Bills in House & Senate would make 'you can keep it' a matter of law

[hooverville29]

In the Senate, the sponsors are Landrieu, now joined by Manchin, both Dems, of course. I hope both bills pass, differences get worked out in conference, and the Prez signs the result, getting this particular ACA issue behind us.

http://news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-push-keep-obamas-health-care-pledge-220513736.html

[JoePhilly]

1. not. happening.

[hooverville29]

2. Because -----------------?

[JoePhilly]

3. wont pass senate, prez would not sign it ...

House would add amendments to totally defund entire law.

Not happening.

[hooverville29]

6. Indications are D+R votes are there in Senate. Prez follows up on apology, and

the 100 House GOP sponsors already signed on include most of those who would offer a defunding amendment. A veto would be political madness after tonight's apology and statement he would work to change things to take care of problem. This law could happen, especially after tonight's apology. These people on the Hill are facing 2014 and they're not *that* stupid. The Prez needs to get this behind him.

[JoePhilly]

8. Reid does not have to bring it to a vote

It's not happening.

[hooverville29]

13. These are Reid's *own people* who are running for re-election, with Dem control

of the Senate at stake. It'll get to a vote.

[JoePhilly]

18. Is that how you think it works? Mary gets to tell Harry which bills he

Brings to the floor?

[hooverville29]

20. It's control of the Senate in 2014 that's at stake. If you think Reid will

throw that away over something Obama just apologized for, then you live on a different planet than most of the rest of us.

There hasn't been the slightest indication from Reid's office that he won't let this come to the floor. Stay tuned in.

[JoePhilly]

30. Now Reids control over the senate is at stake ... unless he ...

Brings a bill to the floor and ensures it passes, so Obama can veto it.

This story is becoming riveting.

[hooverville29]

33. Yep, and that shifts the problem from the Senate Dems to the White House

[JoePhilly]

35. You mean Obama might not get a 3rd term if he vetoes the bill that ...

... th one that's not passing the senate nor the on the crazy House would surely adopt.

[djnicadress]

47. It's control of the Senate in 2014 that's at stake. If you think Reid will

By nov. of next year this won't be a issue

[JaneyVee]

42. Eff Mary Landrieu. She's a DINO.

[Barack_America]

5. The plans people are "losing" are pieces of shit...

...that would send them into medical bankruptcy if they ever needed to use them.

[hooverville29]

9. But it was *their* choice as to what they wanted and could afford. Tonight's apology

was to the people who have those policies. This law could happen.

[Barack_America]

31. People are now required to have health insurance. These policies insured nothing.

Obama was basically apologizing that he has stopped people from being robbed blind.

[hooverville29]

34. It's the deductible levels & premiums for perfectly fine policies that's the killer

[JoePhilly]

38. Yup, and you can hear him say almost exactly that in the interview.

[JaneyVee]

43. You're not coughing up blood little Timmy, you're coughing up FREEDUMB!!!

Half of this country needs a swift kick in the ass for kicking and screaming about being dragged into the 21st century.

[JoePhilly]

10. yea, but FREEDUMB!!!!!!

[kelliekat44]

4. Well let them keep it and see who comes out on the short end of the GOP stick. nt

[Tx4obama]

7. Won't work. Insurance companies cancel various policies every year...

The government can't force an insurance company to sell something they do not want to.

And Obama is not going to sign a bill that lets folks buy 'junk' policies.

[hooverville29]

11. Well, he apologized tonight for saying incorrectly that they could keep them. If he

didn't want them to be able to keep them, why did he apologize for his misstatement in that regard?

[JoePhilly]

14. Hes sorry that the insurers are getting another chance to screw these folks

By canceling crummy plans and blaming the ACA. He should have been more explicit about just how nasty insurance companies can be given half a chance.

[JoePhilly]

12. Exactly. Not happening.

[hooverville29]

16. And. BTW, California Insurance Comm. working out that very thing with BCBS now

[JoePhilly]

39. what ever they work out has to comply withthe ACA

[Half-Century Man]

15. Nope. Obama's poor choice of wording aside.

Kill crap insurance. Have it meet the standard set up in the ACA before it can even be called insurance.

[hooverville29]

19. Right. Let's be sure to play dictator & go down the tubes in 2014

This one is loaded and the Dems on the Hill had better play it right. There is real concern that ACA almost elected Cuccinelli in Virginia, something that otherwise would have seemed unthinkable.

