That's the problem: people DO want healthcare, but the legislation blocks them from buying the form of healthcare they want. Seriously ill people with perfectly good health insurance are getting their plans cancelled for want of irrelevant requirements; yes, many of us DO consider those causing such cancellations "pretty low criminals", hence the consternation unto DDOS.

The legislation does lots of things, including making it possible for people like me with pre-existing conditions to actually get insurance. Plans are cancelled because free market corporations decide to cancel them -- the law could have forced all those companies to continue policies while bringing them up to standards, but if it did, you'd be complaining about that.

The law indeed forced those companies to bring policies up to highly disputable standards, which for all practical purposes amounts to canceling them and requiring enrollment in much more expensive plans - that is indeed what I'm complaining about.

I think you're missing the hypothetical above. I read it as "the law could have required insurers to bring policies up to snuff without increasing premiums". That presumably would have kept people from getting cancellation notices (and would have been a huge controverstifuck).

In any case, I think you're wrong. I think it's nice that there's a minimum standard for what 'insurance' should actually do. I think mandating certain minimal care coverage is critical in preventing people from being fleeced by super cheap plans that don't cover crap.

I think you're missing the practical reality. Insurers cannot bring policies "up to snuff" without increasing premiums. The changes are significant enough (both benefits and costs) that they are for all practical purposes new & different plans, the old plans are cancelled and new ones must be chosen. That "minimum standard for what insurance should actually do" is now legislated to a very high, and very expensive, level; we're not talking minimum reasonable, we're talking compelling luxury plans.

The minimums hardly make these plans "Luxury Plans".

The (very good) reason to have minimum coverage requirements is to push people from burdening the acute care system (ERs). This is necessary in order to keep overall health costs in check. We cannot, as a society, continue to have people rely on ERs for their only care.

Some of the lavish coverage that is now required[1]: * Blood Pressure Screening * Blood Sugar (Diabetes) Screening * Cholesterol Screening

All of these things are precursors to chronic (expensive) conditions. It is much cheaper to manage these things before you develop heart disease or diabetes. Mandating coverage for these things is simply the smarter allocation of resources than treating the end-stage disease.

It is critical they force churn of healthy young people so they can jack up the prices. that is what the whole Act is predicated on. the more young, health people with cheap plans tha exist, the more the act fails. those plans were not priced to subsize the aca's higher risk pool. that is why the "keep your existing plan" lie is/was so pernicious. the entire thing was a subterfuge, as behind the scence the gov't was <planning> the system to <intentionally churn> people off existing plans. the evidence is quite strong on this...sorry.

I'm still waiting for someone to show their canceled plan side-by-side to the new plans on healthcare.gov and show how much better their old plan was.

I mean just one example on a website that can be reviewed for accuracy, other than say fox.

In some cases, its not about the specific coverage, but about cost. Completely anecdotal, but a friend of mine that owns a small business had his current coverage canceled on him, and that the cost to cover his family (wife, 2 young kids) in the new system was going be about $700/month more. Sure, you can probably identify additional value that he would be receiving. In his case, the new, more expensive plan was the cheapest he could get (subject to unknown constraints that he obviously chose through the search process). In the end, he just wanted his old plan back, and was being offered something he didn't want for a lot more money.

Lots of these people are looking at Gold plans instead of Bronze plans on the site, when Silver and Bronze was far closer to their old plans.

San Francisco architect Lee Hammack and his wife, JoEllen Brothers, are a good example.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/health/SF-Couple-Kaiser-Healt...

Still not seeing the plan side by side, or seeing the other options/plans that were offered in place. The article only mentions a couple dollar amounts.

As ck2 says, everything that's been tossed around (that I've seen) so far has been anecdotal, sensationalized, or flat out bogus. Will there be some hiccups? Of course. But they are the exception, not the rule.

2014 Price is more expensive (but relatively modest ~$50/month), but co-pays and deductibles are dramatically more expensive than in 2013.

http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/815691-kaiser2014be...

Those deductibles include dependents (children & spouses) which the previous plan did not. They weren't even covered under the 2013 plan.

>which could also not explain why the plan did not meet the Affordable Care Act's requirements.

News at 10, health insurance companies are participating in shady business deals. I have absolutely no proof but they probably did some huge accounting for Obamacare and cancelled plans that they deemed less profitable rather than making some minor change in favor of those they thought they would make more money on using Obamacare as an excuse.

Time is far more critical with an ambulance.