Freeman claims

Now consumer know they are getting adequate coverage and don't have to read the fine print (which most didn't).

You think that's true, you really do? How about my situation? I have qualifying insurance that is not even considered poor. Do you really think most will consider paying outrageous amounts of money...between me and my employer, it cost $10,312/year. And insurance pays NOTHING until I reach $5200!!!
after that they pay 80% until I spend $11,000 out of pocket (a year) If something happens at the end of the year where costs are over a period of a few weeks...that's $22,000 out of my pocket that insurance did not pay for. This is supposed to ease those who have this coverage and make them feel all warm and fuzzy? Do you also think they are all reading the fine print or simply looking at what is least expensive assuming they have "adequate" coverage, after all, Obama made all those "poor plans" go away, this plan is considered decent????

No, the more people actually see what's happening to THEM and not just a nice feeling about how wonderful it's going to be for everyone, once they get hammered with expensive coverage and poor coverage, more and more are going to question what they were sold, what they actually voted for isn't happening!

GMTom wrote:Freeman claims

Now consumer know they are getting adequate coverage and don't have to read the fine print (which most didn't).

You think that's true, you really do? How about my situation? I have qualifying insurance that is not even considered poor. Do you really think most will consider paying outrageous amounts of money...between me and my employer, it cost $10,312/year. And insurance pays NOTHING until I reach $5200!!!
after that they pay 80% until I spend $11,000 out of pocket (a year) If something happens at the end of the year where costs are over a period of a few weeks...that's $22,000 out of my pocket that insurance did not pay for. This is supposed to ease those who have this coverage and make them feel all warm and fuzzy? Do you also think they are all reading the fine print or simply looking at what is least expensive assuming they have "adequate" coverage, after all, Obama made all those "poor plans" go away, this plan is considered decent????

No, the more people actually see what's happening to THEM and not just a nice feeling about how wonderful it's going to be for everyone, once they get hammered with expensive coverage and poor coverage, more and more are going to question what they were sold, what they actually voted for isn't happening!

And, iirc, isn't it correct that there are reductions in medical savings accounts?

Tom, if you change insurance companies, you may have to change doctors. You may want to look into that. When these new plans take effect that will be in the news.

Currently I have an insurance agent who has helped me immensely navigate health insurance. The first year I used his services I saved a bundle and got a better plan. With ACA I was trying to figure out whether I would benefit by using the health care connector. My annual income varies quite a bit. Of course, there's no way to tell whether I will qualify or not before the year starts. My old health insurance is compliant with ACA since it is compliant with the Mass. requirements.

However, if I want to benefit from the ACA, I have to use the connector and cut out my agent. Whether that makes sense or not is impossible to say until I know my annual income, which is over a year away. Now I have to compare my current insurance with the ACA plans. Unfortunately the site crashed the first time I tried.

What a mess ...

ray

Tom, if you change insurance companies, you may have to change doctors

This is nothing new. The ACA doesn't change this..... It may force some people to shop for new insurance as their old insurance was substandard, but every time a company or person moved their insurance in the past this might have occured. (Doesn't happen under single payer though, which provides more freedom to the user to choose their doctor than a system that some of you insist offers "choice".

tom

You think that's true, you really do? How about my situation? I have qualifying insurance that is not even considered poor. Do you really think most will consider paying outrageous amounts of money...between me and my employer, it cost $10,312/year. And insurance pays NOTHING until I reach $5200!!

Why did your employer change plans Tom?
If the previous plan didn't meet minimum ACA standards it had to have some pretty serious deficiencies. You still haven't explained what they were... And I still don't think you know what they were.

The free-market goes haywire when people have less control over their cash (as in under the ACA) than when they have more control over it?

The ACA actually increases choice. For people with pre-existing conditions. And for people who require subsidies to afford any insurance.
It doesn't decrease choice except that it eliminate substandard products.

They're too dumb to know what they had, but the government is going to fix that by giving fewer, more expensive choices?

