Skip to main content

View Diary: A tale of two 'keep your health insurance' bills (104 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Neither of these bills (7+ / 0-)

    should be considered.

    The ACA can be modified by regulation to address this issue.

    Fucking democrats undermining the law, and having Landrieu's name on anything should be the kiss of death since she is probably the democrat who is furthest to the right on any issue.

    •  Regulation... (0+ / 0-)

      That would be ideal, but I don't see how that could be legal.

      •  Most of the bill (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pistolSO

        has been fleshed out by regulation.

        Laws are fleshed out by regulation.

        That's the way it works.  The ACA doesn't have every detail.  It says how it should be, then the responsible agencies issue regulations in response.

    •  Obama may be forced to cave. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DownstateDemocrat

      ... if the political winds are blowing hard against him. We live in the representative democracy. This could become a devastating talking point at the polls. The Landrieu bill provides some consumer protections.

      •  you think the GOP is operating under the premise (0+ / 0-)

        of a representative democracy?  LOL!

        If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

        by livjack on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 10:04:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Consumer protections for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike

        whom?

        For people who want to mess up the system by keeping junk insurance and putting the bills on us?

        Ensuring that worthless shitty policies can't be canceled?

        Undermining the ACA by skewing the exchanges to older, sicker people?

        The insurance industry will fight this law as well, because it forces them to keep shitty policies in force - policies that they routinely cancel and shift around as people make claims, etc.

        Then people in the exchanges cry foul that others get to pay less (sometimes, not always) for shitty policies that don't require hospitalization, well women care, etc. - so you're creating a two-tiered system within the ACA.

        It's already a multi-tiered system.  Then we'd add some:

        Rich folks who can afford both insurance AND medical care

        Working folks covered by their employers (at varying levels)

        Individual people who had a relatively good policy but were canceled by their carriers and have to buy, and make too much for subsidies.  (Subset of the 5% having their policies canceled - by insurance companies, not by the ACA)

        People in the exchanges paying for real coverage on their own

        People in exchanges paying for real coverage with subsidies

        Poor people, students, etc., paying good money for basically no coverage.  To address that we need to either reduce requirements or assist them into the exchanges.

        landrieu's proposal reduces requirements, adding back a class of people who can continue to get screwed by insurance companies.

        •  Unlike the GOP bill, the Landrieu bill ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pistolSO

          ... honestly allows people to keep the insurance that they like. That's better than pre-PPACA when insurers could cancel policies just because they would like to.

          PPACA's consumer protections are much better. I'll take my new exchange policy over the junk insurance, thank you. However, if political pressure forces a change, the Landrieu bill actually protects customer choice.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site