employers will be forced to assess whether they can afford to replace them with Obamacare-approved plans containing the statist scheme’s minimum coverage standards and their accompanying massive cost increases
This has already happened. I have a group plan for my business, and I got my renewal packet from my broker weeks ago. Renewals usually have to be in by mid-December, so I expect that most businesses know what their options are for next year. And yet we haven’t heard much about “massive cost increases” in employer group plans.
That’s because the Obamacare requirements don’t add much to what employer group plans were doing already. The big ticket ACA item is covering everyone without regard for pre-existing conditions, but group plans have had to do that since the 90s. I saw one estimate (wish I could track it down now) that the new coverage requirements — no-copay preventative care, no annual caps, etc. — would add 2% to group premiums. Two percent isn’t nothing, but it’s in the noise compared to the sort of increases that businesses are used to seeing (our premiums went up 60% from 2012 to 2013).
A primary goal of Obamacare was to give people in the individual insurance market access to the sort of comprehensive coverage that is taken for granted in the employer group market. It doesn’t change the employer market all that much.
give people in the individual insurance market access to the sort of comprehensive coverage that is taken for granted in the employer group market.
“Taken for granted”. God Jim you’re a putz. That access has always been there. Full-coverage plans have always been available. What’s happening now is the choice of buying a plan that doesn’t include maternity care, aroma therapy and acupuncture is being eliminated. They can’t be legally sold. Welcome to the new world. And when people are FORCED to go the the federal government for health insurance, many of them will find themselves AUTOMATICALLY enrolled in medicaid. No back button. No cancel button. “Welcome to the dole. Your food stamps are in the mail.” For people like you I’m sure its a saliva-leaking rubbing-hands-together moment. Hope you enjoy the massive loss of dignity going on. Prick.
That access has always been there
No, it hasn’t. I applied in 2011 and was turned down.
doesn’t include maternity care, aroma therapy and acupuncture is being eliminated
Are you making a joke? I enrolled in a Healthcare.gov plan that doesn’t include aroma therapy or acupuncture. Maternity care is taken for granted in the group market.
when people are FORCED to go the the federal government for health insurance
Who is forced to go the the federal government for health insurance?
many of them will find themselves AUTOMATICALLY enrolled in medicaid
Having helped a disabled acquaintance deal with the huge stack of paperwork involved in getting on Medicaid in the past, I can only say: if only it really is that easy.
the massive loss of dignity going on
Your concern for the dignity of poor people who want health insurance is noted.
“Who is forced to go the the federal government for health insurance?
many of them will find themselves AUTOMATICALLY enrolled in medicaid
Having helped a disabled acquaintance deal with the huge stack of paperwork involved in getting on Medicaid in the past, I can only say: if only it really is that easy.”
The origins of this is that some people would enter their data in the exchange and there is a bug that says congratulations you have been enrolled in medicaid when people were not trying to enroll in medicaid. It is unknown whether or not these people were actually enrolled in medicaid or if the message was sent in error. The reason it is unknown is because the healthcare.gov administrators did not know and were incapable of straightening out the situation.
Not sure if this specific problem ever got fixed but it was reported by early adopters.
The Post has an article on poor people in Kentucky getting approved for Medicaid.
Here’s some of the dehumanizing loss of dignity on display:
“All right,” she said to her next client, a 52-year-old disabled master electrician who said his mother, two brothers and two sisters all died from lung cancer. He had been ignoring a spot on his lung discovered during a visit to the emergency room after he had broken his ribs several years ago.
He also vaguely recalled being told at the time he had something called “wedging of the spine.”
“What do I need here?” said Jeff Fletcher, who was being sued for those medical bills. “Proof of income?”
“Yep,” Lively said, and Fletcher pulled out documents showing that he and his wife live on about $500 a month in food stamps and her disability check.
“You smoke?” Lively asked, going through a few routine questions.
“Right- and left-handed,” he quipped as she typed.
“All right,” Lively said after a while. “You are covered.”
“I’m covered?” Fletcher said. He slapped the table. He clapped twice.
“Woo-hoo! I can go to the doctor now?” he asked Lively. “I’m serious. I need to go.”
But if this guy already had health insurance and was diagnosed with lung cancer, he would be shopping for a new policy and possibly a new doctor right now mid treatment. Because he is older and on Medicaid, he is the demographic that is most effected by shrinking networks and changes in health insurance policies. While this guy will be doctor shopping for the first time, other Americans who are his age and older who already had health insurance will also be doctor shopping because their policies were cancelled and networks changed.
