<p>dstark: we don’t need no stinking badges 
</p>
<p>I like that line. I do like that movie.</p>
<p>Utah is a cold place. Texas is warmer. :D</p>
<p>" Also, a program aimed at covering financial losses for insurers will be adjusted to help ensure it doesn’t cost taxpayers"</p>
<p>It is a major question mark since insurance companies keep throwing up losses whenever the administration wants to adjust the plan with some level of political calculation more than any real issue they are solving. I see no effective way to implement this extension if it is based on sheer will of insurance companies to keep having these plans open while trying to figure out whether the ACA plans are viable in terms of their premium pricing. I don’t think the insurance companies care. Does anyone see this extension differently?</p>
<p>I know people are fixated on defense vs offense on this thread. ACA is the current law and I have not seen a single story out there with a real baseline on how it can or will be repealed other than people claiming that they will do so in order to get nominated in the primaries. So the expectation to discuss that will be treated the same way as the expectation to discuss single payer. </p>
<p>We should all consider what is going on logically and discuss the ramifications. It is important to discuss what is going on with the implementation using news stories, positive or negative but not as way to support or detract but more for the sake of discussion. I am guessing we are using the Lincoln Douglas debate method in the written form since the stories are being shown as valid or invalid by others on the thread. None of us can change the law and so I see no reason for the acrimony amongst us.</p>
<p>Re risk corridors: In Flossy’s links, for now, the nay side was appeased by $ projections.</p>
<p>* not as way to support or detract but more for the sake of discussion* Yes. I think the acrimony (as one who is “up to here”) comes from the need to constantly rebut. The learning doesn’t grow. This is just a comment: I pointed this out before and it still holds: all of us called cheerleaders (a useless gauntlet throwing,) have noted some issues with this new healthcare situation-- and oddly, those aren’t picked up on and pursued. Just the same cycle of disputable links. </p>
<p>Personally, I wonder if the new extensions are a matter of particular “other” priorities being dealt with first. </p>
<p>dstark - I heard the IT salaries are ridiculous in Park City, so much so that people are planning to retire at 50… I only have a sample of 1 though.</p>
<p>There are a lot of the political parties trying to win a political game with ACA posts and opinion pieces etc.</p>
<p>These decisions affect real people. Just saying… </p>
<p>The deficit is going to drop approximately 150 billion this year. Look at ACA’s impact on the budget.</p>
<p>The extension. I am against it. It is being used to shut people like GP up.
Of course, it is a little bizarre to blast Obama for extending and then cheering
that a lawsuit is filed to force the extension of policies. Wouldnt you agree, texaspg? </p>
<p>The cost of the extension… Across the
country my guess is the cost of the extension is going to be around 3-7.5% more in premiums. Plus, because of the deductibles, maybe a tiny bit more. ( this doesnt include the effect of the risk corridors). </p>
<p>That is if all 1.5 million extend and the extensions dont have large premium increases. </p>
<p>And the premium increases are disproportional. The states that extend can see bigger increases while the states that dont are going to see little to no increases in premiums. This Depends. If the govt charges each policy a little more money, the premium increases can be small. </p>
<p>If each policy had an additional charge, maybe $30-40 a year, the problem is covered. </p>
<p>Over time, as there are fewer extensions, this issue will go away.</p>
<p>The risk corridors should come into play and cut or eliminate the potential problems. There may be little need for increases in premiums. We will see.</p>
<p>These are ballpark numbers. They are close enough. </p>
<p>Some people like to ski. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think the insurance companies want those plans to remain open. Their subscribers want the plans (though they might change their minds when they see the premiums hiked) but the insurance companies would be better off if all the non-conforming plans were cancelled.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This comment was, I think, from the Businessweek article. But what can it mean? HHS has wide latitude in regulating, but not wide enough for HHS to tell insurers they’re not going to be made whole in the way the statute requires.</p>
<p>I was talking to somebody that works for a hospital chain. I am not going to say which one because the conversation was off the record . This is just an anecdote. They are seeing a lot more
people that are sick or disabled this year. They are happy to see these people because they are making a difference. They are helping people that were not getting help. </p>
<p>Lives are improving.
