We had two outstanding guests appear at our meeting this past Saturday.  State Senator Patty Kuderer is a trial lawyer who has been in the legislature for nine sessions, including the last seven years in the state senate.  She has been a consumer advocate throughout her tenure, championing causes that need addressing.  Patty has been trying to introduce single payer universal healthcare, but she has been told repeatedly that there needs to be a like-minded person in the position of State Insurance Commissioner to make this happen.  As a result, Patty is running to be the Insurance Commissioner.  We were extremely impressed with Patty and will look very closely at endorsing her when the time comes later in the spring.  Patty’s campaign website is www.pattykuderer.com.

Our second guest was Patrick DePoe.  Patrick currently works in an executive position with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the current director, Hilary Franz, has given her sole endorsement to Patrick to replace her as Commissioner of Public Lands.  Patrick has great experience in the field and in meeting rooms in working with natural resource issues, and as a Macah Indian he brings a Native American perspective to his work in addition to his scientific training.  Patrick is very level-headed and not afraid to speak boldly when necessary.  We will also look closely at endorsing him later this spring.  Patrick’s campaign website is https://www.depoeforwashington.com.

As you know, this is a very important election year.  Therefore, we established our endorsements committee for this year with five members from three different islands.  They will be working on getting information on candidates once the candidate filing period closes in May, and they will present their report to the whole group, at which point we will vote on endorsements.  If you would like to be able to vote on our endorsements, you need to be a member, which merely requires that you have attended two meetings within the past year.  The committee will repeat the process after the August primary in preparation for the general election in November.

We look at making endorsements as one of our main reasons for existing as a county political party.  It is our charge to research candidates and initiatives so that we can provide you with recommendations, which we do through our election postcard.  As I have mentioned before, costs keep going up, and it now runs us over $4,000 to print and mail postcards to the voters in the county.  In addition, we need to have a booth at the fair this year to get the word out about the importance of voting Democratic to try to preserve our democracy against the authoritarian threats being leveled at it.  Therefore, I am once again asking for financial support from anyone who can afford it.  We now have about ten members who contribute small monthly amounts, and every once in a while we receive a larger contribution from a very few donors.  If you are able to make a significant contribution to support our efforts this year (no more than $500 due to our reporting status), we would welcome a check made out to the San Juan County Democrats and mailed to PO Box 1007, Friday Harbor, WA 98250.  If you would be able to start a small monthly contribution through Act Blue, go to  secure.actblue.com/donate/sjcountydems.  Many thanks to those of you who have recently contributed.  Unfortunately, democracy isn’t necessarily free.

As you may remember, we have endorsed Bob Ferguson for governor.  His campaign is seeking individual endorsements in addition to organizational endorsements.  Geri and I have endorsed him, and any of you who would like to do the same are welcome to do so at https://secure.ngpvan.com/-WrB_3hyxUehIbVDJ_4oAA2.

Next meeting will be March 9. Guest will be Nick Brown, candidate for state attorney general and endorsed by Governor Inslee.

__________________________________________________________________

Sharon Abreu is sharing the following:

The JFK Peace Speech Committee

and The Community Church of Boston
invite you to attend

A Film Showing, Discussion and Q&A
IF YOU LOVE THIS PLANET
. . . Listen to President John Kennedy

via ZOOM*

with Dr. Helen Caldicott

moderated by Martin Sheen

MONDAY
(President’s Day)
Feb. 19, 2024  •  4:00 – 5:30 pm PT

*REGISTER HERE:

https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMlc-qrqTMoHtWKsHBFPpvEEpaTayxERpFE?fbclid=IwAR0hB4adkHrVODK426uVhbHqQjW5KetNikqjDraaIe9lOgDUxA3HqHlpQOA#/registration

The first hour of our Program, moderated by acclaimed actor Martin Sheen, will feature an award-winning film in which Dr. Caldicott discusses the danger of nuclear weapons. We will view the screening of President Kennedy’s American University address followed by remarks from Dr. Caldicott on the relevance JFK’s speech has for us today. During the final half hour of our program, Dr. Caldicott will take questions from the audience.

