Originally posted by KazetNagorraAllowing people to keep their health care plans undermines the economic basis for the ACA. In any event, the laws being considered create a fundamental conflict with the ACA. One law requires enrollment with ten specific benefits, another law requires companies to continue to offer existing policies. Insurance companies can't do both.
Surely a repeal will be vetoed by the White House?
It seems more likely there will be a change to the law which would allow people to keep their old plans, at least for some time, while making sure new plans comply with the new law.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Why not? They keep the old plans as is and only offer new plans according to the new rules.
Allowing people to keep their health care plans undermines the economic basis for the ACA. In any event, the laws being considered create a fundamental conflict with the ACA. One law requires enrollment with ten specific benefits, another law requires companies to continue to offer existing policies. Insurance companies can't do both.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBecause the government shouldn't be telling people what they need to buy? Because they really can't afford the cost of the new plans? Because the promise was that they could keep their old plan?
Why not? They keep the old plans as is and only offer new plans according to the new rules.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMy understanding is that insurance companies change plans quite frequently anyway. It would be difficult to force them to offer former plans they don't want to keep offering any more. What if they want to make minor adjustments? Does it become a 'new plan' and subject to new rules?
Why not? They keep the old plans as is and only offer new plans according to the new rules.
Here in SA, insurance generally increases every year, would that count as a new plan?