Sure. In the same way that consumers are sometimes unaware that other products they are buying are dangerous or substandard . Why are you complaining that financial products should meet minimum standards? You've never complained that standards in any of hundreds of areas that affect your daily life are maintained. Food quality is maintained so that unaware consumers don't become ill. Safety standards are maintained and consumers who often died as a result of unsafe products or working conditions are protected....
The notion that consumers of insurance have been fully informed consumers in the past is laughable. (Tom doesn't know why his previous company plan was deficient or what its capitation limits were .....so he's illustrating a consumer who wasn't fully informed.)
The alternative was that they were fully informed but chose to take risks because they knew that someone else was back stopping their risk. (Unpaid bills at health providers are paid by someone Fate...)
The fact that there are only a few companies competing in a few small areas of the nation, like West Virginia, is a little disturbing. It makes one wonder why insurance companies either avoid the areas as poor business opportunities (And that's probably the reason for West Virginia) or there is some unusual actuarial reason to avoid the reason... Perhaps in West Virginia they want to avoid having to sign on a lot of miners with preexisting lung problems? )
But theres' a reason that has little to do with the ACA minimal standards. And more to do with business. (And if a business can only be constructed if the good people of West Virginia have to accept lower insurance standards then the rest of the US ...there's an issue of equal access. and justice. )

rickyp wrote:ray

Tom, if you change insurance companies, you may have to change doctors

This is nothing new. The ACA doesn't change this.....

Gee whiz, the facts seem to be against you--just like they're against the President. But, don't let the truth dissuade you, you true-believer you!

The Obama Administration has been claiming that insurance companies will be competing for your dollars under the Affordable Care Act, but apparently they haven't surveyed the nation's top hospitals.

Americans who sign up for Obamacare will be getting a big surprise if they expect to access premium health care that may have been previously covered under their personal policies. Most of the top hospitals will accept insurance from just one or two companies operating under Obamacare.

"This doesn't surprise me," said Gail Wilensky, Medicare advisor for the second Bush Administration and senior fellow for Project HOPE. "There has been an incredible amount of focus on the premium cost and subsidy, and precious little focus on what you get for your money."

Regulations driven by the Obama White House have indeed made insurance more affordable – if, like Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, you're looking only at price. But responding to Obamacare caps on premiums, many insurers will, in turn, simply offer top-tier doctors and hospitals far less cash for services rendered.

Duh: offer less for the same services and some providers refuse to take it. Hmm, it's like capitalism or something.

It may force some people to shop for new insurance as their old insurance was substandard, but every time a company or person moved their insurance in the past this might have occured.

Yes, but cuts in what their doctors got paid mandated by the Federal government . . . that's new! Big ups to the ACA for forcing Americans to realize that there's no such thing as a "free lunch."

(Doesn't happen under single payer though, which provides more freedom to the user to choose their doctor than a system that some of you insist offers "choice".

So valuable! It's great to know there's no downside to giving control to the government to control ALL medical reimbursement. If SOME control has a downside, we can know that COMPLETE control has no downside.

Or something.

Why did your employer change plans Tom?
If the previous plan didn't meet minimum ACA standards it had to have some pretty serious deficiencies. You still haven't explained what they were... And I still don't think you know what they were.

Um, why does this confuse you so?

His policy now costs him a LOT more money. How many Americans can afford (potentially) $22K a year?

The free-market goes haywire when people have less control over their cash (as in under the ACA) than when they have more control over it?

The ACA actually increases choice. For people with pre-existing conditions. And for people who require subsidies to afford any insurance.
It doesn't decrease choice except that it eliminate substandard products.

False. As demonstrated above, there will be fewer hospitals available. Further, there are fewer insurance companies competing. Finally, many Americans would agree with the propagandized meaning you've imported into "substandard." For example, my wife and I don't need pediatric or maternity coverage. Under the ACA it's mandatory. However, if we could get rid of them, what would make our policy "substandard?" What impact would it have on OUR lives?

They're too dumb to know what they had, but the government is going to fix that by giving fewer, more expensive choices?

Sure. In the same way that consumers are sometimes unaware that other products they are buying are dangerous or substandard .

Hey, I'm all for what you're proposing. The President should be honest, get on TV, and say the following:

"Good evening, my fellow Americans.

I need to explain a few things about the Affordable Healthcare Act. The truth is many of you are too stupid to understand you were being duped before this bill passed. While you thought your needs were being met as you shopped and chose your policies, the truth is you weren't. What you failed to realize is that you actually need coverage you won't use. So, as your bills increase in the next several months, I want you to rejoice.

