Article: "Obamacare: The Biggest Insurance Scam in History"

[Luminous Animal]

20. Actually, both my sister-in-law and I have excellent insurance policies and we've both received

cancellation letters. The replacement policies that are available for a comparable price have significantly increased out of pocket costs.

Some people, like me, would like to keep their old insurance policy rather than be forced to buy an inferior product at a higher price. It is those people that the article is addressing.

And yes, indeed it will increase the number of people who have inadequate insurance. That increase in number comes from the millions of people who do not have insurance. That is, they've gone from no insurance at all to being required to purchase the policies that they can afford; i.e., policies with huge out of pocket costs.

How can stating that the no-cap spending provision was granted a waiver be a lie, when in fact waivers have been granted? From Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/13/yet-another-white-house-obamacare-delay-out-of-pocket-caps-waived-until-2015/

Yet Another White House Obamacare Delay: Out-Of-Pocket Caps Waived Until 2015

According to the law, the limits on out-of-pocket costs for 2014 were $6,350 for individual policies and $12,700 for family ones. But in February, the Department of Labor published a little-noticed rule delaying the cap until 2015. The delay was described yesterday by Robert Pear in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?smid=tw-nytimeshealth&seid=auto&_r=1&pagewanted=all&

Personally, I'm not confident that it will the cap will withstand another year of insurance company lobbying and political donations.

You do realize, don't you, that the committee also contains Democratic Senators? And scammers have been reported.

I've read the report and much of it is bullshit but the part that she quoted seems to have highlighted legitimate concerns:

Still, some of the GOP's concerns may be legitimate. Navigators are not required to have a government ID or other documentation proving they are authorized to help enroll people for health coverage, and the government has not yet set up a list of all authorized navigators. Sixteen states have already imposed stricter rules on navigators on their own, including criminal background checks and requirements that these helpers obtain state licenses.

The White House is listening. On Wednesday, the Obama administration announced a new effort to assure Americans that the information they submit when applying for health care is private and secure; White House officials plan to unveil a toll-free telephone number where consumers can report fraud under the new law, and will soon launch an education campaign to warn consumers to be on the lookout for scams.

California, as consumer protection initiative, require finger prints and criminal background checks of its navigators.