But… They want to see more healthy people sign up. </p>
<p>I am no lawyer but my guess is that the only lawsuit with some power is that administration is making changes without the legislative body’s approval if some congressmen filed it. Lawsuits based on promises don’t usually get traction. </p>
<p>“It is being used to shut people like GP up.” I disagree with this. All one needs to do is read who they are giving credit to for pushing the extension through so they can go home and claim that they fought for the people. The people themselves won’t see much out of it because insurance companies will barely make an effort next year to keep any of them alive since there is no legal requirement or standing to do so. I would like to see a different prediction on this with some supporting evidence. </p>
<p>Edit : sounds like CF agrees with me. I need to change my position!</p>
<p>For the record - I am opposed to any and all postponements in implementing ACA. It’s bad policy and bad politics. </p>
<p>“dstark - I heard the IT salaries are ridiculous in Park City, so much so that people are planning to retire at 50… I only have a sample of 1 though.”</p>
<p>Lol…</p>
<p>Well… I just gave a sample of 1. :)</p>
<p>My sample is more interesting though! It was an anecdote from a parent who is still working for a living in 70s whose kid wants to retire soon at 50. :D</p>
<p>A few pages back, GP linked to a state legislator who is suing Covered California for having the insurance companies cancel the non-conforming policies. I don’t see how the suit will go anywhere, because I don’t see how the dude has any standing to bring it. The insurance companies would have had standing, but the insurance companies were perfectly happy to cancel the plans and did not choose to sue.</p>
<p>I like that anecdote. I like it even more now.</p>
<p>Ok…nevermind… </p>
<p>Shutting people up and taking credit are not mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>Ok…I think I see what you are asking texaspg.</p>
<p>Think about it. President Obama would not extend policies if he thought it would jeopardize the viability of ACA.</p>
<p>I am assuming the non-compliant plans have been officially extended for two more years. I see no legal standing for it other than the admin saying we will look the other way if you offer it. </p>
<p>The prediction is whether insurance companies, being the good citizens they are, will keep the non-compliant plans open for next two years and there will be a large percentage of people enrolled in those plans in the individual market for two more years (granted it is not possible at least in NY and CA).</p>
<p>Well… 1.5 million people out of 20+million peoole are noncompliant according to CBO. Dont know how many people with individual insurance exist in states that allow noncompliant plans. 10 million? 1.5 million out of 10 million? 30 to 60 percent of plans historically dont last more than a year. Insurance companies dont like these plans. </p>
<p>Texaspg, what is your prediction?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A Northwestern Law professor wrote an OpEd recently which said that even Congress cannot bring a suit, since even they don’t have legal standing. (Interesting Constitutional point.) They ONLY thing Congress could do is to charge the Prez with failure to carry out his Constitutional duties (of implementing law) and start an impeachment process. </p>
<p>If I get time, I’ll see if I can find it.</p>
<p>NYT, this week: “Insurers sent out perhaps 4.5 million cancellation notices last fall, but some of the policyholders have bought new coverage that complies with the law. Administration officials said that the number of people with noncompliant policies would shrink by attrition in the next two years.”</p>
<p>Maybe I’ve been watching too much House of Cards, but I’m wondering if the lack of fear in the latest extensions is based on assurances the insurers will seek to diminish the numbers of non-compliants on the books. “…said the move confirmed their contention that parts of the health care law were ill conceived and unworkable.” BUT the quotes came from only two prominent naysayers.</p>
<p>This is easy.</p>
<p>LF is right. Plus, many states are not allowing the change, anyway. But., it does give politicians a talking point. Although, it doesn’t actually do much of anything. </p>
<p>Most of this law is now on hold until after 2016. </p>