'The Latest ACA Dust-Up Should Not be a Dust-Up'
Jared Bernstein tries to make clear that there's nothing new here:
The Latest ACA Dust-Up Should Not be a Dust-Up: Like Igor Volsky, you might ask yourself why this particularly story has any legs right now since it’s re-litigating an issue that was widely debated a few years. But the answer is obvious: tis the season to attack the Affordable Care Act, no matter if this one is a greatest hit from 2010.
At issue is the President’s claim when selling health care reform that if you like your current health plan, you can keep it. That point in turn was based on the provision that grandfathered existing plans in the individual market (neither employer-based or government provided) by granting exemptions from various standards and consumer protections that came into effect when the law was signed in 2010.
However, as clearly stated at the time, if such a plan were to significantly changes in ways that are inconsistent with consumer protections under the ACA, that it would lose its grandfathered status.
Like I said, this has been known since the law was written. In fact, go here to see a 2010 publication by my CBPP colleague Sarah Lueck that lists the ways plans can lose its grandfathered status, like eliminating benefits to treat certain conditions or significantly raising co-pays beyond what’s implied by the rate of medical price inflation. ...
So, did the President misspeak? In a way, sure. He should have said: “If you like your plan and it doesn’t get significantly worse such that it’s out of sync with what we’re trying to do here, you can keep it.”
And, in fact, such nuances were clear at the time and not buried in the weeds but discussed in the open. Not much to see here folks…move along.
Posted by Mark Thoma on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 at 01:04 PM in Economics, Health Care, Politics |
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.