Matt Yglesias explains that the cancellation of non-ACA compliant plans is a good thing because the coverage they purported to offer was illusory anyway:
It’s Good That You Can’t Keep Your Insurance Plan
...
Rather than (foolishly) try to ensure that nobody could ever lose their insurance, the actual Affordable Care Act accelerated the demise of a certain class of plan. Politically, that’s now an embarrassment for the White House. Substantively, it’s a huge achievement.
The ACA cracks down on insurance rescission. It was famously difficult on the old market for people with “pre-existing conditions” to get coverage. That’s because insurance companies don’t want to cover people who are actually sick. Even healthy people generally want health insurance coverage because they might get sick. But an insurance company has no desire to actually foot the bill for a seriously ill person’s medical treatment. Hence, in the individual market the standard practice was to earn a profit selling peace of mind to healthy people, only to pivot as quickly as possible toward cancellation of the plan as soon as major bills started coming in. The ACA, rightly, puts a stop to this scam.
Matt links to the California insurance scandals of 2006-2008. The gist - once a person filed a claim for a serious illness, their insurance would be rescinded based on some minor and seemingly irrelevant non-disclosure on their application.
We do not support such behavior. On the other hand, we do support staying current with events. Faced with publicity, lawsuits and changes in California and federal law (i.e., the ACA), California insurers had already changed their behavior by 2010:
Testifying before the committee on behalf of the Dept. of Managed Health Care, Timothy Le Bas, assistant deputy director for the office of enforcement at the DMHC, said the settlements did benefit consumers, and that attention to the practice of improperly rescinded coverage had slowed the pace of rescissions.
In 2005, California insurers rescinded 1,553 policies, but in the last two years have cancelled coverage for fewer than 10 people, he said.
The initial contribution of the ACA can be summarized in one paragraph:
Rescission is permitted only for an act, practice, or omission that constitutes fraud, or an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact. Rescission is not permitted in the case of inadvertent misstatements of fact.
One might have thought that a materiality provision would have always governed rescission, which is yet another helpful reminder that thinking and the law exist in an uneasy alliance.
In any case, solving the rescission problem did not require the 1000 pages of ObamaCare and does not require the disqualification of these cancelled plans.
PILING ON: Ross Douthat is both more exhaustive and more polite but his conclusion matches mine.
Substantively Matt's a brainless douche.
Posted by: Captain Hate on the iPhone | November 13, 2013 at 02:15 PM
I hate to disagree with you, CH, but I have to. You're completely wrong about Yglesias. He's not a "brainless douche."
"Brainless douche" would be a vast improvement over what Yglesias actually is; I'm not sure the English language has any word to adequately define the stupidity and loathsomeness of Matty and his juiceboxer pals.
Posted by: James D. | November 13, 2013 at 02:21 PM
How about Suck UP? Suck Up Iglesias works for me.
Posted by: GMax | November 13, 2013 at 02:24 PM
You forgot mendacious, James D.
Posted by: Beasts of England | November 13, 2013 at 02:25 PM
So I'm being taken to task for going too easy on Matty? I think I can pivot in that direction. Thanks for the feedback.
Posted by: Captain Hate on the iPhone | November 13, 2013 at 02:30 PM
Substantively Matt's a brainless douche.
This made me laugh. And then it got better.
Posted by: Jane-Rebel Alliance1 | November 13, 2013 at 02:31 PM
--Matt links to the California insurance scandals of 2006-2008. The gist - once a person filed a claim for a serious illness, their insurance would be rescinded based on some minor and seemingly irrelevant non-disclosure on their application......In 2005, California insurers rescinded 1,553 policies, but in the last two years have cancelled coverage for fewer than 10 people, he said.--
The crisis and ensuing scandal were unbearable and widespread here in CA. For instance my wife racked up $100,000+ in last two months of 2005.
The atmosphere of rescission and fraud was so overwhelming that over the next three years she totaled another $2-300,000+ through chemo and other meds and procedures without her insurance company making a peep or denying or even contesting a single claim.
Thankfully the crisis passed and they behaved exactly the same the last five years.
Posted by: Ignatz | November 13, 2013 at 02:32 PM
My nephew has brain cancer which requires very expensive medication and care to remain in remission. If he loses his insurance, he'll die unlee some charity helps pay the tab. It's that simple.
Posted by: clarice | November 13, 2013 at 02:41 PM
Tammy Bruce is slattering everybody who says pot is not addictive.
Posted by: Captain Hate on the iPhone | November 13, 2013 at 02:41 PM
Claims such as Yglesias' all overlook that insurance companies have long been regulated by the states, and in many cases, by states that are very blue. Not only were the basic policies regulated, which undercuts the claim that these policies were garbage, but the states also regulated the insurance companies behavior, such as where they were accused of trying to wriggle out of their responsibilities.
