My father in law, had a saying I refer to every time, I have a big decision. Dont know where he got it, but I have used it frequently to guide my thinking.

He said, when it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary to NOT make a decision.

What this means for those of us facing insurance changes either on an individual plan, or through an employer, is that we find out, when the last possible day is, for us to decide, to either change or keep our current plan, at whatever cost, and make the decison then.

I have heard thar Obamacare is such a disaster, that is is entirely possible that what you are allowed to do may change several times between now and the end of the year. I have also heard, that a grandfathering of current policies for an addition two months at least is in the works.

Wait and see what shakes out. It makes no sense to do anything preemptively in this situation.

If I am not mistaken, you can buy insurance through the California exchange, or you can shop around and see what is available directly from companies doing business in California. If I liked the doctors I was dealing with now, I would definitely be calling their office(es) and asking what they will be accepting come January 1. Then you need to do a cost matrix that tells you how many times a year you need to see each doctor, and what you out of pocket costs will be for office visits and drugs.

At least then, you will be making an informed decision.

I have also heard, that a grandfathering of current policies for an addition two months at least is in the works.

And how is that going to work exactly? Even assuming congress grants a waiver we still have a few problems

1. Are the insurance companies even going to bother offering these plans given they may no longer be affordable?
2. if insurance companies do not reinstate these plans will the said waiver FORCE businesses to operate at a loss
3. Is such a waiver even legal as the ACA is not a law but a TAX and such a waiver would violate Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 of the constitution.

We already saw what Justice Roberts thinks of the Constitution.

The Feds can't force insurance companies to re-offer plans that have been cancelled. The Landrieu- Feinstein bill authorizing just that "solution" is ineffective and silly. That's because health plans were formerly approved and crafted by State Insurance Boards, all of which would have to get back into the business they were in before Oct 1 with the Feds co-ordinating with all 50 states. There is not enough time for all that.

Comrade Nick,

The Feds can't force insurance companies

How foolish to assume. The glourious collective can do what it wants. The survival of the collective is more important than the individual. As Commissar Hillary said, "it takes a collective to raise a child".

Current Truth on October 31, 2013, was that President Obama did NOT "mislead" Americans by saying, "If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it, period, and if you like your doctor, you can keep him, period" because smart people know that beginning a sentence with "If" means that what follows is hypothetical rather than a description of an actuality. Thus, a hypothetical statement cannot be deemed "true" or "false" because it does not purport to be a description of an actuality. Indeed, I, your Humble Minister of Truth, gave Obama an "Attaboy" for his deft response to people foolishly implying his hypothetical statement comprised what Obama knew to be an untrue description of an actuality (i.e., a lie).

Similarly, people intellectually capable of understanding Progressivism have no difficulty understanding that the Current Truth on November 11, 2013, was that President Obama did NOT contradict himself in contending that BIG INSURANCE (rather than Obama) had broken what some fools among the public ignorantly interpreted as a promise by Obama in the form of a statement of an actuality -- i.e., you actually like it, you actually keep it. And intellectually adroit Progressives know that the way in which BIG INSURANCE broke Obama's promise was the cancellaton of insurance policies merely because they comprised the types of policies which the IRS would interpret as being contrary to the requirements of ObamaCare.

It's true that some syntactical purists would claim that to be completely hypothetical, Obama should have said, "If you were to like your plan, you could keep it, period, and if you were to like your doctor, you could keep him, period," which means that he was describing whatever plan would become "your" plan on the effective date of ObamaCare, which means that if you were to like the plan specified for you by ObamaCare you could "keep" it and if you were to like the doctor designated for you by ObamaCare, you could keep him."

Of course, there are bound to be fools who will then ask, "What if you don't like the plan or doctor specified for you by ObamaCare? Can you choose NOT to 'keep' it?" If people who asks such questions were not fools, they would already know the answer: If you were to dislike the plan or doctor selected for you by ObamaCare, you can choose not to keep it or him and thereby have no health-care or doctor at all, in which case you will merely lose $95 per year when the IRS deducts such amount from your income-tax refund (unless, of course, you earn more than $45,000, in which case your fine will be 1% of your income with the percentage increasing steeply according to higher levels of income so that doctors and plans liked by people who like ObamaCare can be paid).