Why? Because I and my Democratic colleagues have found a way to give you what you don't need at a higher price because it will help balance out our ineptly created plan. Without you paying more than you need to, the whole thing would crash.

Remember, the plans you had before were inferior. They were substandard. The money you saved? Forget about it. You need plans that give you more.

Now, I know what you're thinking, "Mr. President, that makes no sense. Why should my rates go up when I will get no additional benefit?"

That's true, but only if you're thinking like a running dog lackey of the bourgeoisie. Look, in order to cover people with pre-existing conditions and take care of those less fortunate than you, we had to stick it to you. It was the right thing to do.

Of course, no one in my Administration or Congress is forced to do what you're doing. But, that's only right. We are, after all, public servants. We sacrifice so you don't have to.

Goodnight and God bless. He'll have to or you won't be able to pay your bills."

Food quality is maintained so that unaware consumers don't become ill. Safety standards are maintained and consumers who often died as a result of unsafe products or working conditions are protected....

And, as I illustrated (with a chart) there were thousands of State regulations before the ACA. It's not like it was an unregulated market. There were simply more choices--and people could set their own priorities instead of having the ACA set them for them.

The notion that consumers of insurance have been fully informed consumers in the past is laughable.

It's also a straw man.

Who is "fully informed" about healthcare insurance? What did Pelosi say about the bill? "We have to pass it to find out what's in it."

The President has either been lying about what's in it or is ignorant of his own bill--which is it?

No one is "fully informed" unless they work in the field and/or spend countless hours studying it.

However, many people had experience with their previous plans and liked them.

The fact that there are only a few companies competing in a few small areas of the nation, like West Virginia, is a little disturbing. It makes one wonder why insurance companies either avoid the areas as poor business opportunities (And that's probably the reason for West Virginia) or there is some unusual actuarial reason to avoid the reason... Perhaps in West Virginia they want to avoid having to sign on a lot of miners with preexisting lung problems? )

There are other States with little/no competition. Besides, isn't the ACA supposed to mandate coverage for "pre-existing conditions?"

Furthermore, if the bill, as freeman3 claims, is a "free-market" solution, it would encourage and/or demand competition. However, that's NOT what is happening.

More "good" news:

“When we first saw the numbers, everyone’s eyes kind of bugged out,” said Matt Salo, who runs the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “Of the people walking through the door, 90 percent are on Medicaid. We’re thinking, what planet is this happening on?” . . .

Low enrollment in private insurance, meanwhile, could increase premiums as it would likely indicate that only sick people, who really need coverage, were signing up.

Yet given that many of the health law’s changes to the insurance market are unprecedented, it’s difficult to predict how this disparity will play out.

“These are uncharted waters,” said David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. “The ultimate goal is to make insurance more affordable for Americans. I don’t think the program’s success should be judged by the ratio of private insurance to Medicaid.”

The lopsided enrollment comes at an inopportune moment for the Obama administration, with Republicans widening their attacks beyond the botched launch of HealthCare.gov.

Yeah, it really doesn't matter how few are on private insurance.

My employer did not switch plans, the one I had been in had such a large jump (over 20%), I am looking at the alternatives. I will end up keeping the one I had previously but that one was a step down last year for more money as it was and the jump this year is even more! I will be paying out of my pocket over $8000 this year (plus the money my employer puts in)
It's another of these high deductible plans, I pay more per week but I have a bit lower threshold until insurance kicks in. The lesser plan actually works out BETTER if I make few claims but the max is 6000 vs 11,000 so I'm paying more just in case.

My problem is severalfold...
Obama promised me savings "up to $2500 per average family" and I am pretty much an average middle class family. Further, when I heard about the average cost going up in most states, it was reported NY would see savings. Instead I find a 20% increase!? And the ACA is supposed to weed out bad, substandard plans...this crap qualifies as good? again, this isn't even bottom tier stuff, there are worse than mine! The promise of "affordable" insurance, the promise of "good insurance" the promise of savings, they are all a big fat lie yet liberals (well most of them...their numbers are declining) are supporting this nonsense. The liberals should simply claim this is not what we agreed to and demand it be fixed! I'm not talking about the website problems, those will (hopefully) be fixed soon although a year delay is already well in order! The problem is in the promises not being fulfilled, we are not getting what we agreed to yet some continue to support this? I'm frankly shocked by that!

