Hi 35° | Lo 21°

Letter: There goes my insurance

In September I received a notice from my health insurance company, MVP Healthcare, that the health insurance plan I have had since 1982 will no longer be available because of the Obamacare requirements. So much for “If you like your plan, you can keep it.”

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter will never know what it is like to be 62 years old and lose your health insurance. Obamacare became the Democrats’ orthodoxy. In their zeal to beat their opponents, they ignored all the warnings and pushed this mess through Congress. Now millions are being told their health insurance is cancelled at the end of their policy year, causing untold stress and anxiety to those affected. This, of course, is not to mention the increased cost to replace the old plan with a new one.

It doesn’t matter anymore if Obamacare is repealed or collapses under its own weight. The damage this is causing to the fabric of nation is done. Shaheen and Shea-Porter should be ashamed of themselves. Their conduct in support of Obamacare is a disgrace. They either didn’t want to know consequences of the legislation or didn’t care. Either way it is unforgivable.



Legacy Comments39

To Field of Ferns. I used your kaiser permanente calculator and here is what I found if my employer's plan was deemed not in compliance with Obamacare. First and foremost, my employer pays 75% of the premium and my monthly premium is $386 or $4632 per year with maximum of $600 out of pocket or $2400 for a family of four. Now, under Obamacare, the Silver Plan would cost my family $8884 per year with $12,700 out of pocket. In other words, THIS family of four would realize $14,552 more in health care costs on the Silver plan of the exchange or 14% tax (in effect) increase. There would be no subsidy. Guess who is paying for the subsidies (I am and others who have long taken responsibilities for themselves and their families) to give the columnist and that family of four what amounts to the same coverage for less. You point is invalid. It may look OK for cherry picked incomes below $40,000 but what about a family with a combine income of $100,000 (see above).

Itsa, surely you noticed that you invalidated your own argument at the get-go. (1) Your income is clearly higher than the person I spoke to. (2) Your insurance apparently IS compliant, and affordable. Therefore you don't qualify to use the exchange. You can't then compare your current insurance with what you would get on the exchange. The comparison only works if you had been buying an individual pan on the open market, or if your employer's insurance was not affordable. (3) No one has to cherry-pick the 40,000 income. Do you realize the average household income in the US is $52,000? There are plenty of $40,000 households here in NH and across the country. Frankly, anyone who makes over $100K can AFFORD to pay more. Yes, as I've said many times, I KNOW the subsidies are paid for by taxes. Those who make more, pay more. (at least that's the way it ought to be, but it's been flattened over the last 30 years to give the advantage to the wealthy).

Please correct me if my thought process is flawed, but I am seeing that many are saying that people who have lost their insurance will get better insurance for less money because of the subsidies. A subsidy means the money has to come from somewhere. If its coming from the government where are they getting it? From the taxpayers !!! so arent we at least partially paying for other peoples insurance just like we always have? I dont think the existing system is all that great but shouldent we be looking for something better instead of just more of the same????

I understand your point. From my perspective, the subsidies do a couple of things. (1) They make it very clear how medical care is a shared responsibility of a civilized society. In the past, very few people understood that the insured were supporting the uninsured, so this makes it obvious. (2) They allow many more people to enter the market, which makes for a larger risk pool and should bring down the costs for everyone. At least that's what insurers have been telling us - larger pool = lower cost. Personally, I support single-payor, which would put medical care in the same category as public education and public safety. Everyone pays taxes based on ability to pay, and everyone gets care when they need it. Just like education, fire and police protection, national defense, safe highways, safe food and work places, and admission to national parks and museums. (just point out some of the other things that government pays for through taxation that no one makes a stink about.)

Obam a delayed the corporate mandate for a year because next year according to the federal register, more than 93,000,000 employee plans will be lost by employees next year. I am not talking about this year. If two retail managers or a teacher and a fireman make $100,000, they will pay much, much more. Obamacare was not sold on the premise that if you make more you will pay more. It was sold on the basis of "if you like your doctor, insurance, can keep your plan" without the caveat that "if the plan meets our narrow grandfather rules". It was sold as "affordable" not as "you make more so you will have to pay more". We do NOT operate on 'from those according to ability to those according to need'. That is Socialism. And those things that we pay for, they are OK, what is not OK are programs which are silly and wasteful like Safe Routes to School, stupid studies which accomplish nothing, nepotism in federal ranks and the inefficiency which is rampant everywhere. Moreover read the GAO wasteful and duplicative spending report. There are plenty of things we can "cut" that won't affect squat!

Most of this discussion on the ACA is informative and mostly respectful. Of course one has to skip over the usual and repetitive rants of Sail, Itsa and a few others who have nothing new to add.