Most important, we know that as soon as the present fury subsides, the LIVs will forget about all this. Hillary has taught us this well by her adroit question: "What difference at this point does it make?" After months of occasionally hearing her question, LIVs will soon be asking themselves "What difference does what make?" That is the point in time when the Current Truth eclipses the formerly Current Truth.

--Minister of Truth

I'm totally on board with Stinky's rant. But back to business... I wrote here last week of a friend who was trying to start a small business. Her insurance policy was cancelled as of last Friday, and she's now desperately trying to find a job so she can get coverage.

Amy, I guess the first bit of info needed is: when will your Kaiser policy go up? Keeping in mind what Isab said, that will determine what your D-day is, minus however long it will take to sign up for another plan and have coverage go into effect. Right now, with Obamacare, unfortunately we don't know what that timeframe is. If you haven't done it already, you might want to at least work through the income-determining process and see how it comes out as far as being eligible for the subsidy. (I know, I know... but right now them's the rules, and as long as it's there, take advantage of it.) Maybe in the interim you could also start investigating concierge plans, which would go at least part way although they generally are of limited help in a catastrophic situation.

If worst comes to worst, is there some way you can claim residence in another state?

Another problem, one we have, is people who's carrier have left their state. Our new premiums have tripled, and our deductible went from $2,500 to 12,000(!). We're looking at $20,000 out-of-pocket before insurance pays a dime. No matter what congress or the WH does, our old policy is gone, the carrier is no longer licensed in our state for the individual market.

Amy, if you still need the code for that LDL particle test, I can probably get you that.

This could be the ticket some insurance companies are looking for. The reason to cancel those plans from which they don't make much money on or possibly even lose a little money on. There's no reason to believe that once a person's plan has been cancelled or changed that they'll be able to get them back.

Ever try to get back on a cell phone plan you previously had with unlimited data? "I was just on that plan" "you were, but you changed something, it's no longer available" "but i was just on that plan..."

Amy, I'll send you an email later today. Can't get to it from work.

If Obamacare craters, hardly anyone will be able to get affordable health insurance, and we'll have no choice but to go to full-on socialized medicine. The cynic in me says that was the plan all along, but then I remember Napoleon's dictum: "Never axcribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

"I liked the spirit of what former pres Bill Clinton said... But come on -- what silliness. The horse is out of the barn." - Amy Alkon

YES! That's exactly what I thought when I heard that. Those insurance companies have known for years that they were going to have to cancel a lot of those policies. They're not about to spend the next six weeks scrambling to get all those subscribers to come back if the law is suddenly changed.

I totally get that you're upset that insurance companies are required to pay for "post-menopausal women to have maternity and prenatal care covered," since that cost will be passed on to you. Except that since it's extremely unlikely that post-menopausal women will need any maternity care, then it doesn't cost the insurance companies anything to cover it, because insurance only pay for covered things when they happen. If you're covered for brain cancer, the insurance company only has to pay anything if you get brain cancer. Therefore, there are no costs to be passed on to you.

Obamacare “coverage gap” will leave nearly 5 million poor Americans without health care:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/08/the-obamacare-question-pastors-shun/?hpt=us_bn3

but then I remember Napoleon's dictum: "Never axcribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

I'd say the inverse is equally as apt.

clinky, do you have any idea how the ACA functions? Cause based on you post I'd guess you have no clue what so ever

Post-menopausal woman AND her 26 year-old daughter, who she had at 42.

clinky's point reminds me of how everything under the sun is an excuse to raise gas prices at the pump. "We had to replace a fitting at a refinery in Texas." But my fuel comes from Martinez....

Obamacare “coverage gap” will leave nearly 5 million poor Americans without health care

I'm sorry, but let's be clear. Those 5 million will be without health insurance. Not health care. They can still pay out of pocket for routine care, or abuse EMTALA and only go to the emergency room for any care issues they may have.

"Those 5 million will be without health insurance. Not health care."

Ah. Good point.

The poor Obama promised to save aren't fucked, they're only put in the position of screwing their neighboring taxpayers!

The brilliance of this plan continues to dazzle.

If Obamacare craters, hardly anyone will be able to get affordable health insurance, and we'll have no choice but to go to full-on socialized medicine. The cynic in me says that was the plan all along, but then I remember Napoleon's dictum: "Never axcribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
Posted by: Rex Little at November 13, 2013 8:14 AM

Obamacare has already cratered. But I don't see any path from this to socialized medicine. The votes are not there. The democrats shot their wad, on the last messy go round.