Yes, every president lies in his campaign. Most are not outward knowing lies of course but how can anyone continue to support Obama?
His LIES, not just "oops, I mis-spoke" or "things changed" errors, but outright LIES are mounting.
This health care lie affects just about everyone and is huge
but what about transparency? WGuatanamo Bay? whistelblowers? what about his promises regarding spying on people...where is the OUTRAGE over spying on the public, spying on our allies, spying on the freaking POPE!?
check plotifact
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... se-broken/
six PAGES of lies

like I said before, you can't shine a turd

I see things have moved on since I last saw this, but following it I do want to make it clear that (yet again) I object to someone deciding to tell me what I do or do not believe or think.

Doctor Fate wrote:It comes down to a difference in beliefs. As much as you want to make it about insurance, it's not. It's about who should pay for it.

Well, unfortunately it is about insurance. And who pays for it? Well, those who take it out.

You have no issue with people paying for coverage they cannot and will not use because "that's how insurance works." In effect, they are subsidizing someone else and you think that's fine.

Everyone who has an insurance policy but does not claim as much as they pay in is subsidising the insurance. Everyone who claims more than they put in is being subsidised. Highlighting a coverage item while not considering the rest is not a good way to compare. As I have tried to point out, women who cannot get pregnant are usually at a higher risk of other health problems, for which they are more likely to claim.

But they are not paying for a specific item that they cannot use. They are paying for the overall coverage. And as yet you still have not shown how making pregnancy cover optional would actually reduce premiums, after accounting for the extra administration of doing so and what the actual

I think Americans would be revolted by the concept. If the President said, "Here's the plan: young people, you subsidize the elderly; rich people, you subsidize the poor; people with no kids, you subsidize those with kids; if everyone pays enough, we can some of those without insurance," his plan would have gone down in flames. Yet, that's what it is.

Well, I've shown that those without kids pay less than those with. So I don't see the 'subsidy' there. And the rules were pretty clear on how the pools would work and what companies could do with them.

You already are subsidising those without insurance - and have been for some time. At least this makes it a bit more obvious.

You believe the program will work. I don't believe it will.

Depends on your view of what 'working' would be, I guess. I think it is imperfect, will not achieve all of its aims and promises, and will very likely have effects. But it will provide coverage for a lot of people who never had it before and need it.

I believe it will drive up the price for many and spark a rebellion (against the law). You, apparently, think it may work to lower costs for many.

Wrong on my 'belief' again. I think it will result in better coverage for many. I accept that this will not be free.

I see this as a massive government intrusion and the introduction of unwanted regulation and red tape. You disagree.

I think there is too much red tape involved in it.

We are opposite ends of the spectrum.

You think the program properly employs insurance. I think it is irrational socialism: there is a socialism that can be agreed upon and entered into with eyes wide open. This is not that. It is not well thought-out and it was deceptively presented. As both of those factors are brought into focus, the ACA will collapse.

Does it 'properly' employ insurance? It's not 'improper', but it's not ideal. What I would think would work better would be Single-payer state-backed insurance, but that was not going to get the backing of 'moderate' Democrats.

But it is not socialism. Socialism is common ownership of the means of production to disburse the proceeds of labour among those who provide it and need it. Obamacare does not involve the government taking ownership of insurance companies, or healthcare providers. Profits are limited, but not wholly appropriated.

Socialism would be like the NHS - direct taxation to pay for a state owned and operated health service that is open to all, free at the point of delivery (in the ideal). At a pinch you could claim that the model of single payer insurance is socialism (it's more 'social democracy'), but not Obamacare.

What it is, is state interference in a failing market. And clearly more interference than prior. But let's not pretend that the previous state was either all that good or sustainable - for 40 years or so Democrats and Republicans have been trying to deal with escalating costs. Is Obamacare the perfect solution? Nope, not even close. Is it worse than what came before? For some yes, for others definitely not.