Dr. Caldicott is an Australian pediatrician and a founder of Women’s Action for Nuclear Disarmament (WAND). She has appeared in numerous documentaries and has authored several  books including Nuclear Madness: What You Can Do and Sleepwalking to Armageddon. In 1992, she received the Peace Abbey Courage of Conscience Award at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston for her leadership in the worldwide disarmament movement. 

Ramon Antonio Gerardo Estevez, known professionally as Martin Sheen, is an American actor whose career spans six decades. Sheen portrayed President Kennedy in a 1983 American-British five-hour miniseries. Over the years Sheen has been active in countless nonviolent acts of civil disobedience and has been arrested more than 60 times standing up for peace and justice.

Join us for a rare and memorable live event with two outstanding peace activists. Please REGISTER today!

_______________________
CONTACT: Martin Schotz

Coordinator, JFK Peace Speech Committee
eli.schotz@gmail.com

Folks, please note that the time given in the graphic is East Coast time. The event will take place at 4 pm Pacific time.

We had two important items that we dealt with at this meeting.

1. First, we passed a resolution in support of the Green Amendment to the Washington state constitution that would enable greater protection of our environment. Here is the current text of the amendment:

 BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, IN LEGISLATIVE SESSION ASSEMBLED:

THAT, At the next general election to be held in this state the secretary of state shall submit to the qualified voters of the state for their approval and ratification, or rejection, an amendment to Article I of the Constitution of the state of Washington by adding a new section to read as follows:

Article I, section . . .. (1) The people of the state, including future generations, have the right to a clean and healthy environment, including pure water, clean air, healthy ecosystems, and a stable climate, and to the preservation of the natural, cultural, scenic, and healthful qualities of the environment.

(2) The state, including each political subdivision of the state, shall serve as trustee of the natural resources of the state, among them its waters, air, flora, fauna, soils, and climate. The state, including each political subdivision of the state, shall conserve, protect, and maintain these resources for the benefit of all the people, including generations yet to come.

(3) The rights stated in this section are inherent, inalienable, and indefeasible, are among those rights reserved to all the people, and are on par with other protected inalienable rights. The state, including each political subdivision of the state, shall equitably protect these rights for all people regardless of their race, ethnicity, geography, or wealth, and shall act with prudence, loyalty, impartiality, and equitable treatment of all beneficiaries in fulfilling its trustee obligations. The provisions of this section are self-executing.

2. Our second item was to approve a new document that tells what the San Juan County Democrats believe. It is much shorter than our platform and can be used to tell anyone who asks, what do the Democrats stand for? It is based on Democrats 101, a book that is creating a movement of local party organizations around the country, and we are the first group of Democrats in Washington state to adopt such a statement. Here it is:

THE DEMOCRATIC CREED

[From Democrats 101, by J.M. Purvis]

We Believe All people are created equal, that this is America’s fundamental ideal.

We Believe That America is a democracy, by and for the people: ruled by the Constitution and its interpretations, protected by the Bill of Rights, and inspired by the Declaration of Independence.

We Believe These founding documents demand Freedom, Justice, and Opportunity for all Americans, in full and equal measure — regardless of who you are, what you believe or where you live.

We Believe That the Duty of government is to strive endlessly to make the ideals of Freedom, Justice, and Opportunity a reality for all.

We Believe That the Purpose of government is to protect our nation, defend our democracy, and to endlessly promote the welfare of each and every one of us.

We Believe That fighting for these ideals is our purpose as a political party.

What are the principles and policies supported by the San Juan County Democrats?