The only thing that will survive in my opinion, is the medicaid expansion, in the states that opted to do it, and again, insurance does not equal medical care.

After months of occasionally hearing her question, LIVs will soon be asking themselves "What difference does what make?"

Well, when they get the bill for the cable, internet, rent and health care all in the same week, and watch all that money run away from them, and realize their balance sheet is getting progressively smaller, then they will understand what difference it makes.

Of course, the smarter ones will understand that the $95 "tax" (or 1% of their income, which ever is larger) will be cheaper to pay because they can't be denied coverage down the road. And that leads to the "death spiral" as this ponzi scheme requires the young and healthy to subsidize the older and unhealthy. If they don't buy in at the ground level, it will never get off the ground.

As it were.

What do you think the deductible really does?

What do you think the deductible really does?

It really keeps you from collecting from the Plan for the majority of your expenses, unless you are part of the group/demographic favored by the Plan.

Thus, you pay - for nothing.

Again, here's the solution.

Post-menopausal woman AND her 26 year-old daughter, who she had at 42. -- smurfy at November 13, 2013 10:33 AM

I just had a 40+ co-worker have a cesarean this past Saturday. She is about the fifth 40 + that I know of to have a child, if that many. That is with over 40 years on the planet.

So if you look at the stats, like this chart it is relatively low at 40, a 5% chance at 45 and pretty much won't happen at 50+.

So forcing a 68 year old to pay for maternity care is totally senseless. I.e. how much common sense does it take to realize that the anomaly will prove the theory.

I don't see how Obamacare in it's current incarnation can survive. The gross incompetence is off the scale, even for government. It really seems like a plan to destroy the insurance market as we know it and bring in a single payer system. The miscalculation appears to be the uproar and the inability to blame the republicans.
I would keep what you have with Kaiser. You coukx be worse off if it goes on current path.

Well, the rumors going around today is that Obama is going to delay the new requirements for policies for a year (by issuing a waiver, dontcha know). That's no help to anyone who has alreay had their policies cancelled, but maybe you can hang on to your Kaiser plan for a while yet.

Well, the rumors going around today is that Obama is going to delay the new requirements for policies for a year… -- Cousin Dave at November 14, 2013 11:54 AM

How is that legal in the first place?

Secondly, we are less than 40 legislative days to the end of the year. The state insurance boards would have to re-approve 30+ pages of a policy per each one in that time.

How do you think that will work?

"How is that legal in the first place?"

Legal? LEGAL? Don't talk about legal!

In regard to the second bit: I saw yesterday where the states of Washington and Arkansas say that they are going to stick with the plan of enforcing the Obamacare mandates at the start of 2014, whether the federal govenrment delays them or not. (Oh, now they go all states' rights on us!) So yeah, your point is made that the worms are unlikely to be re-canned. My friend whose policy was cancelled isn't getting it back, regarless of what Obama does.

If you owned an insurance company would you trust Obama's word on the fact that his admin WONT prosecute you for knowingly and willfully disobeying the law?

Has he kept his word on anything yet?

Cousin Dave is correct. You cant unring the bell, and the insurance companies have to do what their state tell them to do, not what Obama and the feds want them to do.

The companies cant reinstate those policies anyway. Their pricing for insurance on the exchange for the coming year depends on overcharging the healthy to subsidize the unhealthy.
If they reinstate the old policies, they would have to stop selling policies at all on the exchanges. I dont think the feds will let them do that, so the old policies have to go.
I predict a death spiral anyway. The exchange is working in Colorado, but no one is buying other than the very sick.

And if you had an individual policy, and are healthy, you might be better off going bare, and taking your chances with paying your doctor and negotiating a cash price for any needed treatment.

Obama had no authority to suspend enforcement for a year, the feds are not the enforcer, the states are.

I think a lot of dems thought the US economy was to big, and too diversified to be "broken"

I think they are getting ready to find out that they were wrong.

Megan McArdle has a very good post on how the indicia of doom emanating from Obamacare make it more likely to actually be doomed because everyone is scared to sign up.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-19/wishful-thinking-can-t-hold-obamacare-together.html

My plan was grandfathered and I see no reason not to renew it (even if it costs more) until it's certain that the Obamacare policies work, including that they pay off. I think that means I'm unlikely to make the March 31st deadline! But I think I will have lots of company.