Anyway, as I do not wish to have you decide what you think or assume I believe is more important that what I actually do, I'll leave you to your whinge-fest.

I (and I think most Americans) have no problem with what I am paying for. If I am subsidizing young women giving birth, older people who have cancer care...whatever, yes insurance spreads the risk. The problem is how much it is costing us vs what we were promised. THAT is the issue, picking on who pays for what is a non-issue. If I get better care at a better price then I don't really give a damn that I'm paying for some kids pimple doctor or some old ladies walker.

But danivon, while this is not pure socialism, it most certainly IS socialism to a degree. The poor are getting subsidies paid for by the others...socialism!
And even there, if my care gets better while my costs go down, great go ahead and subsidize anyone you want! Problem is my care is not better and my costs are far higher.

Obama and the entire Democratic party is going to have a BIG problem trying to support this, the more people hear, the more they are upset, the polling numbers in support of Obamacare have been dropping almost daily. This is a polarizing issue that affects every American, not a single Republican got behind the plan and fought it tooth and nail. Democrats (I think every one) supported it. The general population was fairly split on the issue,now that it's starting to affect people in ways that were promised to be the opposite, they suddenly wake up and oppose the failed law. That will result in tremendous support for Republicans and in fact, people are even starting to understand just WHY the Republicans were threatening a government shutdown. It's coming, a Republican landslide victory! The Dems pissed off the silent majority of conservatives!

danivon wrote:Everyone who has an insurance policy but does not claim as much as they pay in is subsidising the insurance. Everyone who claims more than they put in is being subsidised. Highlighting a coverage item while not considering the rest is not a good way to compare. As I have tried to point out, women who cannot get pregnant are usually at a higher risk of other health problems, for which they are more likely to claim.

Fine, then charge them for the higher risk, don't hide it with unneeded coverage. I thought transparency was one of the great advances of the ACA?

But they are not paying for a specific item that they cannot use. They are paying for the overall coverage. And as yet you still have not shown how making pregnancy cover optional would actually reduce premiums, after accounting for the extra administration of doing so and what the actual

Prove that it has no effect. Prove that covering pediatrics for children with no possibility of having children doesn't raise prices. For example, are we to believe all of this comes at no cost?

Pediatric Services – Care provided to infants and children, including well-child visits and recommended vaccines and immunizations. Dental and vision care must be offered to children younger than 19. This includes two routine dental exams, an eye exam and corrective lenses each year.

I think Americans would be revolted by the concept. If the President said, "Here's the plan: young people, you subsidize the elderly; rich people, you subsidize the poor; people with no kids, you subsidize those with kids; if everyone pays enough, we can some of those without insurance," his plan would have gone down in flames. Yet, that's what it is.

Well, I've shown that those without kids pay less than those with. So I don't see the 'subsidy' there.

But, you've not proven it's "free."

You already are subsidising those without insurance - and have been for some time. At least this makes it a bit more obvious.

Meanwhile, the young are going to be subsidizing the elderly (again). As the LA Times op-ed I cited said, how many times can they go to that well before the young figure it out?

You believe the program will work. I don't believe it will.

Depends on your view of what 'working' would be, I guess. I think it is imperfect, will not achieve all of its aims and promises, and will very likely have effects. But it will provide coverage for a lot of people who never had it before and need it.

No, it will provide coverage to some and it will force some to stop having insurance because they can't afford it.

It won't work because it's going to shift an enormous burden to the Federal government and it's going to put many more than they thought on Medicaid. Ultimately, we will either have to repeal it or go on socialized medicine, but that was (I believe) the goal all along--otherwise, they would not have cobbled together such a hideous plan.

I believe it will drive up the price for many and spark a rebellion (against the law). You, apparently, think it may work to lower costs for many.

Wrong on my 'belief' again. I think it will result in better coverage for many. I accept that this will not be free.

Well, that certainly separates you from the President and the Democrats. They've been promising free roses and sunshine from the beginning.

We are opposite ends of the spectrum.

You think the program properly employs insurance. I think it is irrational socialism: there is a socialism that can be agreed upon and entered into with eyes wide open. This is not that. It is not well thought-out and it was deceptively presented. As both of those factors are brought into focus, the ACA will collapse.

