California’s ObamaCare exchange rejects Obama’s call to un-cancel old plans

posted at 11:21 am on November 22, 2013 by Allahpundit

Other states have rejected it too, of course, but California is different for two reasons. One: The exchange there actually requires participating insurers by contract to cancel their old plans by the end of this year. That’s why it fell to the board of the exchange itself rather than California’s insurance commissioner (who supports O’s “fix”) to decide what to do. Only they can cancel the contracts. Two: California’s had more plan cancellations — and enrollments on the exchange — than any other state. Through sheer volume alone, their decision is the most significant of America’s 50 insurance regimes.

TPM calls this a “major blow to President Obama’s plan.” Is it?

The Covered California Board of Directors unanimously decided to stick with its current approach of phasing out the non-compliant policies by year’s end, saying Obama’s request that insurers let Americans keep those plans through 2014 will not help consumers in the end.

“The board cited that extending the deadline offers no benefit to the consumer and may create confusion about accessing affordable health care coverage through Covered California,” it said in a press release…

“There’s no way to make the federal law work without this transition to ACA-compliant plans,” board member Susan Kennedy said. “Delaying the transition isn’t going to help anyone; it just delays the problems. I actually think that it’s going to make a bad situation worse if we complicate it further.”

She’s right, of course. Obama’s “fix” is a political fix insofar as it tries to undo his Big Lie about people being able to keep their plans. It’s not a policy fix. On the contrary, because it would let canceled consumers revert to cheaper coverage, it would deprive insurers of the new revenue they’re counting on as people start moving onto the exchanges. That would raise the odds of adverse selection in the exchange risk pools, which means higher premiums and/or some sort of HHS bailout potentially, all of which is a disaster for O and the law. That’s already a concern for California. They’re crowing lately about the fact that enrollment has picked up dramatically over the last few weeks, but the proportion of young enrollees needed to keep the exchange in the black is smaller right now than it needs to be by the end of enrollment. That could be a temporary blip, with the number of “young invincibles” to skyrocket as the enrollment period drags on and awareness of the mandate spreads among young adults. But obviously, if there’s already a potential adverse selection problem looming, the exchange board doesn’t want to do something that might make it worse.

In fact, dig down into the numbers that California’s released about its new exchanges enrollees and you’ll find that the heavy majority of them earn too much to qualify for subsidies. That suggests that most of them are people who used to have coverage and then were forced to buy an O-Care plan when that coverage was dropped. Give them the option now of un-canceling their old plan and not only will you lose some revenue, you’ll spoil a rare instance of O-Care working exactly as it’s intended. All of which is why, I think, Obama secretly wants state commissioners (and the California exchange) to reject his “fix.” It’s better for the law if they do and it sets them up to be the bad guy when disgruntled consumers ask why they can’t have their old coverage back. That’s what the fix was really about, of course — shifting blame. The fact that the state’s insurance commissioner sided with O knowing/expecting/quietly hoping that the exchange board would reject O’s fix suggests that he’s not above passing the buck either when there’s an easy way to do so.

If all of that wasn’t enough, there is, of course, the prospect of legal chaos for any insurer that resurrects an un-canceled plan:

But the standards plans have to meet are written into the law. So, the administration might not do anything about plans that don’t meet the law’s requirements, but a consumer could still sue his or her insurance company for selling a product that doesn’t cover services it is legally required to cover.

“The fact that the law still says what it says has implications beyond the federal government’s willingness to enforce it,” [law prof Jonathan] Adler said…

“I know enough to be able to say with some confidence that the insurers have reason to be worried,” [law prof Nicholas] Bagley said…

“An insurer who continues to provide a policy that does not comply with the ACA’s requirements, and denies payment for an ACA-covered procedure in keeping with the policy, could be sued by the enrollee,” said Chris Holt and Laura Collins, policy analysts at the conservative American Action Forum.