The San Juan County Democrats stand for democracy.  We actively support the well-being of people, all living things, and the environment, all of which form the basis of our principles and policies.  We feel that fostering this well-being is the purpose of government at all levels.   A free and open democracy would:

• Ensure free and fair elections with equitable access to voting without undue influence of wealth
• Guarantee that all elections are publicly financed and that corporations are not people
• Ensure a healthy environment for all living beings, including clean air, land, and water
• Guarantee communication platforms that clearly and accurately publish verifiable, objective, truthful fact, and identify AI-generated content
• Guarantee the right to privacy, including a woman’s right to autonomy over her own body
• Ensure equitable access to quality healthcare for all
• Ensure equitable access to quality, affordable housing and healthy food for all
• Provide equitable access to quality public education for all
• Guarantee a livable wage and safe working conditions for all
• Protect the health and well-being of its people from external and internal dangers, both natural and man-made
• Guarantee that every person in our society is treated equally before the law, regardless of background
• Eliminate automatic and assault weapons among the general public
• Ensure equitable opportunities for all, regardless of race, religion, or gender identity
• Honor treaty rights and international agreements
• Treat all people around the globe as being created equal
• Embrace and celebrate diversity
• Ensure freedom of movement for all
• Ensure that every person in our society is free to shape their own beliefs and lives, so long as it does not infringe on the rights and safety of others
• Inform the population about all the policies in place that provide for the well-being of the people

As San Juan County Democrats, we strive to support candidates who also support these principles and policies.  If you support these principles and policies, please consider joining our email list at https://sjdemocrats.org/membership/, or email Chair David Turnoy at davidgeri@rockisland.com.

Next meeting will be Saturday, Feb. 10, at 10:00 AM.

Here is a brief summary of our meeting this past Saturday, and there is also an action you can take below:
 

David Kipnis from the effort to pass a Green Amendment here in Washington state spoke to our group.  There are currently efforts in 17 states to pass a Green Amendment, and the three states that currently have such a constitutional amendment are Montana, Pennsylvania, and most recently New York.  David stressed that an important reason for a Green Amendment (GA) is that there are often loopholes that laws don’t address, and the GA closes those loopholes.  David has asked that we look at the GA, study it, then pass a resolution at our next meeting in support.      

1. You can find that wording of the GA at https://docs.google.com/document/d/16aur6bssf5xx8DhBObJ2lOOo3VO6Gnm_UVa-KA7BTEA/edit#heading=h.jdpqpeoowj5k

2. You can find an article on the recent Montana case at
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2023-08-15/montana-climate-lawsuit-could-set-a-precedent-for-other-states

3. Finally, you can read about all the cases brought under the GA (note that NY just passed it two years ago, so fewer cases there)
https://forthegenerations.org/resources/legal-resources/

David encourages us to give Representative Lekanoff a bump to push for a hearing for the GA through Representative Doglio’s Environment and Energy Comm.  Here is some suggested language to send her at debra.lekanoff@leg.wa.gov:

Hello Rep Lekanoff. Recently I participated in a conversation with David Kipnis from the Green Amendment movement here in WA State. I believe this GA is an important and timely resolution that should receive the consideration that it deserves so that Washington state can be a leader in ensuring the welfare of all people today and in the future. Thank you for your work in bringing this forward and we look forward to hearing and participating in testimony on its behalf during the 2024 legislative session.
_________________________________________________________________________
Our second important topic was the question of pursuing an effort to disqualify Trump for the ballot in Washington state under the 14th amendment ban on candidates who have been involved in insurrection.  Ken Crawbuck has been working on this, and he contacted the Secretary of State and the Attorney General in the interest of having them take suitable action.  However, he was told that the way to accomplish this would be for a private citizen to sue under RCW 29A.68.020.  Another way to disqualify Trump is that state law requires that a candidate disclose finances and taxes, which Trump has been loath to do.  If you are interested in knowing more about this, look at the attachment to this email.  Ken lists ways to get involved with helping, and if you would like to get involved, feel free to contact him at kenc@rockisland.com.

