Yet ANOTHER BIG Obamacare Delay for Consumers

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
A Limit on Consumer Costs Is Delayed in Health Care Law

WASHINGTON — In another setback for President Obama’s health care initiative, the administration has delayed until 2015 a significant consumer protection in the law that limits how much people may have to spend on their own health care.

The limit on out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and co-payments, was not supposed to exceed $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family. But under a little-noticed ruling, federal officials have granted a one-year grace period to some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits, or no limit at all on some costs, in 2014.

The grace period has been outlined on the Labor Department’s Web site since February, but was obscured in a maze of legal and bureaucratic language that went largely unnoticed. When asked in recent days about the language — which appeared as an answer to one of 137 “frequently asked questions about Affordable Care Act implementation” — department officials confirmed the policy.

The discovery is likely to fuel continuing Republican efforts this fall to discredit the president’s health care law.

Under the policy, many group health plans will be able to maintain separate out-of-pocket limits for benefits in 2014. As a result, a consumer may be required to pay $6,350 for doctors’ services and hospital care, and an additional $6,350 for prescription drugs under a plan administered by a pharmacy benefit manager.

Some consumers may have to pay even more, as some group health plans will not be required to impose any limit on a patient’s out-of-pocket costs for drugs next year. If a drug plan does not currently have a limit on out-of-pocket costs, it will not have to impose one for 2014, federal officials said Monday.

---

In promoting his health care plan in 2009, Mr. Obama cited the limit on out-of-pocket costs as one of its chief virtues. “We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick,” Mr. Obama told a joint session of Congress in September 2009.

more
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/u...ts-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?hp&_r=0
 
Well, the delay sucks. But the reason for the delay as stated in the article:

But federal officials said that many insurers and employers needed more time to comply because they used separate companies to help administer major medical coverage and drug benefits, with separate limits on out-of-pocket costs.

In many cases, the companies have separate computer systems that cannot communicate with one another.

A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said: “We knew this was an important issue. We had to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers, which told us that their computer systems were not set up to aggregate all of a person’s out-of-pocket costs. They asked for more time to comply.”

Congress can of course order this provision to be done in a timely manner; it's a shame companies are taking so long to do this part. But we knew the bill was a large change; not surprising there are some delays.

Just need to keep pressing forward; it will get done.
 
yes it sure would be nice if congress functioned as designed instead of disfunctioned to harm the country
 
Well, the delay sucks. But the reason for the delay as stated in the article:



Congress can of course order this provision to be done in a timely manner; it's a shame companies are taking so long to do this part. But we knew the bill was a large change; not surprising there are some delays.

Just need to keep pressing forward; it will get done.


Everyone understood from the word go that big business interests would be dragging their feet every step of the way and making implementation as difficult as possible.
 
yes it sure would be nice if congress functioned as designed instead of disfunctioned to harm the country

Well, when the majority party in the House care more for their financial backers than they do for their constituents, dysfunction is going to be the name of the game.
 
yep, just as I figured. Everyone elses fault except Obama's. The poor guy is just a victim. If Trayvon had a stay at home daddy, he would look just like Obama
 
LOL @ dungheap. Nice attempt at a strawman. The mandate to purchase is the problem, not the terms of the contract someone chooses to enter into. In order to justify the mandate, you leftwing idiots touted the limits. Now you ignore the doublecrossing Obama. LOL you guys have no principles
 
LOL @ dungheap. Nice attempt at a strawman. The mandate to purchase is the problem, not the terms of the contract someone chooses to enter into. In order to justify the mandate, you leftwing idiots touted the limits. Now you ignore the doublecrossing Obama. LOL you guys have no principles

If they had principles would they be liberals?

It is like asking the age old question "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
 
LOL @ dungheap. Nice attempt at a strawman. The mandate to purchase is the problem, not the terms of the contract someone chooses to enter into. In order to justify the mandate, you leftwing idiots touted the limits. Now you ignore the doublecrossing Obama. LOL you guys have no principles

Why doublecrossing? The cap is still in place - which I'm cool with. It's just been postponed to help out the insurance companies and corporations. Would I prefer it not be postponed? Sure. But hey - what can we say? Us progressives know that Obama is NOT a socialist; that he's a centrist; that he's about helping businesses as well as voters.

If he hadn't done this - if he had insisted they do it before they could get ready - you would have been screaming "unfunded mandate" or something.

It's a big thing, revising healthcare insurance in this country. Some things will slip. Some things will accelerate. At least it's moving forward, even if not as fast as we would like.
 
LOL @ dungheap. Nice attempt at a strawman. The mandate to purchase is the problem, not the terms of the contract someone chooses to enter into. In order to justify the mandate, you leftwing idiots touted the limits. Now you ignore the doublecrossing Obama. LOL you guys have no principles


That's actually a legitimate point, but it strikes me that people that have to worry about spending above the cap are people that really really ought to have insurance because they require quite a bit of health care. They should have health insurance regardless of the mandate. The people that the mandate most directly affects, young, healthy people who might otherwise opt not to purchase health insurance aren't likely to be affected by the lack of a cap as they aren't likely to have high cost health care needs.
 
Why doublecrossing? The cap is still in place - which I'm cool with. It's just been postponed to help out the insurance companies and corporations. Would I prefer it not be postponed? Sure. But hey - what can we say? Us progressives know that Obama is NOT a socialist; that he's a centrist; that he's about helping businesses as well as voters.

If he hadn't done this - if he had insisted they do it before they could get ready - you would have been screaming "unfunded mandate" or something.

It's a big thing, revising healthcare insurance in this country. Some things will slip. Some things will accelerate. At least it's moving forward, even if not as fast as we would like.

And let's not forget, the cap WILL be coming down after this year, and if some insurance companies choose to gouge their customers with ridiculous caps this year while they can, then they will be easily identifiable and subject to public humiliation once a bright light is shined on their greedy tactics.
 
That's actually a legitimate point, but it strikes me that people that have to worry about spending above the cap are people that really really ought to have insurance because they require quite a bit of health care. They should have health insurance regardless of the mandate. The people that the mandate most directly affects, young, healthy people who might otherwise opt not to purchase health insurance aren't likely to be affected by the lack of a cap as they aren't likely to have high cost health care needs.

I really don't know how you can have such faith in the insurance companies. I expect they will gouge the healthy. And I totally agree that people who require care should pay for it. It's my belief that the insurance sociopaths will abuse a captive market. This is the last hurrah for them until the single payer sytem comes about. They would be mad not extract every single penny they can while the Messiah is in office and can sell anything to his adoring fans. I hope you believe me when I tell you I am not a fan of republicans. I would have loved to see Obama make better choices. But the reality is he doesn't have make good choices when his supporters make no distinctions. It's the same problem we had with Bush selling war except with Obama it's about enriching the money gang under the guise of social progress instead of the military security angle.

I really hope you're right and I'm wrong
 
Well, when the majority party in the House care more for their financial backers than they do for their constituents, dysfunction is going to be the name of the game.

That isn't any different when democrats are the majority. The 'C' word (Corporatists) is something democrats think they can simply ascribe to republicans without anybody taking a look at their own record of putting corporate interests before the best interests of the American people .. and nowhere is that more evident than in the ACA.

Corporate interests is the very reason the ACA even exists.

Those are real facts good brother.
 
Back
Top