A strong point IMHO is he was using the "your can keep your current plan" language even at a time when the bill would eliminate HSAs. If you're eliminating a whole type of product, it's hard to justify that language. Politicians weren't touting that "feature", so it's conceivable that someone might have supported that thinking they could keep their HSA.

They were "touting" removing underwriting, removing lifetime claim caps, limiting deductibles, and so on. So you're having to argue that people were retarded and didn't know that expensive features, that their agent probably offered to them, are actually expensive. You hate the gov't dicking around with private contracts (I don't like it either) so much you're willing to promote arguments that defy common sense: "You mean those extra features politicians touted actually cost money? No!?"

There was mention of mandates and increased coverage. They were central selling points.

I see what you're saying about grandfathering. Someone could have interpreted it as meaning cheap plans (like what I had and wanted) would be grandfathered in. That would have been hard for the insurance industry to accommodate b/c of the influx of people who are already sick w/o raising premiums on the healthy. It would have been "fairer" though to consumers who've been paying their premiums month after month without making a claim.

I never thought about the grandfather idea. I knew it wasn't like that b/c I followed it in the papers and talked to my Congresswoman, who was somewhat involved. It's conceivable someone could have interpreted those words to mean a grandfather provision.

My gut feeling is most people understood and wanted it this way.

I had a friend who struggled with drug addiction on and off. I've lost touch with her; I hope she's clean. She once told me she had this one parks job that provided uniforms, on-site housing, meals, and insurance. She loved that job b/c when she falls off the wagon she pours all her money into alcohol and drugs. This was the only job where she could do that and still maintain her basic necessities. She was happier when off drugs and able to manage her own life. I feel like the US is slipping a little bit toward the drug addict mode: "I'll work. In exchange you provide my basic needs and a little bit of money left over that I can blow. I can't take charge of my life." That's *really* bad. I hope it's just my imagination. Even though I think PPACA does more good than harm and solved some real problems, that helpless attitude is a huge problem.