With all the criticism of McCauliffe, there just isn't anything that could account for the late 5% swing to Cuccinelli except Cuccinelli's late emphasis on the ACA. If you want to lose the Senate and have the GOP add to their majority in the House, just keep it up. It's crazy.

[Half-Century Man]

22. No, I have to disagree.

Substandard wares are bad business. Insurance which offers no protection is substandard. Tricking the foolish to pay for what is a basically fancy toilet paper is morally wrong and should not be rewarded. People who offer it should be incarcerated.

[hooverville29]

24. You'd better stay tuned in on this one. It's going the other way

[Half-Century Man]

26. Not without a fight.

I've stared down MIGs and cancer; I have issues with losing.

[hooverville29]

29. And I served in Korea (I'm 84) & have a Purple Heart. Stick to the subject.

[Half-Century Man]

46. I am

I am saying I believe you to be incorrect; this is not a forgone conclusion. I, for my part, will do all I can to thwart the passing of a bill allowing substandard insurance sold as acceptable.

[ProSense]

23. Stop

"This one is loaded and the Dems on the Hill had better play it right. There is real concern that ACA almost elected Cuccinelli in Virginia, something that otherwise would have seemed unthinkable. "

...posting nonsense. Only a fool (and Landrieu plays one sometimes) would push to keep junk policies.

Cuccinelli’s stance on Obamacare was a liability, McAuliffe pollster says

By Greg Sargent

The insta-punditry on the Virginia outcome widely holds that Obamacare was the main reason Ken Cuccinelli came much closer than expected to winning. As Cuccinelli himself put it: “This race came down to the wire because of Obamacare. That message will go out across America.”

But what if Cuccinell’s stance on the health law was actually a liability to him?

That’s what victor Terry McAuliffe’s pollster, Geoff Garin, argued in an interview with me. The McAuliffe campaign tested Cuccinelli’s position and rhetoric on the health law and found it alienated more voters than it attracted...the campaign specifically polled on Cuccinelli’s bragging point as the first attorney general to target the health law, and that it was a loser for him.

“We tested Cuccinelli’s brag that he was the first attorney general to sue to stop Obamacare,” Garin said. “That actually made more voters less likely to support him than more.”

<...>

“A majority disapproved of the Affordable Care Act, but in Virginia, as elsewhere, we found that a lot of these voters want to fix the law,” Garin said. “Cuccinellis’ position on Obamacare actually supported what we were saying about him, which is that he was extreme and supported a national Tea Party agenda.”

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/11/06/cuccinellis-stance-on-obamacare-was-a-liability-mcauliffe-pollster-says/

[hooverville29]

27. All of which explains, of course, how KC closed fast when he really hit the ACA. Facts

are just facts. Cooky Cooch almost won that thing. Are those McCauliffe people you quoted going to say it was their candidate who almost blew it? No -- of course they won't. It was 'something' else.

And those 'polls' they has were the ones having McCauliffe winning much bigger than he did. It was 'something' else. Now, let's see -- what could that be........................

[ProSense]

28. "Cooky Cooch" lost, and only a fool would advocate keeping junk insurance plans. n/t

[hooverville29]

32. Nobody's advocating anything but letting people keep what they have till they want

to change. Let's concentrate on the uninsured. That was what the rhetoric was aimed at when this all started. It's this dictating change among those insured that's one of the negatives that could lose the Hill in 2014 and cause a revamping of ACA that would make it totally unrecognizable.

Let's stick to insurance for the uninsured.

[ProSense]

36. You are

Nobody's advocating anything but letting people keep what they have till they want to change. Let's concentrate on the uninsured. That was what the rhetoric was aimed at when this all started. It's this dictating change among those insured that's one of the negatives that could lose the Hill in 2014 and cause a revamping of ACA that would make it totally unrecognizable.

Let's stick to insurance for the uninsured.

...locked into spin. The law includes a grace period. The insurance companies are the ones screwing with people. The uninsured will be better off, no thanks to the same insurance companies now trying to screw people with junk plans.