Disagree Tillie. Anytime someone posts here about what is actually in the ACA, the left reverts to attacking that poster's character. You do it on a regular basis. Also, assumptions are made on a regular basis. That tactic has been used over and over again. The idea is to put anybody who disagrees with you on the defensive, get them angry, and maybe they will lash out and start name calling. It was done from day one with this President by his supporters. If you disagree with his policies you are a racist. greedy, mean, and a host of other accusations to shut down discussion. The reality is plan and simple. No honest discussion can be had if you do not discuss what is going on, but instead deny any problems and attack the messenger.

I think I have figured out what is going on here. Seeing how Sail, Itsa, Van, and most of the other right wingers just parrot each other, you all never actually read other other's posts because you have all got your talking points from right wing media. So therefore you never actually see the nasty and spiteful things your right wing posters say about Obama, "democrats", and others who don't agree with them. You use platitudes "like attack the messenger" but never offer any solutions. If not Obamacare what is the Republican plan? You won't answer that question but instead say something about how mean and nasty I am to even ask the question. All you people do is scream about Obamacare and how he is the worst president ever. How is that constructive? We all know how you feel Obama, no need to keep repeating in each and every post. It is really boring.

I must have been born disadvantaged or something, compared to all of you who know how the ACA is going to work even though it hasn't gone in to effect yet.

In red states, premiums for 27-year-olds rose an average of 78% on ObamaCare exchanges, whereas in "blue states" that voted for Obama, premiums rose a smaller 50%.

lets talk about the insurance coverage my family has... we pay about $6000/year, and we have to cover the first $10,000 before insurance kicks in. That is $16,000 a year for NO benefit to us. We have to pay for Rx out of pocket. We have to pay for Dr's visits, out of pocket, we have to pay for testing out of pocket, and we pay close to $500 a month for that wonderful privilege... It's more money for us to go on the exchange, by about $250.00 a month for a family of 4, and that also increases our out of pocket from $10k to $15k per year. I'm not asking for unlimited passes to see the Doctor... I'm asking that prices be reasonable so I can get the care that I need.

you can thank Jeanne Shaheen and the democrats for the situation they put you in

You haven't indicated what your family income is, and whether you are eligible for a subsidy or tax credit. Have you checked into that?

I don't plan on advertising my yearly income, however I can tell you take home is well under 50k per year with two wage earners.

According to the Kaiser Calculator (, a NH family of 4, making 40,000 a year, with 2 non smoking adults and 2 children under 21, is eligible for a tax subisdy of $6,325 a year, making the silver plan cost $1,965 per year. The max out of pocket cost (not including premium) is $4500 a year. I urge you to go plug in your own numbers and see for yourself.

Gee Field of Ferns $1965 is pretty expensive for a family of four earning $40,000. Most likely one or both of those folks in that wage range do smoke. That tax subsidy has to come from somewhere, it comes in the form of a tax increase for those who will pay more for what they have. $4500 is also a lot for a family earning $40,000. Somehow, this is affordable?

Itsa - that's $1965 per YEAR, not per month. That equals $163 per month - a whole lot less than Jvalley is currently spending.

Field of kidding, I get that. $40,000 per year nets you about $2200 per month. Moreover it is a $4500 out of pocket........where is that supposed to come from. A $1000 rent or mortgage, $600 for groceries, $100 for insurance, $300 for utilities, $500 for gas to get back and forth to work, now add on your $163.

I'm sorry Mr. Edgar lost his insurance. Reports I've heard say this happened to about 3% of the insured in the US. These were people who were on the individual market and their plan was disqualified from being grandfathered under Obamacare. The reason is almost always that the plan was poor coverage, with conditions like a maximum of two office visits a year. I think it is very likely when Mr. Edgar manages to sign up for new insurance he'll find it's better than the insurance he has and costs about the same or less, especially if he qualifies for a subsidy. I hope he writes again so we find out. Maybe in that letter he'll even thank Sen. Shaheen and Rep. Shea-Porter. It's easy to fault the president for saying "if you like your plan, you can keep it." The truth was a little more subtle: if your plan sucks, sometimes you can't keep it, but you'll be able to get something better that's affordable. It wasn't "death panel" but the president could have been clearer about the whole truth.

Well said Dean. My thoughts are that there is probably a better plan for the same or even less money available for Mr. Edgar.

Facts do not support that extremely faulty OPINION

The president could have not LIED, it is not a matter of being clearer. Next 93,000,000 people will lose their insurance once companies are under the mandate in 2014 and the federal register verifies that. It will also cost more. Do 93,000,000 plans "suck" as you put it. Let's be honest, they need those folks to enroll in Obamacare to make it work. Obama is a damned liar, period!