Exit question for legal eagles: Wouldn’t the result of a lawsuit like the one described above be to find the un-canceled plan illegal, not compel payment in accordance with the ACA? I thought the O-Care statute says that plans that don’t include all of the “essential benefits” can’t be offered. If an insurer offers one anyway and it ends up in front of the judge, wouldn’t the ruling be that the plan is unenforceable? That would still mean chaos for both parties — the consumer wouldn’t be covered and the insurer would, presumably, owe him a refund on his premiums — but it matters insofar as it would give the consumer an incentive not to file suit in the first place.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Cedars-Sinai, the Hollywood bastion, and the Mayo Clinic are NOT on the obama’care’ hospital roll.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM

EpicClusterFarkDebacleNadoCare….

hillsoftx on November 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Damn Rethuglican administration in California.

NotCoach on November 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM

The very leftist, and obama’care’-supporting, insurance commissioner of CA blasted obama yesterday.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM

“California hates Obama and is full of racists”. — Oprah & Co.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:26 AM

OT but also part of the goons in DC’s desperado

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Legally speaking what are they to do? When sued “obama told us so” is no defense.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:29 AM

The Fraud in Chief doesn’t mind this, in reality. He only minds it for political reasons.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:30 AM

EpicClusterFarkDebacleNadoCare….

hillsoftx on November 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

oldroy on November 22, 2013 at 11:30 AM

EpicClusterFarkDebacleNadoCare….

hillsoftx on November 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM

You forgot Stuttering.

ElectricPhase on November 22, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Tee hee.

Wait. For. It. From. The. WH.

Bligh to Christian in ‘Mutiny on the Bounty’ :
“Missstaaah Chris-chen”

socalcon on November 22, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Nullification, baby…

But in this case, it’s not federal law, it’s a dictator’s fiat.

mankai on November 22, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Exit question for legal eagles: Wouldn’t the result of a lawsuit like the one described above be to find the un-canceled plan illegal, not compel payment in accordance with the ACA?

Yes, it would be illegal…why obama is such a fraud. He lied, and they he defrauded the people of the USA again, and then he backtracked from his own ‘apologies’.

This is a thug like none other in all of history.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:35 AM

and they then he

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:35 AM

“An insurer who continues to provide a policy that does not comply with the ACA’s requirements, and denies payment for an ACA-covered procedure in keeping with the policy, could be sued by the enrollee,” said Chris Holt and Laura Collins, policy analysts at the conservative American Action Forum.

I have been saying this since the “fix” was announced. You can envision all kinds of scenarios where an enrollee takes an insurer to court (after all, this kind of thing already happens every single day), and in each and every case, the insurer is going to have to go up to the judge and try to explain why their illegal plan is ok.

And the judge, regardless of his/her political persuasion is going to laugh at the insurer each and every time.

Chris of Rights on November 22, 2013 at 11:37 AM

It should be re-branded to ObamaUncare™.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:37 AM

The lawsuits will be in the millions, after Jan. 01, 2014. It is in great part why they went nuclear yesterday.

They know they’ll lose the senate.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM

This is a thug like none other in all of history.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:35 AM

In all of history? There may be four or more thugs in history who are more thuggish than he. After all, he hasn’t started loading up trains with red-staters…… yet.

Happy Nomad on November 22, 2013 at 11:42 AM

That’s what the fix was really about, of course — shifting blame.

The Administration doesn’t like reality. In reality, the laws of economics, human nature, and physics are inviolable. In reality, we have a stagnant economy, and a massive clusterfark resulting from the government seizure of 1/6th of the national economy in order to expand and accelerate wealth redistribution. In reality, his words are little more than lies as opposed to ‘soaring rhetoric’.

But to Mr. Hopey Changey, he believes and needs perceptions to define and drive reality. He has to do all he can to mask reality and paint over it by changing perceptions. The problem he is facing is that he’s lost so much credibility, particularly with the EpicClusterFarkNado, with the people (LIV) because the cancellation letters are real, the premium hikes are real, the lost doctors and hospitals are real, and the lies are real.

