tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post7089957592532238841..comments2024-03-28T03:14:51.294-05:00Comments on Dad29: "The Insurers" Were Paid OffDad29http://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-54858981839311022402013-11-17T16:48:30.169-06:002013-11-17T16:48:30.169-06:00You can offer proof of your last paragraph, of cou...You can offer proof of your last paragraph, of course.<br /><br />You're like Nancy Pelosi and a lot of used-car salesmen. Doubletalk.<br /><br />Doesn't work here. King Barack will indemnify non-compliant litigation and will modify 'risk corridor' calcs to "help" insurers.<br /><br />IOW, he's not only a lawbreaker, he's a conspirator and facilitator of fraud.<br /><br />And all you have is your doubletalk.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-40808435593157015552013-11-17T16:11:43.248-06:002013-11-17T16:11:43.248-06:00"What is offered may or may not be legally co..."What is offered may or may not be legally compliant".<br /><br />No, it MUST be legally compliant. You either get the old non-compliant policy of a new compliant policy. There are no new non-compliant policies that can be offered which satisfy the mandate.<br /><br />"and certainly will be more expensive"<br /><br />Many are finding that this is not the case especially if they don't accept their insurer's offer without asking if they offer less expensive plans.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-15861227966940184742013-11-16T17:19:47.638-06:002013-11-16T17:19:47.638-06:00Points one and two are irrelevant, as you know.
W...Points one and two are irrelevant, as you know.<br /><br />What is offered may or may not be legally compliant, and certainly will be more expensive. If it's not legally compliant then an insured has the right to sue for claims NOT paid if the insurer is acting under King Barack's "waiver." <br /><br />That is a problem, no?<br /><br />So King Barak told them that he would "re-adjust" HHS re-imbursement criteria. That news broke 2 days ago. Can't help it that you're not paying attention, anony.<br /><br />But as a hint to you, see "Risk Corridor" in this post: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/345008.php<br /><br />That's the payoff.<br /><br />Any more questions?Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-13404230846676411592013-11-16T12:39:32.580-06:002013-11-16T12:39:32.580-06:00You are forgetting:
1) The "fix" is tot...You are forgetting:<br /><br />1) The "fix" is totally voluntary on the insurers' part. They don't have to do it if they don't want to.<br /><br />2) There is no requirement to buy insurance through an exchange, and certainly not through Healthcare.gov. The obvious proof of this is that insurers who are discontinuing non-compliant policies are directly offering replacement policies to their customers.<br /><br />You can buy it at WalMart, CVS, Walgeens, or Rite-Aid. Or through a broker. Or directly from an insurer. Or by phone or mail.<br /><br />Do you have a source for the last sentence?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com