Our discussion also included some of the downsides of pursuing this strategy.  One possibility is that if a lawsuit is filed, our attorney general Bob Ferguson, who is running for governor, may be put in a position defending Trump’s right to be on the ballot, which could hurt him in his campaign.  Also, some of the rabid Trump supporters may likely get violent if their favored candidate is not on the ballot.  In other states controlled by Republicans, they may start trying to keep our candidates off the ballot.  Because Trump would not likely win in WA, an alternative might be to pursue keeping Trump off the ballot in a purple state.

Our next meeting will be on January 13, 2024. To get on our mailing list so you can receive the Zoom info to attend the meeting, please go to the membership link on this webpage.

Summary, Meeting of SJC Democrats, Nov. 11, 2023

WA Attorney General and leading Democratic candidate for governor Bob Ferguson was present at our meeting for a quick half hour on Zoom.  He spoke of the importance of not taking anything for granted in the election next year, because in the last two gubernatorial elections when no incumbent was running, the elections were extremely close.  Especially with the fact that Trump still has a chance to be president, we will need a governor who works to strongly support democracy, and Bob has that experience as a very successful attorney general.  Following his appearance, we voted to give Bob the endorsement of the San Juan County Democrats in his bid for governor, joining hundreds of organizations and individuals who have already endorsed him.

We are getting close to 2024, another important year for elections.  We fully intend to send out our election postcard next year, but we need to raise some more money in order to afford this.  If you can afford a significant contribution (limit of $500), that would go a long way toward helping us for next year.  A check may be sent to the San Juan County Democrats at PO Box 1007 in Friday Harbor 98250.  Or, a monthly contribution of $25, $10, or even $5 will help us, which a number of our folks have recently started doing.  If you would be willing to start a small monthly contribution through ActBlue, go to secure.actblue.com/donate/sjcountydems.

Another way to help is to get other like-minded individuals on our email list.  If you have friends who would benefit from receiving the information we provide, please ask them to go to https://sjdemocrats.org/membership/ to subscribe to our email list.

Other topics were addressed in spirited discussion, but no decisions were made.  We did agree to meet again in December, so we hope to see many of you on December 9.

We’re pretty careful when we post something on this web page.  When we see something in the news that we think is of interest and relevant to the Democratic perspective, we first try to make certain that it is accurate and verifiable before creating a blog entry.  We also typically imbed links that serve as backup material for the statements we make.  That’s because we expect our readers NOT to simply accept what we say here on blind faith, but to require that such statements be fact-based.  It’s a standard we work arduously and proudly to uphold.

Not everyone, of course, adheres to this approach.  Many political web sites, political advocacy groups and even major media outlets frequently run stories and ads that distort the actual facts, leave out critical details or are just simply untrue, delivering what their readers/viewers WANT to hear – WANT to be true – as opposed to what is actually true, complete and relevant.  A few examples:

Last fall, at the beginning of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) rollout, Sean Hannity had three couples on his show who were, in the host’s words, “feeling the pain of Obamacare and the healthcare overhaul train wreck.”  After these couples were contacted by (actual) journalists, none of their stories held up under scrutiny.

One couple stated that, “because of Obamacare, they can’t grow their construction business and they have kept their employees below a certain number of hours, so that they are part-timers.”  Well, it turns out that the company in question had only four employees.  The only ACA requirement for such small companies is that they notify their employees of the existence of the Obamacare exchanges.  Under the ACA, you would only be required to provide insurance if you have at least 50 full-time employees.

The other two couples both received cancellation letters from their current carriers and were quoted pretty stiff increases for Obamacare-compliant policies by those same companies.  Both couples also refused to even check the exchanges for comparable policies simply because they “didn’t like Obamacare.”  Journalists checking the web sites for them found that both could receive better coverage for less money.  How can you claim something is bad – on national television, yet – when you haven’t even examined it?