He needs to undertake a strategic retreat in order to get on the right path, but between his arrogance, hubris, petulance, and fecklessness, all he can do is yell ‘no retreat’ and try to ignore reality from inside his bunker.

Athos on November 22, 2013 at 11:42 AM

More Goebbelsian moves

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:43 AM

It should be re-branded to ObamaUncare™.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Or ObamaDoesNotCare.

oldroy on November 22, 2013 at 11:43 AM

This is a thug like none other in all of (USA) history.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:35 AM

In all of history? There may be four or more thugs in history who are more thuggish than he. After all, he hasn’t started loading up trains with red-staters…… yet.

Happy Nomad on November 22, 2013 at 11:42 AM

There

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:44 AM

The lawsuits will be in the millions, after Jan. 01, 2014. It is in great part why they went nuclear yesterday.

They know they’ll lose the senate.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM

That’s my take. They very well know that holding onto the Senate got much tougher since 1 October. They intend to stage smash-and-grabs as long as they can with full realization the Obama agenda dies in January 2015.

Happy Nomad on November 22, 2013 at 11:44 AM

I’m curious: has anyone actually been able to re-enroll in a formerly cancelled plan? Have insurers uncancelled any plans?

Waggoner on November 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM

OBAMAIWONCARE!!!

BigWyo on November 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Exit question for legal eagles: Wouldn’t the result of a lawsuit like the one described above be to find the un-canceled plan illegal, not compel payment in accordance with the ACA?

Illegal contracts are null and void on public policy grounds. You can’t enforce otherwise legal portions of an illegal contract. For example, I hire AllahPundit to kill my next door neighbor and include a provision where he rakes my leaves for an extra $100 dollars. AP takes my hundred, doesn’t rake my leaves and doesn’t kill my neighbor. No court is going to enforce the leaf raking portion of the contract.

Well, at least until Dear Liar starts packing the courts with his fellow travelers.

rbj on November 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Now Obama can blame the State insurance regulators!

Won’t that be fun?

It’s not the mean old insurance companies, but the mean old regulators enforcing regulations that aren’t letting you keep your plan for another year…

Of course if he starts blaming regulators and regulations, then the entire thing collapses since Obama, himself, isn’t enforcing the regulations as the regulators wrote them. So he will criticize people for doing their job while he not only doesn’t do his, but goes against the very regulations that he wanted in the first place… ‘Don’t do your job like I’m not doing mine!’

ajacksonian on November 22, 2013 at 11:58 AM

If an insurer offers one anyway and it ends up in front of the judge, wouldn’t the ruling be that the plan is unenforceable? That would still mean chaos for both parties — the consumer wouldn’t be covered and the insurer would, presumably, owe him a refund on his premiums — but it matters insofar as it would give the consumer an incentive not to file suit in the first place.

I’m not a lawyer, but this IS the internet, so I’ll chime in anyway. I’d think that this would vary potentially with the judge. The “correct” interpretation ruling isn’t necessarily the one you will actually get. And this is an enormously complicated law, so there could be all kinds of unanticipated subtleties.

The thing is that if you’re an insurance company, or any business for that matter, you simply DO NOT want to put yourself in the position where your contracts are legally unenforceable, just on general principle. These companies probably tend to be fairly risk-averse, I’d guess.

Maybe I’m totally off on this, but it’s hard to imagine why any insurer would want to put themselves at risk, particularly when most of these customers are exactly the kind of healthy people that they’d like to cover on the new expensive plans. So even if there weren’t an enormous amount of risk, the fact that these plans are technically illegal would be a welcome excuse to not offer them.

RINO in Name Only on November 22, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Exit question for legal eagles: Wouldn’t the result of a lawsuit like the one described above be to find the un-canceled plan illegal, not compel payment in accordance with the ACA? I thought the O-Care statute says that plans that don’t include all of the “essential benefits” can’t be offered. If an insurer offers one anyway and it ends up in front of the judge, wouldn’t the ruling be that the plan is unenforceable?

