Boy, would I like to be a fly on the wall…
…for this:
Several insurance company CEOs have been called to a meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House Friday afternoon…
Here’s Jonathan H. Adler at Volokh on the legality of the change that President Obama announced yesterday:
Under the PPACA, only plans that meet various requirements are “qualified health plans” (QHPs). Only QHPs may be sold on exchanges or satisfy the minimum coverage requirement (the individual mandate). So the PPACA does not expressly prohibit insurance companies from offering such plans (assuming they are allowed by state insurance commissions), but they do not satisfy other provisions of the act so there is no reason to offer them. They remain against the public policy of the United States as defined by the PPACA. Would this effect the enforceability of such an insurance policies terms in private legal dispute in state court? Perhaps not, but it’s understandable if insurance companies will be in no rush to find out.
I assume that, if either the Upton bill or the Landrieu bill is passed, and Obama doesn’t veto the bill or his veto is overridden, the possible legal hurdle described above is cleared.
Adler writes that, “It’s almost as if the Administration has not thought this through.” Almost??
If you were a health insurance company senior executive would you trust Obama now?
If such fundamental changes to the law can be done in the context of a press conference; then they can also
be undone in the same context. And this is ultimately the legacy of his original lie and the subsequent actions for political reasons. Who can trust anything the president says now?
kaba:
I have no idea why anyone ever trusted him in the first place.
His very first political act was one of betrayal (Alice Palmer), and he’s just gone on from reversal to reversal, lie to lie, and betrayal to betrayal, ever since.
Neo,
I totally agree and have never trusted the man. But I think that has probably been a minority view until these last few weeks.
His failed Syrian policy, his dealings with Iran, and now his actions on the ACA have destroyed any credibility he may have enjoyed. And I just can’t see how a president can do those things required without at least a hint of credibility.
They are planning a bailout of the insurance companies if this makes them offer plans they can’t afford to.
With OUR money, of course.
I don’t like that Obama thinks that US citizens, in this case private business executives, should be at his beck and call.
It’s especially galling that he did this *after* announcing to the world that he was transferring responsibility for cleaning up his mess to them. By giving them to break the law, as if that’s within his discretion.
More of the same fascism.
Period.
Beverly:
They are not planning a bailout. The bailout was already baked in the cake, as it were.
Beware of the Landrieu bill. It does not do what the Upton bill does; it is a cosmetic face-saver, by the person honored as the “Louisiana Purchase” in the passage of Obamacare, who fears she will not be re-elected by her LIVs.
Obamacare is still the law; all Obama said was that he would look the other way for a year if the insurance companies broke the law.
Think about that: As a CEO, if you do this your company will be violating the law…then will be at the mercy of Obama not to prosecute you.
Even if Obama can be trusted (heh), who says you won’t be sued by other people?
It is not in the interest of the insurance companies to accommodate Obama. All he can do is cajole and threaten but we all know his threats are serious.
This is a vindictive man.
“I have no idea why anyone ever trusted him in the first place.” neo
I’m not sure many actually trusted him, as he had never earned or demonstrated trustworthiness. But tens of millions heavily invested their illusions in him and that led them to completely bypass the trust issue. Perhaps that’s why there appears to be a cognitive disconnect among liberals. A kind of a, “Wait, he lied to us… what?”
I wonder if any of the CEO’s insisted that any conversations be recorded?
Adler writes that, “It’s almost as if the Administration has not thought this through.” Almost??
they didn’t… because it was given to them…
made like a zaporozhet or trabant…
It’s not trust but a Sword of Damocles that will make the CEOs kneel and Obey Obama.
How come we have *never* seen a health insurance CEO on TV?
Answer: a corrupt bargain has been struck or the insurance industry is afraid of something. They might be afraid that the federal gov’t take regulation of the industry from the states.
The undoing of the policy cancellations is, according to Mark Steyn, akin to undoing an omelet. As in, how do you get the eggs back in their shells? ‘Twill be a wondrous trick if pulled off.
From an insurer’s standpoint, the pro’s and con’s of reinstating policies:
Pro: –Won’t get blamed because policies won’t be cancelled.
–CEOs may not find themselves suddenly audited/prosecuted; but really, can you count on that?
Con: –Will break the law; even if Obama doesn’t prosecute them, they can be sued by citizens. One assumes the courts will take the side of the Law.
–Delay will increase adverse selection; The ACA mandates they be reimbursed, but such an act will be WILDLY unpopular. Who trusts that this administration will follow the law when it becomes politically unpopular? You think Obama’s going to go to bat for the insurance industry?
–Reinstating policies may be impossible at this point; small chance of success.
–Reinstating policies will be costly; not only the normal costs of this action, but the added costs imposed by Obama that they send out additional information.
–Represents only a delay; all of this work will have to be repeated. If reinstatement takes a few months, will have to be repeated in 6-9 months. Playing Yo-yo with people’s healthcare is likely to be unpopular.
–Depends on state-level cooperation; even if insurers are willing, state government may no OK it. More uncertainty about success.
–Sunk cost fallacy; insurers are human, too. They’ve already invested time & money for the last three years in the new policies. At some level, they’ll be unwilling to throw away their work.
–Resentment of the administration; Obama has made clear he’ll throw them under the bus if it suits him. Insurers will earn no brownie points from this man, almost no matter what they do.
Have I forgotten anything?
Geoffrey Britain:
I would bet a lot of money that anyone visiting the president gets put through a ringer that would make it all but impossible to carry any device that could record the proceedings–even a shoe phone.