Dean, My MVP plan is a 20.00 co-pay 250.00 hospital deductable no annual limit HMO with a 8-50-90 prescription plan. I recently had orthopedic surgery in Concord done at the office that cost MVP 9800.00. My total cost 75.00. While I was never a fan of the ACA because it didn't include the early promises of selling across state lines, torte reform etc. I didn't really think it would effect me. Why should it? I understand setting coverage limits for the exchanges but what do they care what coverage a private citizen or employer buys or provides for their employees if they are not on Medicare or Medicaid? I don't want a subsidy. I want the same plan I have had for 30 years at the same price. The idea that only stripped down plans are getting cancelled is a myth. I only hope what has happened to me does not happen to you. Jim Edgar

They care because when the plan is lousy and someone can't pay for their ER visit or their hospitalization, then everyone else who has insurance subsidizes them. Lousy plans for individuals cost everyone else money.

there is a NObamaholics anonymous meeting daily to help the star struck

So what you are saying is that before the ACA their bills were gatting paid by the insurance companies through higher premiums than were actually needed to cover their insured. So than what is the basis for the ACA? What we now have is the government making everyone that has insurance pay the bills they were paying before only with higher cost and less coverage and less choice to pay for the same people through subsdies. The reason the Government has chosen to force every policy in the country basically be the same which is why these policys are being cancelled is so when they go to single payor it will be easy because every one has the same coverage only deductables will vary,

Than if everyone is already paying their bills what is the ACA for? I will tellyou. It is just another redistribution plan. We are now just paying more directly. If the President had not exempted all the unions and given big business another year to coply the hit to renewing plans would have less painfull. This is just another so called "greater good" plan that grants favors to the presidents friends and sticks it to rest of us.

Let the spin begin. The myth we have now is that the folks who are getting their policies cancelled are just the ones who have cheapo, lousy plans. I say myth, when in reality it is an out and out lie. Plenty of folks have plans they are happy with that are not lousy plans. They also are getting cancellation notices. The new plans with the mandates from the ACA have caused their premiums to skyrocket cost wise with higher deductibles, and more out of pocket expenses. Another myth is the 43 million often quoted who are uninsured. Another myth is who uses the ER the most. It is not folks without insurance. We had to pass this law so we could see what is in it, kind of like the specimen you take to the lab.

I would suggest the gentleman check on the Exchange for a new policy, one which may very well be a much better plan than the one he has now. This story is being repeated in the media over and over, and in every case it turns out that the policy that is being cancelled can be replaced, most often with much better coverage and at an affordable cost. A great resource, which I found on the ServiceLInkNH site, is There you can find personal help to find a policy that suits you and which you can afford. Please don't let the right wing propaganda all too prevalent in our lazy media lead you astray.

In what world do these unfounded suppositions make it to fact....only in a liberals world. There is a reason why democrats in droves are running scared - it is a 100% democrat created massive debacle

"it is a 100% democrat created massive debacle " Based on a 100% Republican-created concept. You do remember the Republicans are the ones who came up with this insurance-industry friendly creation, right? And the Republicans are the ones who altered it to suit themselves. You got what you all wanted, sail--something that doesn't work so you can blame others for your own doing. Enjoy.

DuckLady again passes off fantasy as fact. Ronald Reagan passed The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) making it illegal for hospitals to turn anyone away. Furthermore the Heritage Foundation actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.... Stuart Butler, Ph.D. it is just pure liberal myth to say the individual mandate is a Republican idea

In rare instances and you completely ignore that his new insurance may not be accepted so he will have to change his doctor. Nice attempt at defending a failed initiative though.

The fact that some doctors and hospitals will not accept the new insurance is the result of their own choice not the ACA. After all don't you and your friends constantly call for freedom of choice? or are you now saying that doctors and hospitals don't have the right to refuse insurance company contracts.

The reason the same hospitals that accept private or employer based Anthem Blue Cross won't take Anthem Blue Cross ACA Insurance is that the ACA plan pays substantially less to the hospitals for the same services than the private or employer plans pays. Period. The only hope we have is that after we all have a cookie cutter plan insurance companies will be able to sell across state lines. Right now the exchange has only one company. No competion and lousy hospital availability.

Dear Lucy I should have been clearer in my letter. I have a 250.00 hospital deductable no limit 20.00 co-pay plan. I have had it for 30 years. I don't want a 70,80,or 90% plan that only half the hospitals in NH take. I can go to Dartmouth, Concord, or Albany Med. I also do not want a subsidy. I do not want you or anyone else paying for my insurance. Likewise I do not want to pay for anyone elses. If I am it is a new income tax. I just want my plan. I like it and I pay for it and now thanks to a bunch of selfish zealots I have to worry about something at a stage in my life I shouldn't have to. Sincereley James Edgar

Subsidies are part of the overall plan to make insurance affordable. If you don't want a subsidy, then no one can make you take it, but you shouldn't then say you can't afford the insurance. You can afford it if you take the subsidy.

one mans subsidy is another mans money seized out of his pocket....

Subsidy= Method used by the government to hide the true cost of something for political reasons.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.