Lucrum, anyone who likes may obtain a non-compliant policy if the insurers in his/her state are allowed by that state's regulators to offer it, and the insurance company decides to offer them. That has always been true. But apparently Obama is ordering HHS to allow such non-complying policies to satisfy the mandatory insurance requirement, and consequently if you buy one of these individual policies you wouldn't have to pay a penalty. I would expect that deciding which policies qualify under the law is very much an administrative responsibility of HHS. HHS is , of course, under the Executive Branch, and part of the Presidents Cabinet. Obama's decision was the wrong one, but i seriously doubt he has stepped outside the bounds of his authority. If he had, you'd here about it from the Republican leadership! These are cheap policies with poor coverage, and I'd be real surprised if HHS lets them qualify for government subsidies, so in the end, many of the folks that buy these policies may be wasting their money, when they could have acquired a comprehensive non-cancelable policy for likely not much more, if they qualify for a subsidy. Probably the insurance companies will bump up the cost of these policies anyway. They can do as they like on these individual policies and have traditionally bumped the rate up every year anyway. The Federal government has virtually no control over what these companies do intrastate because of the McCarran Ferguson Act. But HHS can dictate to them what features have to be in the policies to qualify under the ACA, and companies will naturally comply if they want to sell a lot of qualifying policies.. Do you know if they are going to let these individual policies qualify for subsidies? I would think not. I assume you have to buy them directly from a company operating in your State. Many of the folks who are clamoring for these cheap policies are going to discover that they are not a very good deal.
1) I've posted two sources in the last two days that say it is outside his authority. No offense, but I'm taking their authoritative word over yours. 2) The RINO's in congress have neither to the balls nor the will to make too big a stink. No matter how egregious Obongo's actions. If they did Obongo would probably have been impeached already.
Sorry, but not all of these cheap policies are "poor coverage". Case in point is my wife and I ages 57 & 59. $364/month with $10K deductible. What do we get? Preventive measures at NO COST include annual physical and bloodwork for each of us, mammogram for my wife, prostate exam for me and colonoscopies for both of us. Again, all of these are $0 for us. BTW .. Obamacare quote is $1000/month with a 27% increase in our deductible and no subsidy (due to marriage penalty by Odumbo). Now, to add more data .. we're both healthy and work out/exercise 6 days/week. I've run 37 years, biked 22 years. I can't recall the last time I saw a doctor other than for my annual physical. How can someone like you, or Obama, claim these are inferior (or poor) policies? Actually it is a perfect policy for us. Maybe Obama is looking at the average US citizen and sees 2/3 of them overweight or obese. Sure, those slobs have pre-existing conditions brought on by their own irresponsibility. They pig out at restaurants, don't exercise, smoke, some do drugs, some abuse alcohol. So why the hell should us healthy people subsidize those who consciously CHOOSE to abuse their bodies? I listened to the Sebelius hearings when I drove back home a few weeks ago. I heard some of the most ignorant Dems spouting off. Some said the catastrophic policies were "scams", "illegal", "not real insurance". And again, how can these idiots have any opinion when they do not know the facts behind these policies? Oh yeah, it's highly doubtful my wife will need maternity coverage at her age. So why force us to buy it? Same with the pediatric crap. Ditto to mental health. And no, the policies are not bumped up every year, As stated, we pay $364/month now. Last year it was $340. The prior year it was $388. (Yes, it decreased $48 between those years .. no typo). And the year before that it was $337. So in 5 years it's increased from $337 to $364, which is 8% over 5 years or about 1.5% per year compounded. Not too shabby. And contrary to your uninformed opinion ... many of these policies are a damn good deal. Then again I have 18 years of paying 100% of my health costs and have likely forgotten more about this subject than you'll ever know.
1. nothing breaks up the harmony of a team and the those trying to make the team... than watching the owner or the sponsors pick the winners for political reasons or corrupt reasons instead of merit. Sooner or later the whole team turns corrupt and those trying to play an honest game get hurt. 2. Govt laws and rules are creating barriers to the movement of the people form decile to decile.
What state are you in, is the 10000 deductible you now have for each person, what is your present per person deductible. Thanks
"The more laws, the less justice." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero "Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught." -- Honore de Balzac "No oppression is so heavy or lasting as that which is inflicted by the perversion and exorbitance of legal authority." -- Joseph Addison "Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal." -- Robert Byrd
Just out of personal curiousity, does anyone remember what the monthly premiums were, say 20 or 30 years ago? I'm not old enough to remember, but I never heard it discussed in the 1980's... I do know that I was paying about $40.00 per month (if that) 15 years ago.