Posted by: steve | November 13, 2013 at 02:45 PM
Most pharmaceutical companies have non profits set up which will usually pay for expensive drugs patients or insurance can't or won't cover. In addition there are independently funded non profits which do the same thing.
Posted by: Ignatz | November 13, 2013 at 02:47 PM
Drudge says enrollment figures to be released this afternoon. Why not Friday night?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | November 13, 2013 at 02:49 PM
Maybe Yglesias would be interested to know that Medicare rejects about 6.5% of claims, whereas no private insurer rejects more than 3.4%.
it has long been unlawful in California for an insurer to rescind a policy because the insured got sick.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | November 13, 2013 at 02:59 PM
Note the underlying premise: you just think you like your policy. Stupid you. Matt Yglesias will tell you what you like.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | November 13, 2013 at 03:03 PM
You know NY Post editors love running stories such as this: http://nypost.com/2013/11/13/editor-exodus-continues-at-nyt/
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | November 13, 2013 at 03:03 PM
One of the sweetest aspects of this is that the far left must be furious with the feckless Gaylord Focker for effectively killing any chance for single payer, which was the end game all along. Err make that medium game since the destruction of the country was the end game.
I hope he's ultimately known for setting their agenda back to pre FDR status.
Posted by: Captain Hate on the iPhone | November 13, 2013 at 03:11 PM
Note the underlying premise: you just think you like your policy. Stupid you. Matt Yglesias will tell you what you like.
Yes. This is widespread among the ACApologists and makes me angrier than their actual arguments.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 03:12 PM
Err make that medium game since the destruction of the country was the end game.
Unfortunately I think that last one is still in play.
Posted by: jimmyk | November 13, 2013 at 03:13 PM
This is widespread among the ACApologists
Yep, along with "If those selfish people would all just sign up it would be cheaper than before."
Posted by: jimmyk | November 13, 2013 at 03:15 PM
jimmyk,
Also "It's Republicans'/insurance companies' fault for opposing single payer."
Huh? Insurer CEOs were told to go along if they wanted to keep their nice companies. Republican opposition was obviously fruitless, given that ACA was passed without a single GOP vote.
They couldn't get single payer past other Democrats.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 03:21 PM
3:30 release of Federal Exchange enrollments in Otober
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | November 13, 2013 at 03:23 PM
"Matt Yglesias will tell you what you like."
And, at no extra cost to you, will advise you that presidential fraud and lies are meaningless.
He's actually not even defending the fraud, he's arguing damages.
Posted by: MarkO | November 13, 2013 at 03:24 PM
let's put the over/under at 45,000-- what's your call. 6 minutes.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | November 13, 2013 at 03:24 PM
Schadenfreude alert (especially for DoT):
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/13/angry-house-dems-demand-obamacare-fix-from-white-house-aides-in-heated-meeting/
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 03:25 PM
Angry House Dems demand ObamaCare fix from White House aides in “heated” meeting; Update: “It’s ugly”
Posted by: Extraneus | November 13, 2013 at 03:26 PM
GMTA
Posted by: Extraneus | November 13, 2013 at 03:26 PM
Extraneus, you and I are once again on the same wavelength. :)
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 03:26 PM
I'll take the over because the numbers will also be fraudulent.
Posted by: MarkO | November 13, 2013 at 03:27 PM
NK: in your over/under are you factoring in "plans" still sitting in the shopping basket? I think the numbers are gonna be phoney.
Posted by: centralcal | November 13, 2013 at 03:28 PM
I'll take the over, because they know there's no way to check on them.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | November 13, 2013 at 03:28 PM
Yep, the numbers are going to be massaged past belief.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 03:31 PM
106,185
What is the definition of "signed up?" "Enrolled?" Why would we believe anything they said?
Posted by: MarkO | November 13, 2013 at 03:32 PM
They're already saying 50K on the fed websites and another 50K on the state websites. That's supposedly not counting the numbers in shopping baskets. I think they're going to claim over 300K.
Who knows how much of that is Medicaid sign ups - let's hope some reporter will think to ask.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 03:33 PM
In the great wave of Schadenfreude that has engulfed me, I nearly forgot one little detail that is especially pleasant.
Remember back when the GOP had just caved on the shutdown and the polls were showing it to be in disfavor (and before this mammoth fiasco began), E.J. "Baghdad Bob" Dionne wrote an insufferably smug column telling Republicans what they needed to do going forward?