My insurance was cancelled and I am waiting to get a biopsy until I find out if I get to keep my current doctor. Going through the stress of doctor appointments and tests then turn around and have to bring a whole new team up to speed is something I would like to avoid. And with all the uncertainty about what the law says and when different portions go into effect or how administration dictates can change the situation at any moment, it is a good idea to wait and see how things settle.
Have you asked your current doctor which insurance networks he or she is in?
“ave a group plan for my business, and I got my renewal packet from my broker weeks ago. ”
Uhh last week you said you have an individual plan.
“The big ticket ACA item is covering everyone without regard for pre-existing conditions,”
Hmm, I am not so sure. I think the big ticket part of Obamacare is providing subsidies for people to buy health insurance and the expansion of Medicaid.
“That’s because the Obamacare requirements don’t add much to what employer group plans were doing already.”
Then why delay the employer mandate?
“A primary goal of Obamacare was to give people in the individual insurance market access to the sort of comprehensive coverage that is taken for granted in the employer group market.”
As someone who has had insurance on the individual market, I can tell you individual plans did offer comprehensive coverage. This is just another lie about what the insurance industry used to be like and the types of policies that were cancelled due to Obamacare.
Uhh last week you said you have an individual plan.
Uh, no, I didn’t. I applied for an individual plan in 2011 and was turned down. I am enrolled in an exchange plan for 2014.
I think the big ticket part of Obamacare is providing subsidies for people to buy health insurance and the expansion of Medicaid.
In terms of federal budget impact, that’s right. I was referring to the provisions that have the biggest impact on individual market premiums, as compared to pre-ACA individual market premiums.
Then why delay the employer mandate?
Your question is a bit of a non sequitur. The ACA doesn’t add much to what employer group plans were doing. According to one study only 1% of group plans fall short of ACA requirements. But a small percentage of large employers don’t offer employer coverage at all; they are the ones affected by the employer mandate.
To simplify: there isn’t much difference between pre-ACA group coverage and post-ACA group coverage. There’s a big difference between no coverage and post-ACA group coverage.
As for why the employer mandate was delayed, the DOJ says they weren’t ready to enforce it, it isn’t central to the ACA’s coverage-expansion goals, and the administration wanted to postpone political blowback from the affected businesses. Take your pick.
I can tell you individual plans did offer comprehensive coverage. This is just another lie
Most individual market plans aren’t comprehensive (i.e. they fall short of the actuarial value of ACA “bronze” plans). You’re fortunate to have a better-than-usual individual plan; most aren’t so lucky.
Your story changes all the time. Last week you said you could only get an individual plan. This week you say you have a group plan. Next you will say you have both but that wont explain why you mistepresented your position.
On premiums, you miss the foundation of the theory in creating large groups. Obamacare essentially creates a large group, which is why men pay for maternity care and women pay for prostate exams. This drives premiums higher. Any given item may not be a large addition but they add up.
On comprehensive, you picked a term to denegrate old plans and excuse Obama’s lie regarding them. You were lying to support your party’s leader. Then you move the goal posts to actuarial standards of a bronze plan but in doing so change the definition of comprehensive. What is comprehensive under Obamacare? Well, men paying for maternity care but really the standard can change at any time due to the whims of politicians and political appointees. You use comprehensive as a euphamism for coverage dictated to you by the government.
On the employer mandate, you claim only 1% of plans would be affected. I think this is another lie just like the lies about individual plans. It is more likely that businesses would have seen similar cancelation rates. I predict that over the next year many business plans will be cancelled, just like they were last year, as companies get compliant. Democrats will claim any policy canceled before the mandate goes into effect was evil insurance companies but in reality if companies get new plans to meet the new standards it is because of Obamacare regardless of when they do it. This is clever because it spreads out cancellations and allows Obama’s defenders to blame them on nefarious actors. It is also an example of the dishonesty that permiates this entire process from Obama and the Democrats.
You already said your policy saw a major price hike. The question is, was this because it was becomming Obamacare compliant? Before you type no remember we can’t trust you ever shifting story. We need actual data but it isn’t in the best interest of Obama, the Democrats, and their crony insurance companies to let that data out. Maybe in 20 years we might get a good look at the actual data but I doubt it.