The question that is not answered in the legislation is who has committed an infraction? Is it “illegal” to purchase a non-compliant policy, or is it “illegal” to offer a non-compliant plan for sale?

Since nothing prohibits an individual whose plan has been cancelled from purchasing a compliant plan (cost is not a prohibiting reason, btw), an individual must make a conscious decision to purchase a non-compliant plan. With that act, no liability attaches to the insurance company. Its not all that different from purchasing a used car from someone you don’t know. “As is”

In other words, one day 100W light bulbs will be outlawed. Is it against the law to purchase or to sell one? Own? Possess?

BobMbx on November 22, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Damn Rethuglican administration in California.

NotCoach on November 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM

It’s those evil GOP governors that refused to implement ObamaCare that have ruined ObamaCare in California!

gwelf on November 22, 2013 at 12:07 PM

So he will criticize people for doing their job while he not only doesn’t do his, but goes against the very regulations that he wanted in the first place… ‘Don’t do your job like I’m not doing mine!’

ajacksonian on November 22, 2013 at 11:58 AM

That’s why the lazy stupid one was careful to call his “fix” a suggestion. He doesn’t have the regulatory authority to make them do anything with those cancelled plans. They make the perfect scapegoats as they, because of the law, reject intervention. The backstop, of course, is that insurers don’t have to un-cancel plans either.

So he essentially puts out something as a fiat and then starts blaming the serious people in the room for not going along with that which is illegal.

Happy Nomad on November 22, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Illegal contracts are null and void on public policy grounds. You can’t enforce otherwise legal portions of an illegal contract. For example, I hire AllahPundit to kill my next door neighbor and include a provision where he rakes my leaves for an extra $100 dollars. AP takes my hundred, doesn’t rake my leaves and doesn’t kill my neighbor. No court is going to enforce the leaf raking portion of the contract.
Well, at least until Dear Liar starts packing the courts with his fellow travelers.

rbj on November 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM

The contract itself may be null and void, but couldn’t there potentially be all kinds of consumer-protection laws that would entitle the consumer to damages in these kinds of cases?

RINO in Name Only on November 22, 2013 at 12:10 PM

So he essentially puts out something as a fiat and then starts blaming the serious people in the room for not going along with that which is illegal.

Happy Nomad on November 22, 2013 at 12:09 PM

He’s just so bored with being President that he thinks he can do other people’s jobs better than they can and can’t figure out whey they won’t do their jobs the way he wants them to…

Mind you from the Left this is ‘De Smartest Guy in da Room evah!’

Which tells you just how competent the Left is today.

ajacksonian on November 22, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Wouldn’t the result of a lawsuit like the one described above be to find the un-canceled plan illegal, not compel payment in accordance with the ACA? I thought the O-Care statute says that plans that don’t include all of the “essential benefits” can’t be offered. If an insurer offers one anyway and it ends up in front of the judge, wouldn’t the ruling be that the plan is unenforceable?

i think that if someone sues and a judge finds the plan in violation, whatever state or federal penalties apply can be levied. and while 0bama may not prosecute for violations if a civil action results in a finding of violation that judge can issue a writ of mandamus telling the state/feds to apply the penalties. so while the feds didnt initiate the proceeding they might still be forced to be involved.

chasdal on November 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM

I still say calling it “0bamaCare” is a huge mistake and a huge misnomer. Nowhere in the whole bill and regulations and executive orders is any CARE provided.

0bamasurance
is closer to correct. Insurance, like the thugs in Chicago, areas of New York, the street gangs in Detroit, etc. sell. The kind where for a couple of hundred dollars a week they won’t come in and trash your place, beat you up and scare away your customers.

I saw someone over at FR call it 0bamaCAIR, (in reference to 0bama’s muslim leanings / Council on American – Islamist Relations).. I kinda smiled at that bit of creativity.