I wonder if he'll be so helpful to the Dems now.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | November 13, 2013 at 03:35 PM
Ooops. Only 27,000 actually enrolled.
Posted by: MarkO | November 13, 2013 at 03:35 PM
Douthat rebuts Yglesias - utterly, I think.
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/does-individual-insurance-work/?_r=0
Posted by: AliceH | November 13, 2013 at 03:37 PM
Boy-- you people are quick thinkers, remind to never play poker with any of you.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | November 13, 2013 at 03:37 PM
Boehner is the illegitimate son of Tommy Newsom.
Posted by: MarkO | November 13, 2013 at 03:38 PM
106,387. Nearly a million went through the process but didn't enroll.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | November 13, 2013 at 03:39 PM
Hahhaa, today I love being wrong.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 03:39 PM
By the way, no one has paid for a plan yet. There is no binding insurance. No policies issued.
Posted by: MarkO | November 13, 2013 at 03:40 PM
Right on the money, about 107K total for both fed and state exchanges.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 03:41 PM
Why would we believe anything they said?
Good question. All the other numbers - unemployment, monthly job creation, quarterly GDP, inflation - are lies. Why should this be any different?
Posted by: James D. | November 13, 2013 at 03:42 PM
The numbers must be decreasing daily since they released them early.
Posted by: Jane-Rebel Alliance1 | November 13, 2013 at 03:43 PM
Who knows how much of that is Medicaid sign ups - let's hope some reporter will think to ask.
Chortle.
Posted by: lyle | November 13, 2013 at 03:45 PM
Hahaha. And 400,000 new Medicaid users. Chew on that ratio, Obama cheerleaders.
Posted by: (A) nuther Bub | November 13, 2013 at 03:45 PM
E.J. "Baghdad Bob" Dionne wrote an insufferably smug column telling Republicans what they needed to do going forward?
Yep. That was a depressing time, but I knew it was not going to work out like the critics said about the Cruz/defund strategy. Obamacare is just too awful. It dwarfs everything. And it's just beginning.
It's going to be the most giant I-told-you-so in political history.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 03:45 PM
I know, lyle, but they are actually asking real questions these days...thank goodness. At any rate they did break down the Medicaid signups.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 03:46 PM
Um, does this number still include medicaid?
Posted by: Ignatz | November 13, 2013 at 03:47 PM
WSJ has MarkO's 27,000 number.
Posted by: Old Lurker | November 13, 2013 at 03:48 PM
Never mind.
Posted by: Ignatz | November 13, 2013 at 03:48 PM
Iggy,
They're saying (rounded figures):
Fed website: 27K
State websites: 80K
Medicaid: 396K
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 03:48 PM
A 30:1 ratio of cancelled plans to new enrollees?
Progress!
Posted by: Beasts of England | November 13, 2013 at 03:50 PM
I think I have figured out one of the features of TyphusPad. If you leave your computer on the website page while you go out and about doing other things for a sustained period of time, come back and start posting without either exiting the browser and reopening then going to the last page and post - it won't.
Anyone else notice that?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | November 13, 2013 at 03:50 PM
So does the 107K count people who still have plans in their shopping cart?
How many have paid for anything?
How many are actually confirmed enrolled on the insurer end?
We will probably never know the answers.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 03:53 PM
Issa asked Todd Park a great question today about his (Park's) experiences with eBay or Amazon: If you put an item in a shopping cart but have yet to pay for it do you consider that a "purchase".
Park: No!
Obama is so far out of his element now he is likely to become a 2 pack a day kind of guy.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | November 13, 2013 at 03:53 PM
The funny thing is the news site with the least information is Foxnews.com which has only the 106,000 distraction number.
Shep must be on hurricane duty somewhere.
Posted by: Old Lurker | November 13, 2013 at 03:53 PM
This just in to Twitter:
Brit Hume @brithume
These "enrollment" #s released by HHS means people who've put a plan in their website shopping cart, not people who've actually bought one.
Posted by: MarkO | November 13, 2013 at 03:54 PM
From Ted Cruz:
106,185 people enrolled in Obamacare.
108,713 attended the 2010 NBA All-Star Game in Cowboys Stadium.
Posted by: Jane-Rebel Alliance1 | November 13, 2013 at 03:56 PM
Love it, Jane!
Posted by: Beasts of England | November 13, 2013 at 03:59 PM
Thanks MarkO.
And even of the people who did complete a purchase on the site, we don't know how many were successfully processed by the insurers. Insurers have been reporting back end problems with bad/incomplete data all along.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 04:02 PM
There are no binding policies nor can there be any until December. This is all fluff. It's like a lulling letter in securities fraud.