Also, if Obamacare only impacts 1% of group plans and individual plans are only 3%, as Obama claims, then why did we have the government take over such a large part of the economy and dictate how doctors do their jobs? Obamacare defenders have been saying how turrible insurance was under the old system and how it needed the government telling everyone what to do but in defending Obamacare you now claim that it wont do much? That’s a lot of money, social upheaval, and loss of choice for something Democrats say wont affect many people.
Last week you said you could only get an individual plan.
No, I didn’t. You are simply misremembering.
On the employer mandate, you claim only 1% of plans would be affected.
No, I didn’t. What I said (with a link to a study) was that 1% of current employer plans already meet ACA requirements (i.e. for comprehensiveness, aka actuarial value). The delayed employer mandate is about penalizing large employers that don’t currently offer employer plans.
I think this is another lie just like the lies about individual plans.
Did you read the study?
We need actual data
FWIW, when I got my 2013 renewal packet it included a somewhat confusing “Rate Explanation” sheet. That sheet analyzed the 2012-to-2013 increase in my plan’s premium, based on the premium for a single individual (our policy actually covered our whole family). The single person premium for the plan (Anthem GHSA451VD, if you’re curious) went up from $482.15 to $812.49. Of that $330 increase, $272.39 was attributed to “group characteristics and rating factors.” In other words, they looked at our “group” — me and my family — and decided that they needed to charge us a lot more. The rest was attributed to “Increase in health coverage plan rate due to trend”, which was summarized as “the utilization of services and the underlying cost of health care for all small group customers.” Like virtually all group plans, the plan already included things like maternity care.
I agree that it’d be nice to know exactly why premiums are what they are — the system is very opaque. But at least, starting next year, I will know that my mysterious premium is only a factor of my age, tobacco non-use, and the composition of my risk pool (i.e. the thousands of fellow NH residents who buy on the exchange). It won’t all be about what some risk model thinks about my individual health future.
why did we have the government take over such a large part of the economy
It didn’t — we still have private insurance, private hospitals, private doctors, etc. Regulating an industry is not the same thing as taking it over.
you now claim that it wont do much?
It does as much as was politically possible. There’s a good case to be made for more sweeping reform, but as the firestorm over cancelled plans shows, there’s enormous political cost to changing anything. Imagine what the reaction would be to a plan, from either party, that did away with all current insurance plans?
“They’re lying about everything now.”
Now?
That’s rewriting history to say now.
We’ve seen the First Lie (“You can keep your plan!”) and people are starting to figure out the Second Lie (“Cost to the consumer will go down!”)… I’m waiting for them to figure out the Third Lie (“Care will be better and more available!”)
Obamacare is the single most destructive piece of legislature ever passed. It will harm more Americans than even the Great Society poverty-enhancement programs. And while it is amusing to watch Liberals lie to themselves about how this horror won’t destroy their own futures (along with ours), I do wish I was watching it from much further away…
“This has already happened. I have a group plan for my business, and I got my renewal packet from my broker weeks ago. ”
Professor, I am confused.
I am not demanding that anyone on Rand’s fine, fine Web site share the details of their personal story let alone their full name. And maybe someone needs to make the case amongst this thicket of Libertarians for the government stepping up to provide a way for all Americans to get health care, and sometimes personal stories get expressed.
But I thought “Jim”, as part of the discussion of the pros and cons of the PPACA (mainly the cons apart from brave people like Jim) and as part of setting the record straight, posted about applying for a health care plan on one of the “Exchanges”, not saying which state or the Federal one, claiming it wasn’t too hard to “get through”, and getting a plan that benefited from the Federal subsidy, saving Jim 900 dollars a month in cost, a Healthcare.gov success story for him, although it rubbed some of the more Libertarian-oriented around here the wrong way.
Earlier than that, when the Exchanges first “went live”, “Jim” expressed that he would be “first in line” on the Exchange, he needed the Exchange to meet his health needs, and he would report on the experience. This provoked a lot of flack from many of us around here who don’t cotton to “the government takeover of 1/6 the economy”, but I expressed to “Jim” the sentiment that we might disagree on policy, but I wished him every success purchasing a health care plan he needed on an Exchange.