Does it 'properly' employ insurance? It's not 'improper', but it's not ideal. What I would think would work better would be Single-payer state-backed insurance, but that was not going to get the backing of 'moderate' Democrats.

And again, you've set yourself apart from Democrats and rickyp, who believe this is a GOP-caused situation. Most Americans don't want socialized medicine.

But it is not socialism. Socialism is common ownership of the means of production to disburse the proceeds of labour among those who provide it and need it. Obamacare does not involve the government taking ownership of insurance companies, or healthcare providers. Profits are limited, but not wholly appropriated.

Semi-socialism; again, you've set yourself apart from freeman3, who believes the ACA is a "free-market" solution.

What it is, is state interference in a failing market. And clearly more interference than prior. But let's not pretend that the previous state was either all that good or sustainable - for 40 years or so Democrats and Republicans have been trying to deal with escalating costs. Is Obamacare the perfect solution? Nope, not even close. Is it worse than what came before? For some yes, for others definitely not.

But, it is unwieldy and unwise. A prudent plan would have been to go a bit at a time, measure and re-calibrate.

Is maternity care free? Let the reader decide:

Additionally, the promise that you could keep your old policy, if you liked it, has proved illusory. My insurer, Kaiser Permanente, informed me in a glossy booklet that "At midnight on December 31, we will discontinue your current plan because it will not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act." My premium, the letter added, would go from $209 a month to $348, a 66.5 percent increase that will cost $1,668 annually.

What made my plan too substandard to survive under Obamacare? It did not provide maternity benefits. I'm 53 years old. I figure pregnancy would require an act of God. (Incidentally, maternity benefits will be covered on men's policies too. Let's hope medical science comes a long way so you guys can use those benefits.) My policy also did not cover substance abuse treatments or psychiatric care.

More:

Insurers say the price and cost hikes result from new benefit mandates, additional taxes levied as part of the law and a requirement that they can no longer deny coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

The vast majority of insurance plans for 2014 must include a list of 10 essential health benefits, some of which, like maternity care, weren't necessarily included in all health plans a year ago.

The law also includes mandatory coverage of mental health and substance-abuse treatment, prescription drugs and rehabilitative care. All preventive care, including annual physicals and routine immunizations like flu shots, must be covered at no cost.

Further, insurers are required to take all applicants, regardless of whether they have pre-existing medical issues that may have locked them out of coverage in the past. And they're prohibited from charging their oldest, sickest members any more than three times as much as their youngest, healthiest members, causing premium prices to rise for many younger people.

Costs associated with those mandates are passed along to all members of a health plan.

I keep hearing about this "Better Coverage" aside from what the President has "promised" (and we have seen how all his other such promises have been lies) what makes you think the new plans are going to be better?

All we know is we have been told there would be certain minimums that had to be provided. We know many people are losing what they had and we know many people are now facing more expensive premiums forcing them into worse coverage than they had before. Please explain to me how MY PLAN offering is so freaking good? Supporters of this mess keep pointing to "better coverage" please explain how it's better than what people had all along. Seems to me a lot of assumptions are being made on supposed promises by Obama and the actual crappy coverage is simply assumed to be good. Some of what is covered certainly sounds good no doubt but at what cost? I need to spend $6000 before my insurance pays a dime! how can you consider this good care? Yeah, the services are eventually covered, AFTER I DROP SIX GRAND (plus my weekly premiums of course) I spend between me, my employer and the 6K almost $15,000 before anything is paid for! That's "better care"?

GMTom wrote:I keep hearing about this "Better Coverage" aside from what the President has "promised" (and we have seen how all his other such promises have been lies) what makes you think the new plans are going to be better?

All we know is we have been told there would be certain minimums that had to be provided. We know many people are losing what they had and we know many people are now facing more expensive premiums forcing them into worse coverage than they had before. Please explain to me how MY PLAN offering is so freaking good? Supporters of this mess keep pointing to "better coverage" please explain how it's better than what people had all along. Seems to me a lot of assumptions are being made on supposed promises by Obama and the actual crappy coverage is simply assumed to be good. Some of what is covered certainly sounds good no doubt but at what cost? I need to spend $6000 before my insurance pays a dime! how can you consider this good care? Yeah, the services are eventually covered, AFTER I DROP SIX GRAND (plus my weekly premiums of course) I spend between me, my employer and the 6K almost $15,000 before anything is paid for! That's "better care"?

