25 Sep 2014

Breakin’ the Law, Breakin’ the Law, Non-Compliant Health Plan Style

Health Legislation 11 Comments

I came across this in my research on the ACA, just FYI for those of you who buy your own health insurance:

[I]n March 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that, through October 1, 2016, state insurance commissioners could permit health insurers to re-enroll individuals and small businesses in existing plans that do not comply with certain market and benefit rules that took effect in 2014, allowing such coverage to continue through September 2017. That announcement extended an action announced in November 2013 that permitted the renewal of noncompliant policies through October 1, 2014 (extending that coverage through September 2015).

11 Responses to “Breakin’ the Law, Breakin’ the Law, Non-Compliant Health Plan Style”

  1. Major.Freedom says:

    Can’t kill people instantly and successfully deflect blame.

    Must do it Fabian-like, so that the true believers can blame inequality or lack of government guns.

    • John says:

      I don’t understand this comment. Isn’t this an extension of the rule that some (generally inferior) health plans that don’t comply with the ACA will continue to be available for longer than originally planned, because a number of people complained about losing their healthcare plan? Providing healthcare coverage isn’t killing people, is it? I’m not following this argument.

      • Rick Hull says:

        It reiterates the lie that “if you like your health plan you can keep it” and the truth that “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it”, while shattering the myth that Obamacare was well-conceived and deserved passage into legislation despite the opposition of half the country, and also shattering the myth that wise experts like Gruber, Obama, and Sebelius can devise rules that outlaw market offerings in ways that consumers appreciate.

        Let’s not even question how much (if any) of the supposed budget surplus of Obamacare remains after delaying all the difficult and painful bits.

        • Rick Hull says:

          Oops, I didn’t realize you were responding to MF. I would boil down his comment to:

          Politicians seek control over people, citizens and foreigners alike. Control over the nature and length of civilian lives is the ultimate form, so when the most obvious form of this control — e.g. drone strikes at weddings — is unavailable due to blowback at home and abroad, one must exercise subtler forms of life control.

          I don’t find it persuasive.

          • Major.Freedom says:

            “I don’t find it persuasive.”

            Intellectually I don’t find Fabianism persuasive either.

            But the state is gradually growing and has been for many years.

            SOMEONE is finding it persuasive.

          • John says:

            Understood. I get it. But while there is a state, I’m not sure it’s a bad thing to try to get most people insured for healthcare so their lives and their families’ lives aren’t destroyed by an illness, and they don’t go bankrupt. In the short term, that doesn’t seem like the equivalent of killing them to me. But I do get the argument that in the long term it’s a bad idea.

  2. Jason Bonner says:

    Thanks, Bob. This will definitely save me money. Can you provide a specific link or section to the law where you quoted this?

  3. Tel says:

    Legislate broadly, enforce selectively.

Leave a Reply