I never accuse anyone of misrepresentation around here, and my memory didn’t serve me regarding a plot point in a Hollywood movie I was using as a political point. But if a person is operating a business that has a group plan renewed through an insurance broker (that private detail was offered to counter a political claim that the ACA will impact the small business market), why would a person need to purchase an individual plan on one of the exchanges (again, a personal detail to counter an assertion that the Exchanges are “broken.”)?
Again, I am not accusing any participant in Rand’s fine Web site of anything, but if the personal details and stories, shared as a way of advancing a policy and political discussion of importance to all Americans, if those details and accounts keep changing, we are not being served by an effective voice in defense of the President and his signature legislation.
Well, early on I tried out the Kentucky exchange, one of the few that is said to be working, and through a strange bug or perhaps some unread codicil in the law or HHS regulations, I was sent a pair of Swedish exchange-student nurses for my personal care and who, as it turns out, both happen to be nudists. Surely not everyone who signs up through an exchange gets sent girls as lovely as Katrine and Elisabet, but I can’t be the only one who’s enjoying these fine perks of free socialist health coverage, I’d say more about the benefits of Obamacare, but Katrine says it’s time for our bath.
This is almost enough to make me want to move to Kentucky. Then I remember driving through Paducah in 128 degree weather last June…
I’m starting to think the only ones who will end up profiting from Obamacare will be comedians.
I’m glad other readers on this site are starting to figure this out. Infiltrate non-progressive blogs and defend the progressive agenda by any means necessary.
” are starting to figure this out”
Dude, where have you been? This isn’t new behavior.
It’s not that complicated. My wife and I have had a business for over a decade, and we’ve paid for health insurance for our employees with a group plan. Because my wife and I are the only employees in our state (NH), we’ve always had a separate plan from our out-of-state employees — a “group” plan with only one enrollee (me).
The premiums for our group plan have been steep — for employee+spouse coverage the premium rose from $824/mo in 2012 to $1,356/mo in 2013 — and that’s for a high-deductible HSA plan. Back in 2011 I applied for insurance on the individual market, just to see how it would compare, but I was turned down flat. I don’t know why; I’ve never been hospitalized or had cancer, heart disease, major surgery, etc. But presumably there’s something about my medical history that triggered that rejection, and has been driving our premium increases. Or maybe it’s just a bug in the risk model — there’s no way to know.
So I was looking forward to Healthcare.gov opening, so I could compare the plans there to what my broker offered on the group market. The site was very glitchy at first, but I got far enough to get information and prices for the 10 plan options, ranging in price from $772/mo to $1,269/mo (New Hampshire is one of the 36 states using the federally-run exchange, because our GOP legislature in 2011 blocked creation of a state-run exchange).
In early November I got the annual group coverage renewal packet from my broker. The recommended option has a premium of $1,577/mo. A 16% hike from 2013, not nearly as bad as the 64% hike we had in 2013, but still much more expensive than even the priciest HC.gov option.
So I went back to Healthcare.gov and enrolled in an $808/mo Bronze HSA plan with a high deductible. The site worked much better in November than it had in October.
I’m taking a risk — if Obamacare is repealed, it seems unlikely that I’ll be able to get back into the group insurance market, and I know I wouldn’t get approved for individual coverage. So if that came to pass I might have to close the business and get a job that offers health benefits. One of the less-talked-about advantages of Obamacare is that by guaranteeing access to individual insurance, it makes it possible for people to start and maintain small businesses without risking their health coverage. Hopefully once people have seen and enjoyed that benefit, there won’t be political support for going back to the way things were before the ACA.
“One of the less-talked-about advantages of Obamacare is that by guaranteeing access to individual insurance, it makes it possible for people to start and maintain small businesses without risking their health coverage.”
If insurance premiums don’t suck up all of the money they would like to invest in starting a business. If the goal was to make it easier on people to buy insurance, there are many other things that could have been done to empower the consumer but Democrats have attacked these proposals and existing programs.
My guess is that you couldn’t get insurance on the individual market because you support Obamacare, which indicates a very high likelihood of future mental-health expenses. ^_^
“They’re lying about everything now.”
“It’s not that complicated” followed by six paragraphs of explanation. How’s this instead: I buy what I choose to buy, and it’s none of the government’s business. That’s a lot simpler.
“A primary goal of Obamacare was to give people in the individual insurance market access to the sort of comprehensive coverage that is taken for granted in the employer group market. ”
That was never a goal of Obamacare. The goal of Obamacare was and is to get us to a single payer government system. Period. (#1)
“It doesn’t change the employer market all that much.”
