it would only affect 11 million people instead of 310+ million.

This would also encourage a breaking-up of the two major parties, unless they wished to simply be national lobbyists. Ohio Republicans may actually be agreeable with Mississippi Democrats on many issues. It is less one-size-fits-all party structure (not that I want parties to be intrinsic to this government).

So there you have it Big Dog. My government. My "utopia" is not perfect, but "more perfect" because it empowers each of us, you and me, to be educated, civil, and follow your dream whatever it may be while presenting a stunning array of options, opportunities, and features that are customized to each state.

wowbagger

Big Dogs rational can be summed up with a quote.
"Unless a man has talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden. Of what avail is freedom to choose if the self be ineffectual? We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, “to be free from freedom.”"
There you have it.

Sam

When facts and logic fails the far left wackos revert to their racial card rants. I agree it is PERSONAL responsibility, something the far left wants to government to control.

Peninsula Pundit

Most unfortunately, the 'far right wackos' only rant when presented with facts and logic.

Darwin's choice

For all you believers....

google search... "obama i did not know" .... 508 million matches

Darwin's choice

The website is back up and running:

http://www.obamacaregov.us/

Be sure to hit continue to read through....

ladydye_5

The same people, making the same arguments. Don't you all get tired of fighting with each other? That is the problem with the country. THEM against US. What happen to the WE?

The Big Dog's back

One word, teabaggers! That's what happened.

wowbagger

The democrats always need someone or something to blame for their own ineptness, It is common for most to start calling names if they find no one to blame for it.

Erie Sniper

You sure use the word teabagger a lot. Are you catching or pitchin?

Darwin's choice

That should be spit or swallow.....

Darwin's choice

Troll.

shucks

Durwood is always the idiot

Darwin's choice

Good to see you're still wearing your azzhat robe queenie.

shucks

Another idiotic statement from the troll.

Darwin's choice

And yet another of your mind numbing posts. If you don't like what I post, don't read them, moron.

Moonbats like you are the reason this country is so dynamic.....

shucks

And yet, another idiotic statement from the king of the trolls.

If you don't like my replies to your mind-numbing posts...don't read them.

You show the intelligence of the non-thinking puppet you are.

shucks

"Moonbats like you are the reason this country is so dynamic....."

What's that supposed to mean? Kinda stupid - well, that's SOP for Dummies Choice.

How old are you - 14,15 ? Because you really don't sound too much older.

KURTje

I've yet to know Canadians flocking to America to escape their horrific health care. Let's not forget the seniors who used to go over to Canada for their maintenance drugs. (cheaper)

mikesee

Here is a area that people are not even complaining about!

"Even though the federal government is contributing a $500 subsidy"

Where do you supporters think this money is coming from? The money fairy? Once again our gov't has started another entitlement program that will not be sustainable! People, probably sooner than later, a huge tax increase will have to happen to fund these programs.

As I have said before obamacare will only produce record profits for insurance companies! This is exactly what Obama and his henchmen were whining about and then came up with this crazy plan.

mikesee

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, who appeared on "This Week," defended the president.

"If the president didn't intend to keep this promise, why would he have gone out of his way to put a provision in the law that specifically says that if you have a plan before Obamacare passed, you can keep that plan," he asked

Earth to Dan, earth to Dan...YOU CAN NOT KEEP YOUR PLAN UNLESS YOU ARE A CONGRESSMAN, SENATOR OR PRESIDENT. Got it?

Maybe the SR can send this article to Dan.

Darwin's choice

Obama's approval rating has just fallen to 40% according to the latest Gallop Poll. Please feel free to express what caused this precipitous drop.

The Big Dog's back

Polls, especially gallup's, mean what?

Darwin's choice

Well, like every comment you make and post here, not much really!!

I have noticed when they're the other direction, you love to throw BS stats out to suit your one sided view.

Troll. Funny you have been promoted to head cheerleader, with coasterfan stinking up Toledo and other papers....

Many liberals, Democrats, Illegals and the Free Stuffers will never give up Obama. Most Obama supporters know he is a liar, a radical and is harming the country but they just don't care. Obama fits their ideology.

This is big dog's mantra.

shucks

Dummies Choice still doesn't understand the definition of a troll .
Probably because he's a rock solid fool.

Darwin's choice

Keep proving you deserve the azzhat award....!

Another numbing,bumbling post! Your intelligence is alarming....classic Obamabot!

shucks

It's not a numbing,bumbling post. It's clear to someone with half a brain. Obviously , you don't have a brain at all.

By the way, dummy, what is your political party?

Tea tard , Libertard , or Republitard ?

8ballinthesidepocket

None are so blind as those who choose not to see!!! Name one thing Obozo has done that either moved the country forward or met one of his campaign promises?? Just one thing, please. And this joke of a healthcare system rollout should be the last straw before impeachment proceedings are started. His lack of business acumen is now starting to hurt, really hurt the citizens (the tax paying citizens that is) beyond belief. Nobody with any kind of systems experience rolls out something this big all at once, they should have done regionally to shake out all the bugs. But if you think this is bad, wait til you try to get a procedure scheduled or a claim processed. Thanks to all you blind folks out there that voted for this incompetent fool. I know already, it is still Bush's fault. Open your eyes for pete's sake.

The Big Dog's back

Blowhole, put a cork in it.

shucks

You are a blind man.

mikesee

A great read for all who support obamacare.

"I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I'll live"

http://money.msn.com/health-and-...

KURTje

Sure 8ball..we are out of Iraq. McCain had no timeline, Obama did. (Both stated we'd be in Afghanistan. (Sad legacy of Wilson/Reagan)

Dr. Information

Obamacare is turning out to be nothing more than catastrophic insurance for many of people. The deductibles across the board for the lowest plan are simply crazy high. People that are broke are not going to get coverage. It was dumb to imagine that pay check to paycheck people (tens of millions across this nation) were going to come up with another 300 bucks a month for insurance.

Obama = failure and its just the truth. Sad.

mikesee

And now our liar in chief has done ALL of us wrong again! One of the "rules" of obumblescare is that ALL current corporations pay a $63 per person "tax". The UAW took exception with this as they felt it was wrong for their union members employers pay this. They cried & cried and cried some more. On Tuesday, I believe, the director of Health and Human Resources waived this for all UAW affiliated companies. He indicated that Odummy felt it was unfair to tax them and wanted to show them his gratitude for all they have done for HIM!

He is freaking moron. All dems should be outraged at this as he is saying screw the poor guys while giving to the rich. A total contradiction to the democrap mantra.