A (non)success story about the Affordable Care Act

[ichab]

Any new peice of legislation will affect people in different ways, some will be worse off, some better off and for some it won't make any difference. The ones who are worse off generally don't like it, whilst those who are better off tend to favour it.

This. I really am glad that insurance companies can no longer deny sick people coverage and that many of their deceptive practices will no longer fly. It just sucks that people were lied to in order to sell ACA and that some of its biggest supporters have such a dissmissive attitude towards examples like the OP.

Speaking for myself, I'm not dismissive, and neither are several others. We're trying to get information from him about his state and the state of its exchange so that he can explore his options.

Fair enough.

So Brent, what state are you in and does it have a website?

 

[J.T.B.]

I'd settle for politicians to be put under the same rules as the rest of us. If ACA is such a great plan then every politician from the President down should be subject to it. Let them deal with losing their government funded plans and being put on private insurance like everyone else. Then they can finally be telling the truth when they say "I feel your pain."

That doesn't really make sense. The majority of working people in the US were on qualified employer-sponsored plans and saw no change under the ACA, let along "losing" their plans. Members of congress and the president are also covered by their employer, the US government, like millions of other federal employees, their families, and retirees. They are good plans, but large employers have the leverage and pool-scale to secure the best benefit plans, and there are many other large companies and organizations with comparable benefits.

As for the OP, the individual health insurance market has historically been more volatile in pricing and coverage compared to employer-pooled coverage, even before the ACA. Without the details of the plan and coverage in question, it's hard to say what is driving the change.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Without the details of the plan and coverage in question, it's hard to say what is driving the change.

Correct. I would also like to hear the OP describe the results he saw when he went shopping for a new plan.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I'd settle for politicians to be put under the same rules as the rest of us. If ACA is such a great plan then every politician from the President down should be subject to it. Let them deal with losing their government funded plans and being put on private insurance like everyone else. Then they can finally be telling the truth when they say "I feel your pain."

That doesn't really make sense. The majority of working people in the US were on qualified employer-sponsored plans and saw no change under the ACA, let along "losing" their plans. Members of congress and the president are also covered by their employer, the US government, like millions of other federal employees, their families, and retirees. They are good plans, but large employers have the leverage and pool-scale to secure the best benefit plans, and there are many other large companies and organizations with comparable benefits.

As for the OP, the individual health insurance market has historically been more volatile in pricing and coverage compared to employer-pooled coverage, even before the ACA. Without the details of the plan and coverage in question, it's hard to say what is driving the change.

It makes even less sense than that, because federal employees get to choose from different plans among several insurers. The plans have to meet certain standards, but the standards apply for all 8 million federal workers, not just members of Congress.

So, ichab is suggesting that federal workers... be dumped onto the private market, for some reason, unlike private sector employees whose employers negotiate group plans?

Mind-boggling.

 

[ichab]

I'd settle for politicians to be put under the same rules as the rest of us. If ACA is such a great plan then every politician from the President down should be subject to it. Let them deal with losing their government funded plans and being put on private insurance like everyone else. Then they can finally be telling the truth when they say "I feel your pain."

That doesn't really make sense. The majority of working people in the US were on qualified employer-sponsored plans and saw no change under the ACA, let along "losing" their plans.

That is completely false. Millions of people were mailed cancellation notices in the mail because their plans did not fit the new requirements of the ACA.It was covered quite extensively by the major media outlets at the time.

 

[ichab]

Without the details of the plan and coverage in question, it's hard to say what is driving the change.

Correct. I would also like to hear the OP describe the results he saw when he went shopping for a new plan.

Me too. Some people found better plans on the exchange and hopefully that's the case here.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I'd settle for politicians to be put under the same rules as the rest of us. If ACA is such a great plan then every politician from the President down should be subject to it. Let them deal with losing their government funded plans and being put on private insurance like everyone else. Then they can finally be telling the truth when they say "I feel your pain."

That doesn't really make sense. The majority of working people in the US were on qualified employer-sponsored plans and saw no change under the ACA, let along "losing" their plans.

That is completely false. Millions of people were mailed cancellation notices in the mail because their plans did not fit the new requirements of the ACA.It was covered quite extensively by the major media outlets at the time.

At least thirty people in my extended family had their plans cancelled, but of course we all were able to get better plans and for the most part, cheaper plans on the Federal Exchange.

 

[J.T.B.]

That doesn't really make sense. The majority of working people in the US were on qualified employer-sponsored plans and saw no change under the ACA, let along "losing" their plans.

That is completely false. Millions of people were mailed cancellation notices in the mail because their plans did not fit the new requirements of the ACA.It was covered quite extensively by the major media outlets at the time.

Incorrect. The vast bulk of those cancellations were people buying their insurance on the individual market, not those covered by employers. It would take more than 54 million cancellations to be a majority of Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/millions-lost-insurance/

I agree that is was covered extensively in the media, though.