In Louisiana, Americans for Prosperity, funded largely by the petro-chemical magnates, Charles and David Koch, is running ads against incumbent U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu.  The ads depict Louisianans receiving letters from their insurance companies that supposedly cancel their policies and blame the Affordable Care Act.  Problem is, the ads not only feature professional actors instead of actual Louisiana citizens, but also, the producers concede, do not even reflect any specific individual cases.  The events depicted are instead, according to the producers, “emblematic” of what is happening in that state.  You will note that they did not support that claim by citing any real cases.

And, lastly, right here in little old San Juan County, the Republican web site has a post up claiming that, “OBAMACARE IS LITERALLY KILLING THE MIDDLE CLASS.”  The post is simply a link to (yet another) Koch Brothers/Americans for Prosperity ad, this one being aired in Michigan.  It features a woman who has leukemia and claims that Obamacare caused cancellation of her existing policy and that the replacement one has out-of-pocket costs that make her treatments unaffordable, a heart-rending story to be sure.  The local GOPers clearly liked what this ad said so much that they simply neglected to check out whether it was accurate.  But, that’s okay, the folks at the Washington Post did it for them.  Turns out that the lady’s premiums for her old policy were about $1,100 per month.  Those for her new policy under the ACA are about half that.  The savings for that over a year almost exactly equal the out-of-pocket maximum payments under the ACA of $6,350, so the whole thing is pretty much a wash.  Oh, she also gets to keep her doctor.  The Washington Post gave the ad two Pinocchios for “Significant omissions and/or exaggerations.”

Research gives us insight into why these types of emotional appeals work irrespective of whether there is any rational substance behind them.  Sadly, it indicates that political attitudes are largely formed by cultural, environmental and other factors, rather than as a result of information gathering and reasoned thought.  One unfortunate consequence of this is that attempts to persuade people to change based on presentation of facts more often than not simply leads to a hardening of their attitudes.  Despite this discouraging finding, we will continue to deploy factual information and rational analysis to our opinions on this page.  A man can only deny the truth for so long.

The local Republican web site has an article up this week with their take on the differences between how each of the major parties approaches the (ostensibly) mutually agreed objectives of “happy lives free of stress and having the unfortunate cared for.”

As examples of how to realize “happiness in personal wealth and healthy communities including care for the needy,” they list:

Successful Businesses
The Food Bank/Resource Center
Church Outreach and Hospitals
Service Organizations-Lions, Rotary, Kiwanas
Local Animal Shelters

Well, we’re all for successful businesses, particularly the locally-owned variety.  And we all support the efforts of local service organizations, volunteers and similar efforts to help those who need it.  But the fact is that these, alone, are wholly insufficient to either adequately facilitate the pursuit of happiness or address the needs of the less fortunate.

In 2011, the federal government doled out just under $97 billion for food assistance of various types (the recently passed agriculture bill cuts this by about $1 billion per year).  Yes, that’s a lot of money, but compare it to the TOTAL for similar aid given by charitable groups in the same year: $4.1 billion.  Republicans can gnash teeth and rend garments all day long about having their tax dollars go to feed others, but the fact is that private charity can’t come close to meeting the need that exists for supplemental food assistance.

A third of all new businesses fail within two years.  Half are gone within four years.  While we salute and admire those who have borne that risk and survived, starting a business is not for everyone.  And it’s clearly not a general recipe for “happy lives free of stress.”  So Republicans can wax all 1%-ish they want about free market capitalism and charitable  being the Yellow Brick Road to happiness and freedom from want, but a look at actual intrinsic data just doesn’t bear that out.

The Republican web post also lists the following as examples of government programs that fail to “take care of [our] happiness and the needs of the unfortunate”:

Postal System
Amtrack
Medicaid
Social Security
Obamacare

The USPS delivers great service at very reasonable prices.  It’s purported fiscal problems are almost entirely a creation of Congress.  During the Iraq War, my office adopted a platoon and regularly sent snacks, treats, music, DVDs and other items to the troops (you’ll notice that, even though I didn’t support the war, I supported the troops).  The first time I sent a package, I sent it via UPS.  The cost was outrageous, just for ground delivery.  After that, I sent by US Mail for about a third of the cost.  That made ME pretty happy.  Also, ever tried to get UPS or FedEx to deliver a simple letter across the country for 46 cents?  Try it.  It WON’T make you very happy.  BTW, 77% of Americans are happy with the USPS, better numbers than those of free market icons such as Google, computer software makers, telephone companies, and internet service providers.