I will be, literally, the Devil's advocate.

It is improved because you can't be dropped, no matter how sick you get. It's better because you're helping others get healthcare.

I've got nothing else.

Ok, Tom, here are the reasonable possibilities for why your insurance costs went up so much: (1) the insurance company is gouging you (not likely since the ACA requires insurance companies to refund premiums when premiums exceed 80% of claims paid out, (2) there is not enough competition (again insurance companies are limited by the 80% rule and from what I understand it is the same insurance company in your case), (3) health care costs skyrocketed in the last year for the type of coverages that were required to be added to your non-conforming policy (not likely--haven't heard anything like that), or (4) your insurance was being subsidized by the rest of how us. Well, of course it is #4.
But you were doing fine on the old coverage, you say? Sure you were--you were part of a pool of people who bought insurance with major exclusions. A lot of you did not get seriously sick or require major treatment. A certain percentage of you, howeve, did. So by excluding coverages or capping the total amount of coverage for those who required major treatment, the insurance company was able to keep the price of insurance affordable for the pool; for those who required major treatment, much of that treatment was not paid for. So those people got stuck with huge medical bills which they probably were unable to pay. And whether they declared bankruptcy or not they essentially got unpaid treatment. The rest of us subsidized that treatment in one way or another. In effect, your pool of insurance customers had their insurance subsidized by the rest of the us. What the ACA requires is that for the most part you're not getting that subsidy anymore and you're having to pay the real price.
But why can't we allow you to take the risk of not getting serious ill and be able to pay lower premiums? Ricky has talked about this extensively-- because US law requires that you be treated in an emergency situation even if you have no insurance coverage or ability to pay. We could let you to take that risk, but then if you were dying and you came to the hospital and the hospital found that you did not have the applicable coverage, oh well too bad, out you go. Is that how you want our society to work? I didn't think so...
As for the idea that these unnecessary coverages are driving the costs up (make mostly by DF) that's pretty much ridiculous. First, as Dan pointed out administratively it may cost more to have to deal with different policies that would exclude someone from the coverage someone who is too old to have a baby from coverage. Secondly, if a coverage does not apply to a person then the insurance premium should not go up because the insured event (e.g.,pregnancy) should not happen. Thirdly, whatever minor increase in costs there are by having coverages apply to people who really don't need a specific coverage is far outweighed by the fact that many consumers used to find out that they did not have adequate coverage when they really needed it. No, insurance premiums are going up because of the minimum standards.
The minimum standards make sure that people have adequate coverage and that it is paid for and other actors in the system (hospital, taxpayers, doctors) do not have to subsidize patients.
As you can see from the above, what happened to you is not unfair. You're only being asked to pay the real cost of health insurance. Health insurance is expensive because medical care is expensive. Maybe once the general public realizes how expensive it really since is then they will support things to bring the overall cost of medical care under control (hopefully the ACA's will do it, but if not then something else). The prior system was not working and had to be fixed and for all DF's worship of free market solutions, they don't work in the health care market. In any case, Republicans have proposed no comprehensive solution (this talk of fixing pre-existing conditions is, well, amusing--sure, Republicans are going to subsidize those who have pre-existing conditions...)
Having said that, do I believe that the ACA should be tinkered with to subsidize middle-class families that are having to deal with the sticker shock of having to pay the real cost of health insurance. Absolutely. Would Obama agree to do that---I am pretty sure he would. Would Republicans agree to do that? No way!

Nice guesses Freeman, I am part of the biggest plan in the region, it's part of Blue Cross Blue Shield and I'm n New York, we are already more than virtually all other areas. Nice try!

No subsidies, where do you get that idea? Because my premium went up 20%? What about those who are seeing even greater increases? And who ISN'T going up? based on what you want us to believe EVERYONE was "subsidized" and that aint true now is it? Where do you get off knowing about my areas health care getting subsidized? How so other than your GUESS posed as fact?

My beef is that this was supposed to SAVE me money, did you not hear Obamas promises over and over and over again? Oh wait he simply promised what didn't happen according to you!