Poll: More uninsured view Obamacare favorably

by Joan McCarter

Despite glitches at HealthCare.gov, despite a non-stop onslaught of news stories about cancellation letters and "Obamacare took my insurance away," yet another poll shows that Obamacare isn't losing support but in fact is gaining in popularity. The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll shows a modest gain in overall support for the law, from 44 percent in September to 47 percent in October. But what's significant in that number is where a chunk of support is coming from: the uninsured.

The uninsured view the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, more favorably since online marketplaces opened—44 percent compared with 37 percent in September, according to the Reuters/Ipsos poll. It found that 56 percent oppose the program compared with 63 percent in September.

A higher proportion of the uninsured also said they are interested in buying insurance on the exchanges, with 42 percent in October, saying they were likely to enroll compared with 37 percent in September. The results have a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

"The launch of the exchanges, that's the first real world event for a lot of people," said Chris Jackson, an Ipsos pollster. "There's been this sense that once people got familiar with it, public opinion would start to move in its direction."

The jump in insured not just supporting the law but being interested in enrolling is pretty huge. For months, monthly Kaiser Health Tracking polls have shown that the uninsured just weren't being reached with the information they needed. As recently as September, Kaiser found that just one in eight among the uninsured knew that they could start shopping on October 1, and that 67 percent said they didn't have enough information to know if it would helpful to them. While it's difficult to extrapolate between differing polls, 42 percent expressing real interest in signing up is very encouraging.

If the administration does get HealthCare.gov up and running smoothly by November 30, as promised, and if the 17 million who are eligible for tax credits to help pay for insurance sign up and get those subsidies, expect to see approval numbers continue to climb ever upwards. And expect Republicans to become even more hysterical over the law.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/06/1253569/-Poll-More-uninsured-view-Obamacare-nbsp-favorably

[JoePhilly]

40. other than the libertarian losing about 4% to crazy cooch

[SoCalDem]

17. Landrieu will probably lose (like that odious Blanche Lincoln)

Too bad these weak-kneed dems cannot STFU & ride out the website shit for a little while..

Junk policies cannot be "kept" or it undermines the whole ACA.. Imagine if crib makers were allowed to keep the substandard-cheaper models..or if car makers were allowed to continue to sell "some" cars without seatbelts/airbags..) they would be cheaper)..

A law is a law is a law. ACA has minimum standards..meet them or quit selling insurance.

If you bought a substandard , cheaper crib and YOUR baby did not strangle themselves, you were probably perfectly happy with that crib.....but once new standards were set out, you could no longer buy (at a store) the cheaper-dangerous crib....why would you even want to..

[hooverville29]

21. Decide what others should do all you wish, but this one's not going away

[Half-Century Man]

25. I'll be phone bombing my representation.

Letters to the editor, letters to the Democratic party, Letters to AARP; and that is tonight. Tomorrow I get busy.

[sobenji]

37. I have a thought

any policy that was in force prior to March 2010 was eligible to be grandfathered in as long as there were no material changes made to the policy and I believe that is still the case. The benefits did not have to equal the essential health benefits on policies sold after that day.
My question is do you think that the definition of material change means increased deductible change of network change of co-pay amounts??
If so, don't you think the insurance companies would have had to tell these people that their policy would no longer be grandfathered under the ACA if they made that change? Giving them a chance to not increase their deductible, or switch after 3/10 cutoff and if they did switch, then and as of January 1 they were going to have to move to a new policy if they made any material changes? Bet they didn't tell anyone squat.

[JoePhilly]

41. That would have prevented the insurers from one last chance to screw these folks some more.

[Historic NY]

44. You all can keep it , but you alls gots to find it...

apparently they didn't get that part.....the insurance companies neither can, nor will comply with the law.

[Azathoth]

45. Allowing people to keep junk insurance defeats the entire purpose of the law

This isn't a mistake in the law; it's a fundamental design feature that Obama and Co. simply didn't want to talk about. The entire object is to force everybody -- healthy and sick -- into comprehensive health plans. That's how you diversify the risk and pay for pre-existing conditions and high risk subscribers (and also take the burden off of states' charity care budgets). If you allow people to get away with having junk insurance, then everyone who isn't sick or at risk will simply keep their comical "$50 and a lollipop (real 'murkins don't need hospital care!)" plans leaving only sick folk to enroll in the comprehensive plans, making those plans unsustainable. Meanwhile, the rest of the independent market will remain dangerously underinsured, and this whole frigging thing will be for naught.