LegendHasIt on November 22, 2013 at 12:26 PM

I know the the CA state insurance commissioner as I used to meet with him once per quarter in his prior position on the Sacramento City Council. My guess – which is worth nothing – is that he supports O’s plan due to the politics of toeing the Democrat party line of his boss, Gov. Brown, knowing the board could not approve the Obama fix.

A big issue in CA that is not discussed enough is that provider networks throughout the state will radically change on 01.01.14, restructured and shrunk per Obamacare.

My cancelled insurance policy is a typical example of the problem that raises vis-a-vis the ObamaCare fix. My policy is from HealthNet whose provider network for my county today covers essentially every health care provider in the county. Choice of in-network providers is excellent, pricing decent, and availability of services could not be better.

Howerver, on 01.01.14 Obamacare radically changes all that. Healthnet can no longer sell insurance in our county – and no longer has a provider network here.

So here’s the big problem: Under the ObamaFix, all services for every Healthnet policy holder in our county would be out-of-network.

That means not all services/doctors will be available, those that are will be more expensive and more complicated requiring referrals by primary care physicians and insurance company pre-approvals. Some/many services and providers will not even be available.

That’s just the patient side – imagine what the fix does to the provider/payment side…

The same situation applies in other counties with Healthnet and other providers as well.

DrDeano on November 22, 2013 at 12:33 PM

TPM calls this a “major blow to President Obama’s plan.” Is it?

I think so. It’s one thing for the insurance companies to be the bad guys, but it’s harder to demonize the insurance commissioners. They aren’t a scary corporation. There is no obvious sinister motivation for them. And if several of them reject his proposal, then it’s harder for him to make it look like it’s just some particular individual who is out of touch – it looks more like the consensus of the adults is that Obama can’t do, or shouldn’t do, what he’s doing.

Honestly, there was really no way he was going to be able to sell this. It’s not like the insurance companies were going to tell their customers “Obama the magnanimous has offered us the chance to let you keep your plan, but we’re not going to do it because we’re meanies”. I’m guessing a lot of them will simply say, loudly and publicly, “Mr. President, we simply cannot legally do this, nor can we logistically do it on such short notice. As you yourself have recently learned, healthcare is complicated stuff!”

RINO in Name Only on November 22, 2013 at 12:33 PM

ot

OBAMA HAS JUST PUSHED BACK REGISTRATION FOR ACA FOR 2014 FROM OCTOBER-DECEMBER TO NOVEMBER-JANUARY 2015 TO AVOID ANY BAD NEWS COMING BEFORE NEXT NOVEMBER ELECTION. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/22/obamacare-2015-open-enrollment-set-to-be-delayed-one-month/

CAN’T ANYBODY IN CONGRESS HAUL JUGEARS’ ASS INTO COURT TO STOP ALL THIS POLITICAL SHENANIGANS AND MAKE HIM ENFORCE THE aca LAW?

timberline on November 22, 2013 at 12:34 PM

What America got. See the last one and make it float.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 12:45 PM

CAN’T ANYBODY IN CONGRESS HAUL JUGEARS’ ASS INTO COURT TO STOP ALL THIS POLITICAL SHENANIGANS AND MAKE HIM ENFORCE THE aca LAW?
timberline on November 22, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Well, they CAN, but they won’t. There are only a couple who, deep down see this for what it is, and would do their Constitutional and moral duty.

But like lobsters in a tank, the vast majority would pull down any that try to climb out.

LegendHasIt on November 22, 2013 at 12:46 PM

All of which is why, I think, Obama secretly wants state commissioners (and the California exchange) to reject his “fix.” It’s better for the law if they do and it sets them up to be the bad guy when disgruntled consumers ask why they can’t have their old coverage back.

Why wait for a crisis to happen (and go to waste) when you can make ‘em as needed?

whatcat on November 22, 2013 at 12:46 PM

LegendHasIt on November 22, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Heh, excellent!!!