Just like the postal service, most of Amtrak’s financial problems were created by Congress and just like the USPS, Congress could fix them if they wanted to. Just 26 of Amtrak’s routes carry four-fifths of its passengers, or 25.8 million riders per year. Ridership on these routes is growing rapidly and they are profitable.

Medicaid is a program that provides health care coverage for 58 million people who otherwise could not afford it.  While we have food banks and similar functions, a Google search for “free clinic San Juan county Washington” turned up zero relevant results.  Please tell me how entrepreneurship and charitable giving are going to meet the needs of 58 million people with no access to affordable healthcare?

With the possible exception of Medicare, Social Security is far and away the most popular and successful government program ever established.  Does it make people happy?  Does it provide for the needy?  Well, try taking it away and see what happens.  No, wait.  Don’t even go that far.  Just try and make changes to it that might endanger its viability in the eyes of those receiving benefits.  Actually, you don’t have to do either.  Just ask George W. Bush how it would go over with the American electorate.  He has some experience in that area.

Obamacare is well on its way to providing affordable healthcare access to millions who would otherwise be without it.  This will be of great benefit not only to those who gain coverage, but also the rest of us whose premiums will be lower, hospitals and other providers which will have now serve many more whose bills will not have to be written off as bad debts and insurance companies themselves which will profit from millions more customers.  How is this NOT a win-win for both communities and healthcare providers?

Like most Republican arguments, these are mere statements, claims with no basis in fact, and – you will notice, – they provide absolutely no supporting material.  The article concludes with the statement, “Watch while Republicans clean up the present mess.”  Well, before they can do that, they’ll have to convince the electorate to give them the chance.  With “arguments” like these, it’s hard to see the electorate giving them the imprimatur to do so.

From Mike Konczal via the Washington Post:

© The Washington Post Company

Everyone knows by now, or should know, that a majority of Americans “oppose” Obamacare, officially known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Fox News, talk radio and even the mainstream media have pointed this out repeatedly.  But the last presidential election was fought largely on this turf, and President Obama was returned to office in an electoral landslide.  How can this conundrum be reconciled?

A recent CNN poll reconfirms the numbers: 58% of Americans say they oppose the law.  However, this poll does what others generally have not: It drills down into respondents’ reasons for their opposition.  It turns out that, of that 58%, 41% oppose the law because it is “too liberal,” while 14% say it’s “not liberal enough.”

So, just to set the record straight, 41% of Americans oppose the ACA because it is socialism, will “destroy the American way of life,” and/or will cause a plague of locusts o’er the land, while 54% either favor it or want something even more far-reaching, e.g. single payer.

So next time you see Sean Hannity touting a poll that he says tells you all you need to know, just remember that it’s likely not necessarily what the respondents truly think, but how he’s asking the question that gets those results.

It appears that that sacred cow of U.S. Senate tradition known as the filibuster is dead.  OK, maybe it’s only half dead, since the Democratic leadership only surgically removed it for presidential appointments other than the Supreme Court (i.e. SCOTUS appointments and legislation can technically still be subject to the procedure).  But the Republican leadership has already signaled – okay, SWORN – to eliminate it for everything in retaliation for this “travesty” just as soon as they are returned to the majority.

In other words, Republicans say, the Democrats have wreaked heinous damage upon our democracy … and so we’re going to render that damage both permanent and complete, just as soon as we’re given the chance.  Almost makes you think that’s what they wanted to begin with, only this is much better because now they can blame the whole thing on the Democrats.

