<p>busdriver11 - isn’t a mandate to a private company like that treading perilously close to nationalism? I wonder if that’s even constitutional to tell a company they must sell X product at Y price?</p>
<p>
Then it doesn’t count – your fiance can still sign up via the exchange. That’s not really “insurance.” (I think it’s about similar to what my son was offered back in 2012, though)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, right- but I don’t know if that’s the insurance that will be offered next year. We just got the paper work for this insurance a few weeks ago, no word on what will be offered next year. There was no indication if it would be this or some other. But if it’s the same insurance, then he’s eligible? If he signs up for it now, will he still be able to get an exchange plan that starts Jan 1st?</p>
<p>
I’m quite confident in my congresswoman, but I don’t see how she can get any piece of legislation she writes to the floor as a Democrat.</p>
<p>"Jost adds that expanding the grandfather clause to policies sold in 2013 cannot be done without changing the law, “and such a change in the law would be inadvisable.”</p>
<p>“To help out the people the administration wants to help out, plans that have lost their grandfathered status would have to see that status restored retroactively,” Nicholas Bagley, an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan, explains in a blog post. “The Supreme Court, however, has held that retroactive rulemaking is a no-no. I don’t see how HHS [Health and Human Services] gets around that precedent.”'</p>
<p><a href=“Can Obama fix Obamacare?”>Can Obama fix Obamacare?;
<p>romani, if he signs up for THAT plan now, it won’t impact his eligibility for the exchange in 2014. He needs to sign up based on the facts as he knows them now. If he is offered a DIFFERENT plan in 2014, then he would report that as a change via the exchange. (Yeah, I know, this all assumes that the exchange is functioning – but it seems to me the logical choice is to move forward based on the assumption that things will work.)</p>
<p>So pretty much the only solution to these issues with ACA we have right now is hope for the best? Awesome.</p>
<p>Do we need a law written to allow people to buy insurance and get subsidies by buying insurance directly from insurance companies?</p>
<p>Call me a broken record, but many of the solutions lie with the individual states. That states have a lot more power when it comes to fixing a lot of these issues.</p>
<p>You rock, calmom! :)</p>
<p>I don’t know the legalities of it, but it seems to me that one fix could be for individuals like me and GP who are currently covered by plans that are grandfathered for others, but not for us because we came on after March 2010. </p>
<p>So that wouldn’t resurrect any about-to-be defunct plans – it would just allow individuals to stay on the grandfathered plans regardless of their entry date. (Although I don’t think that should go to Dec 2013 – maybe they could just extend the grandfathered status to anyone who signed on to a continuing, grandfathered plan by the end of 2012. )</p>
<p>Not sure how many people that would impact. But it doesn’t involve reviving any defunct, noncompliant plans.</p>
<p>“busdriver11 - isn’t a mandate to a private company like that treading perilously close to nationalism? I wonder if that’s even constitutional to tell a company they must sell X product at Y price?”</p>
<p>I’m definitely not big on nationalism, but they did mandate required insurance for the entire country…so I think we’re already there. We are way past that milestone. The insurance companies will be the beneficiaries of mandates getting them millions of new customers, at jacked up prices. Sounds like there’s some insurance companies doing it of their own volition anyways. So, they can’t dump people from their plans at the first opportunity, while making their rates skyrocket for a couple more months? Well, I don’t know, someone had better come up with something pretty quick, because I don’t think they’re getting that website fixed in time!</p>
<p>There’s another wrinkle. The right balance of healthy versus sick has to be struck in every state, not just nationally. Makes sense since the insurance is state by state. Some states exchanges could collapse while others could have enough healthy people paying into it to be okay.</p>
<p>Gotta say, on top of college apps, this whole insurance thing is stressing me the heck out!</p>
<p>I dont like that idea calmom. </p>
<p>Lets get the technology fixed and roll. </p>
<p>GP knew he did not have a grandfathered plan. I will testify for Anthem that they told me not to switch out of my grandfathered plan. </p>
<p>Even if more people are allowed on grandfathered plans, what about the pricing? People want grandfathered plans and they want the lower prices. </p>
<p>If you want to allow more people on the grandfathered plans fine. There are going to be fewer people in tbese plans and so the cost of networks that include places like Cedars is going to be very expensive. Fewer people to pay for Cedars means higher costs per person </p>
<p>And grandfathered plans dont have that age limit premium max. So…plans that include Cedars… 1500 a person a month for somebody in their late 50s.</p>
<p>Now you can have your plan, GP.:)</p>
<p>For once I agree with TatinG. Had to happen sometime. 
Different states are going to have different results.</p>
<p>If the Obama administration did make a regulation saying that people like GP could still stay on their plan, they still wouldn’t regulate the price and the insurance company would still be putting GP in the risk pool with everyone else his age. I don’t think you’d like the price under that underwriting scheme, GP.</p>
<p>GP wont like it. His life will be like an episode of the Twilight Zone. </p>
<p>Sooooo many books to read. But GP cant read because he cant see. GPs glasses are broken. :)</p>
<p>Be careful what you wish for… :)</p>
<p>I think Burgess Meredith was the star of that episode.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but it is a statute that really needs to be amended anyway.</p>
<p>[26</a> USC 36B](<a href=“http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/36B]26”>26 U.S. Code § 36B - Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute) now has this language:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This could be changed to:
</p>
<p>The language would have to be tweaked a little to make it clear that it only applies those plans which are eligible on the exchange as well as through direct purchase, and that the <em>advance</em> payments can be made only to enrollees via the exchange. </p>
<p>It might make sense to also add a provision authorizing a person to apply to transfer an exchange-eligible enrollment to the exchange at any time – that would benefit the insurance companies as well, because it would provide continuity of coverage in situations where a subsidy-eligible subscriber was having difficulty keeping up payments.</p>
<p>I don’t think “nationalism” is the word you folks are looking for here. Nationalism is just excessive patriotism. Nationalize is the word you want.</p>