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 12:46 PM

ot
OBAMA HAS JUST PUSHED BACK REGISTRATION FOR ACA FOR 2014 FROM OCTOBER-DECEMBER TO NOVEMBER-JANUARY 2015 TO AVOID ANY BAD NEWS COMING BEFORE NEXT NOVEMBER ELECTION. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/22/obamacare-2015-open-enrollment-set-to-be-delayed-one-month/
CAN’T ANYBODY IN CONGRESS HAUL JUGEARS’ ASS INTO COURT TO STOP ALL THIS POLITICAL SHENANIGANS AND MAKE HIM ENFORCE THE aca LAW?

timberline on November 22, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Yeah, I heard about that too on one of those obscure right-wing blogs.

RINO in Name Only on November 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM

timberline on November 22, 2013 at 12:34 PM

The charlatanic frauds assume that the employers are all dumb.

It has already begun. Millions will lose their jobs and their ins. plans, way ahead of Nurse Ratched’s new plan. Btw, she will go first. Now the oaf in chief can replace her with Ed Schultz, if he wants to.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 12:49 PM

On the contrary, because it would let canceled consumers revert to cheaper coverage, it would deprive insurers of the new revenue they’re counting on as people start moving onto the exchanges.

The canceled plan is kaput. Is there any precedent for enforcing a contract that has been declared illegal? Would you want to rely on your hip replacement surgery being covered by such a contract?

Akzed on November 22, 2013 at 12:56 PM

The walls of reality are inexorably closing in on our little man-child socialist…

Pest on November 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM

OBAMA HAS JUST PUSHED BACK REGISTRATION FOR ACA FOR 2014 FROM OCTOBER-DECEMBER TO NOVEMBER-JANUARY 2015 TO AVOID ANY BAD NEWS COMING BEFORE NEXT NOVEMBER ELECTION. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/22/obamacare-2015-open-enrollment-set-to-be-delayed-one-month/

CAN’T ANYBODY IN CONGRESS HAUL JUGEARS’ ASS INTO COURT TO STOP ALL THIS POLITICAL SHENANIGANS AND MAKE HIM ENFORCE THE aca LAW?

timberline on November 22, 2013 at 12:34 PM

HUH?

Akzed on November 22, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:43 AM

LOL, guess their ox is being gored. All I can say is they built this monster and they own it. Deal with it, we have to.

bluefox on November 22, 2013 at 1:03 PM

The very leftist, and obama’care’-supporting, insurance commissioner of CA blasted obama yesterday.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM

..link?

*smacks lips in anticipation*

The War Planner on November 22, 2013 at 1:14 PM

a consumer could still sue his or her insurance company for selling a product that doesn’t cover services it is legally required to cover. “The fact that the law still says what it says has implications beyond the federal government’s willingness to enforce it,” [law prof Jonathan] Adler said…

Yeah, that law perfesserin’ stuff is hard… right, Mr President?

Marcola on November 22, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Picture worth a million bucks.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Cedars-Sinai, the Hollywood bastion, and the Mayo Clinic are NOT on the obama’care’ hospital roll.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM

The Hollyweird types can afford to pay cash, so that’s no biggie.

Ward Cleaver on November 22, 2013 at 1:36 PM

TWP, my brother, this is all I can find. I saw him on a video last night, but I can’t find it.

Schadenfreude on November 22, 2013 at 1:38 PM

On the contrary, because it would let canceled consumers revert to cheaper coverage, it would deprive insurers of the new revenue they’re counting on as people start moving onto the exchanges.

The canceled plan is kaput. Is there any precedent for enforcing a contract that has been declared illegal? Would you want to rely on your hip replacement surgery being covered by such a contract?

Akzed on November 22, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Depends on your political party registration and record of contributions.

slickwillie2001 on November 22, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Listen: If you don’t think Obama went before the cameras and lied about wanting insurers to make the old policies available to people and then get on the phone to the state’s Commissioners that night and tell them to ignore what he said, then you are living in La La Land.

Oracleforhire on November 22, 2013 at 3:24 PM