Posted by: MarkO | November 13, 2013 at 04:16 PM
I was born 60 years too soon...From the Daily Caller : "Should Disability Law Force a College to Wave Required Math Class ?" :)
Posted by: BB Key | November 13, 2013 at 04:22 PM
Issa asked Todd Park a great question today about his (Park's) experiences with eBay or Amazon: If you put an item in a shopping cart but have yet to pay for it do you consider that a "purchase".
I believe that was Chaffetz but it was still a great question.
Posted by: lyle | November 13, 2013 at 04:26 PM
"Shut up, Jane, you ignorant slut!"
Posted by: Dan | November 13, 2013 at 04:30 PM
122,043 Alaskans voted for Obama in the 2012 Presidential election.
120,975 Hawaiians voted for Romney in the 2012 Presidential election.
122,388 people voted for Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party in the 2012 Presidential election.
110,344 people voted for either Rosanne Barr or Rocky Anderson in the 2012 Presidential election.
146,084 people voted for Libertarian Robert Sarvis in the 2013 Virginia Gubernatorial election.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | November 13, 2013 at 04:31 PM
I believe that was Chaffetz but it was still a great question.
Not to toot my own horn, but I asked that very question here a couple of days ago.
Posted by: jimmyk | November 13, 2013 at 04:31 PM
27,000 enrolled in the Federal exchange. <45,000. What a bunch of F-ups they are. But 300,000 newbies in Medicaid. So we can start paying for that.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | November 13, 2013 at 04:33 PM
BBKey:
Having worked with students with disabilities, they can test into an appropriate college class. My son did and successfully completed it.He also passed the GED math test. With time and effort colleges can provide an adequate course. What's next? no science requirementThe really revealing number here is the 27,000 one. For a month throughout numerous states -this is the best they could do.
The Medicaid number is revealing. This and only this is how they should have taken care of the un-insured. The rest is an unfair burden. Give states money to start their own systems and allow for tort reform and interstate insurance. Steph's ideas are also excellent. This administration sucks at everything!
Posted by: maryrose | November 13, 2013 at 04:35 PM
Go ahead and toot your horn, jimmyk. I now do remember you posing it.
Posted by: lyle | November 13, 2013 at 04:36 PM
161,797 people voted for Cynthia McKinney in the 2008 Presidential election.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | November 13, 2013 at 04:36 PM
That's just alarming, hit.
Posted by: lyle | November 13, 2013 at 04:37 PM
also wave should be waive. There is also the concept of credit by examination. I had kids take the Ohio Math Proficiency test 4 or 5 times before they got the required 200 score. Sometimes a student would get 198 or 195. Persistance paid off. When one student finally passed we all cried.
Posted by: maryrose | November 13, 2013 at 04:39 PM
Fewer than 27,000 enrolled in the federal exchange....
33,212 people voted for Buddy Roemer in the 2012 Republican Presidential primary.
27,788 New Mexicans voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson in the 2012 Presidential election.
30,222 people from Obama's home state of Illinois voted for Green Party candidate Jill Stein in the 2012 Presidential election
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | November 13, 2013 at 04:42 PM
Yglesias despite his Dalton and Harvard education, is nearly as dense as William Atherton's character, from my attempts at dialog with him, 'a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away' Douthat was a little more understanding at his Atlantic blog, but there was a nasty nazgul
in the comments section,
Posted by: narciso | November 13, 2013 at 04:44 PM
How did the 15 states do individually to get to the 80,000 number?
Posted by: maryrose | November 13, 2013 at 04:45 PM
Susan Collins tweets:
I think we’re going to find that the problems with the website are the least of the problems with the Affordable Care Act.
The dim bulbs begin to flicker with life.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 04:45 PM
maryrose, I saw this in comment at HotAir but haven't found the link yet:
Top 5 exchanges (ranking by #aca enrollees):
1) CA 35k
2) feds 27k
3) NY 16k
4) WA 7k
5) KY! 5.6k—
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 04:47 PM
<27,000 in the Federal Exchanges. The 15 state exchanges get 3Xs as many. Did Sebelius go all Bushido and commit Seppuku at the podium?
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | November 13, 2013 at 04:48 PM
Those statistics are meaningless. You bozos couldn't be anymore irrelevant.
Posted by: Dan | November 13, 2013 at 04:50 PM
From NRCC Twitter (I hope it works!):
Posted by: AliceH | November 13, 2013 at 04:51 PM
Fodder!
51K from CA and NY.
67,326 people voted for Rosanne Barr in the 2012 Presidential election.
83,173 people voted for Jon Huntsman in the 2012 Republican Presidential primary.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | November 13, 2013 at 04:51 PM
A year ago, Obama was in the middle of his post-election victory lap and barrels of MSM ink were being spilled on how great his second term would be.