Whatever you think of the filibuster, one thing is certain.  Republicans have adhered meticulously to the strategy they famously hatched on inauguration night in 2009 (as documented by author Robert Draper) to oppose Obama’s every policy, appointment and legislative initiative.

How bad is it?  The record on executive appointments, alone:

Senate filibusters of executive appointments since 1952.

This is clearly unprecedented abuse of what was once a time-honored Senate tradition of respecting minority party rights.  But it has gotten completely out of hand, as Republicans vowed on that January night in 2009.  It is no longer used solely, as intended, in rare or extreme cases, but rather invoked routinely and pettily as a way to prevent the Executive branch from doing its job.

Elections are supposed to have consequences.  The president is supposed to be able to make appointments.  Most of those he has made have not been subject to opposition over their qualifications or even ideology, but merely as a way of keeping the president from getting things done.  You need look no further than this Republican strategy of obstruction at all costs to understand why absolutely nothing is getting done in Washington.  That’s not good for the country, and voters should make Republicans pay a price for it in 2014.

So the president has been telling us for the past three years that, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), if you like your current health insurance and want to keep it, Obamacare will do nothing to change that.  Now hundreds of thousands of people are getting notices that their policies are not ACA-compliant and are being cancelled.  So the president is a big liar, just like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been telling you for years now, right?

Wrong.  Measures in the ACA provide that policies being sold in 2010 would be grandfathered, i.e. companies could continue selling them, whether ACA-compliant or not, so long as no major changes are made to them, e.g. modifications to benefits, co-pays or limits of coverage.  If a company elects to change any of these things, the grandfather provision is dissolved and any new policy must be in accord with ACA requirements.

So it is the insurance companies, not Obamacare, that are causing the cancellations. But that’s not to say that, by doing so, insurance companies are doing anything shady, nefarious or out of sheer greed.  Rather, it’s pretty much standard practice for the individual marketplace.  A little background:

About 85-86% of Americans have some kind of health insurance.  Most, about 80%, have group policies of some sort, typically through employment, but that number also includes Medicare and Medicaid recipients.  That other 5-6% buys insurance directly on the individual market, and they are the ones potentially susceptible to policy cancellations.

Yes, it’s inconvenient and annoying to have your insurance company tell you your policy is being cancelled and you will have to replace it with something else.  However, this is extremely common in the individual marketplace, Obamacare notwithstanding.  That’s because such policies are typically twelve-month contracts at the end of which either party can opt out.  Under HIPAA (1996), companies are required to offer replacement policies, but nothing prohibits them from changing benefits or premiums when they do so.

And it’s not as if the cancellations are interrupting long term relationships between the insured and their companies.  Almost half of individual policies are held for less than six months, two out of three are kept for a year or less and only about one in six (17% 0f that 5-6% or less than 1% of all Americans with insurance) are held for as long as two years or more.

So, if your policy is cancelled, it’s NOT because of the ACA.  Your company was going to cancel it and you’d have to get a new policy, anyway.  The difference is that any new policy must be ACA-compliant.

So, how many people does that negatively impact?  As it turns out, not so many.  According to MIT economist, Jonathan Gruber:

• The 80% of people with employer-based plans or similar coverage will just keep their current policies.
• The 14-15% with no current coverage will now have access to it.
• About half of the 5-6% with individual plans will acquire policies with similar coverage and cost.
• And the other half of that 5-6% will have to consider buying more expensive, albeit more comprehensive, policies.

Click to enlarge.

So let’s see, the vast majority of people (83%) will be largely unaffected, 14-15% will suddenly gain access to healthcare and 2-3% will have to pay more for better coverage.  I’m afraid I do not see a train wreck in there, anywhere.  Much ado about nothing.

Oh, BTW, Michelle, it’s the Affordable Care Act or ACA, not AHA, which is the acronym, variously, for the American Heart Association, Arabian Horse Association or the American Homebrewers Association, take your pick.