Way to go Obongo!

[Speedy]

AllGold wrote:
[quote=kd]
Also, it looks like the only plan that will be offered to me on the exchange is Medicaid, which is not appealing to me.

So you're being offered 100% comprehensive coverage for which you will pay nothing. Why is that not appealing to you?
kd is representative of the target audience for the Repugs.

Note that Medicaid can charge a small amount for some things, perhaps totaling $7 or so a month, unless the person cannot afford it.

[davester]

kd wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
So they have eliminated one of their plans and want you to accept another one of their plans. That's on them, or am I missing something?

The plan was eliminated because it doesn't conform to the requirements of the ACA.
In that case it would probably have been a pretty bad plan. The requirements that a grandfathered plan must meet are pretty mild:

End lifetime limits on coverage

End arbitrary cancellations of health coverage

Cover adult children up to age 26 (this one can't be the issue you have with your current plan because it's already been a requirement for some time)

Provide a Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC), a short, easy-to-understand summary of what a plan covers and costs

Hold insurance companies accountable to spend your premiums on health care, not administrative costs and bonuses
https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-hav...alth-plan/

A plan that can't meet those requirements must be a pretty poor one indeed, which is why ACA has those rules. Which one of those requirements can't your current plan meet. Those are the only ACA requirements that can keep your plan from being grandfathered.

[kd]

Manlove wrote:
I was going to say the same thing as $tevie, but thought it so obvious that it doesn't need to be said, but apparently it does- your beef is with your ins.co. but if you can't see that then you have been successfully blinded by the republican rhetoric.

The plan I was in was non-cancelable by state law. It is being eliminated because it does not conform to the requirements of the ACA. How is this my insurance company's fault? (Except in that they probably supported the ACA in the first place.)

[$tevie]

Well, if you read davester's post, it appears that they had to eliminate the plan because it had some defect that you were unaware of. For example, perhaps it limited the amount of coverage you could expect over the long haul? Or they could drop you if you acquired a horrible permanent illness? Maybe it was only perfect for the short term.

[kd]

AllGold wrote:
[quote=kd]
Also, it looks like the only plan that will be offered to me on the exchange is Medicaid, which is not appealing to me.

So you're being offered 100% comprehensive coverage for which you will pay nothing. Why is that not appealing to you?
There are several reasons, but probably the one most important to me is that I prefer to pay my own way.

[$tevie]

kd wrote:
[quote=AllGold]
[quote=kd]
Also, it looks like the only plan that will be offered to me on the exchange is Medicaid, which is not appealing to me.

So you're being offered 100% comprehensive coverage for which you will pay nothing. Why is that not appealing to you?
There are several reasons, but probably the one most important to me is that I prefer to pay my own way.
You're not making a whole lot of sense here. The only plan available to you is Medicaid? Why?

I don't mean to be rude, but your story is very squishy and incomplete. You keep coming back and dropping another cryptic bread crumb as to why you are in this supposed situation. If you would spell it out clearly, not only would it make more sense but someone here could possibly assist you in figuring out why you are having what is essentially an impossible problem.

[mattkime]

kd wrote:
There are several reasons, but probably the one most important to me is that I prefer to pay my own way.

What does that mean? Pay retail?

[kd]

$tevie wrote:
Well, if you read davester's post, it appears that they had to eliminate the plan because it had some defect that you were unaware of. For example, perhaps it limited the amount of coverage you could expect over the long haul? Or they could drop you if you acquired a horrible permanent illness? Maybe it was only perfect for the short term.

Were I in your position I'd probably make the same assumption. But I can assure you that I researched all of the available plans thoroughly before choosing this one, and it has none of those major defects. It is one of the two most popular non-group plans in the state, and recommended by a knowledgeable source as the smartest choice.

I don't know all of the specific plan requirements of the ACA, but my guess is that the ACA mandates coverage for something not relevant to me that my plan omits, such as foreseeable expenses of normal pregnancy. In other words, a defect in somebody's eyes, but not in mine, and not one that I was unaware of.

[kd]

mattkime wrote:
[quote=kd]
There are several reasons, but probably the one most important to me is that I prefer to pay my own way.

What does that mean? Pay retail? It means pay for my own health care in the conventional way, via insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays, rather than getting it "for free" via other taxpayers.

[Dennis S]

Hell, kd, my insurance company did that to me long before Obama was ever elected the first time. You should consider yourself lucky.