What a difference a year makes.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 04:53 PM
NRCC Tweet-- OK you Repub haters, you must appreciate that "Death Star" tweet. Hysterical, IowaHawk worthy.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | November 13, 2013 at 04:54 PM
161,797 people voted for Cynthia McKinney in the 2008 Presidential election.
Posted by: hit and run | November 13, 2013 at 04:36 PM
That's just alarming, hit.
Yes, because if that many succeeded, it probably means that three times that many tried but couldn't figure out how to use the machines.
Posted by: jimmyk | November 13, 2013 at 04:54 PM
I'd bet that most of the enrollees in the federal exchange came from the Roseanne Barr voter contingent.
Posted by: (A) nuther Bub | November 13, 2013 at 04:55 PM
***
The dim bulbs begin to flicker with life.
Posted by: Porchlight ***
Yeah, if she said that, I'm hopeful that the GOP doesn't form a gang to ride to the rescue. Saw the other day someone wishcasting that the GOP would come along and help fit it.
Did they happen to release how many polices have been canceled?
Posted by: rich@gmu | November 13, 2013 at 04:55 PM
Porch:
You said it. Remember how the entire paradigm was supposed to have shifted in the dems favor and the repubs were supposed to be lost in the wilderness? Ah comeuppance, it tastes so sweet!
Posted by: maryrose | November 13, 2013 at 04:57 PM
It must be like when she spared an errant moose, and regretted it;
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/im-a-proud-hobbit-sarah-palin-takes-a-swing-at-fmr-running-mate-john-mccain/
Posted by: narciso | November 13, 2013 at 04:57 PM
jimmyk,
We have more lurkers from DC (both parties) than you can imagine. That is why your Amazon question got usurped. I happen to know a former interface on the E&C committee who became a close friend when I was there who wrote me and asked if I was JIB before I ever LUNed my website.
Even the CIA and NSA are here and I want to say hi and thanks for all you do to keep our country safe.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | November 13, 2013 at 04:58 PM
barrels of MSM ink were being spilled on how great his second term would be.
Notwithstanding the last 50+ years in which every 2nd term--even Reagan's, though that was exaggerated--has been problematic at best: Nixon resigned, Clinton got impeached, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Bush got bogged down in Iraq. The MSM were just blinded by their infatuation.
Posted by: jimmyk | November 13, 2013 at 04:59 PM
Boehner was talking about a legislative fix today, rich. However, I kinda think it's not going to work out:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/13/angry-house-dems-demand-obamacare-fix-from-white-house-aides-in-heated-meeting/
So if Boehner knows it's doomed, it's not so bad to bring it up. Then you can say "hey we tried...you guys slapped us down again."
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 04:59 PM
JiB, really I think it was a fairly obvious question. In fact, now and then when I think I come up with something clever and google it, someone else has usually already tweeted it somewhere. So now I don't pre-google anything. :)
Posted by: jimmyk | November 13, 2013 at 05:02 PM
Speaking of McCain, he's getting all butch about border security with JEF's new DHS nominee. Too bad he doesn't believe in any of it, the nattering old fool.
http://nationalreview.com/corner/363871/mccain-tears-homeland-security-nominee-oversight-issues-alec-torres
Posted by: lyle | November 13, 2013 at 05:02 PM
Apparently even thoughts along these lines, are crimethink
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/13/208436/cbs-opens-journalistic-review.html
Posted by: narciso | November 13, 2013 at 05:04 PM
"Speaking of McCain"
Let's not.
Posted by: Old Lurker | November 13, 2013 at 05:06 PM
27,000 people is roughly equivalent to the number of Americans that have been born . . . since Monday.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | November 13, 2013 at 05:06 PM
jimmyk,
It's looking like O's second term is charting like W's:
And W had all the media against him. Obama has most of the media cheerleading for him.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 13, 2013 at 05:08 PM
jimmyk,
They don't have that much time to come up wtih those questions. They have staff and that staff goes out finding the most "intellectual" of blogs and use them. Ask our friend in Chicago about that.
Ain't it something that the idiot ex-small town mayor in Alaska has been right on just about every policy issue coming out of DC in the last 5 years? Its almost as if Thomas Sowell or Dr.K are whispering in her ear every day.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | November 13, 2013 at 05:08 PM
Btw, there was a hearing on the subject of Benghazi somewhere, no,
Meanwhile, Sen. Levin, we remember him, apparently is too verklempt that any of Bialystok and Bloom's road show, display their work
Posted by: narciso | November 13, 2013 at 05:08 PM