*YOU* used to argue that the idea of Obamacare was to get us away from an employer based market and you asked, “Isn’t that a good thing?”
NOW you’re telling us it doesn’t affect it much?!?!?!?
And of course you are wrong on the latter – the employer based insurance system will be gutted and millions MORE thrown off of their insurance because of …see #1.
Your positions are so elastic……
NOW you’re telling us it doesn’t affect it much?!?!?!?
No, it doesn’t affect people in the employer market much. But by bringing many of the features of the employer market to individuals, it creates a new alternative. Today there are people who take or keep a job simply because it’s the only way they can get health insurance. Under the ACA they will have a new option (i.e. getting insurance on the exchanges), so they may take a different job that doesn’t offer health benefits, or work for themselves, because now they can.
“No, it doesn’t affect people in the employer market much.”
Then why delay the employer mandate?
“But by bringing many of the features of the employer market to individuals, it creates a new alternative.”
You are misrepresenting individual plans under the old system.
” Under the ACA they will have a new option (i.e. getting insurance on the exchanges),”
They could always buy insurance on the individual market.
“so they may take a different job that doesn’t offer health benefits”
Only if the increase in compensation is enough to cover the increase in cost and that has also always been the case. The thing that is different under the new system is the requirement to buy health insurance. So, a person can choose to look for a job that doesn’t provide insurance but they cant choose not to have insurance and save those premiums. The equation didn’t really change except for the forced application of a mandate that reduces the freedom of choice in an individual’s life.
“because now they can.”
Assuming they can afford it but that was always the case.
They could always buy insurance on the individual market.
No, they couldn’t. I know I couldn’t. According to one 2009 study, “nearly three-quarters of people who tried to buy coverage in this market never actually purchased a plan, either because they could not find one that fit their needs or that they could afford, or because they were turned down due to a preexisting condition.”
Under the ACA they can’t be turned down, and they’re eligible for subsidies.
Assuming they can afford it but that was always the case.
If they can’t afford it, they get a subsidy. That was not previously the case.
Your comment was about people switching jobs or starting companies not people with pre-existing conditions. I am not surprised that on a post about Obama and his supporters being dishonest, that you would be dishonest in your defense.
A good example of dishonesty is claiming that everyone who can’t afford health care will get it for free with subsidies.
Your comment was about people switching jobs or starting companies not people with pre-existing conditions.
Some people who want to switch jobs or start companies have pre-existing conditions. Even people who don’t think they have pre-existing conditions — like me — could be turned down. The pre-ACA individual market was full of uncertainty. Leaving a job with health coverage was a big risk, not knowing whether you would be able to get individual insurance.
A good example of dishonesty is claiming that everyone who can’t afford health care will get it for free with subsidies.
The subsidies are designed to make coverage affordable for everyone. If your income is so low that you can’t possibly afford coverage, you get a subsidy or are eligible for Medicaid (if you live in a state that is expanding Medicaid).
“They’re lying about everything now.”
One of the more amusing things about the Obama administration is that it shows exactly how little Democrats really care about being deliberately lied to by the President- which kinda puts all that “Bush Lied!1!!” hysteria into proper perspective.
employers will be forced to assess whether they can afford to replace them with Obamacare-approved plans containing the statist scheme’s minimum coverage standards and their accompanying massive cost increases
This has already happened. I have a group plan for my business, and I got my renewal packet from my broker weeks ago. Renewals usually have to be in by mid-December, so I expect that most businesses know what their options are for next year. And yet we haven’t heard much about “massive cost increases” in employer group plans.
That’s because the Obamacare requirements don’t add much to what employer group plans were doing already. The big ticket ACA item is covering everyone without regard for pre-existing conditions, but group plans have had to do that since the 90s. I saw one estimate (wish I could track it down now) that the new coverage requirements — no-copay preventative care, no annual caps, etc. — would add 2% to group premiums. Two percent isn’t nothing, but it’s in the noise compared to the sort of increases that businesses are used to seeing (our premiums went up 60% from 2012 to 2013).
A primary goal of Obamacare was to give people in the individual insurance market access to the sort of comprehensive coverage that is taken for granted in the employer group market. It doesn’t change the employer market all that much.
give people in the individual insurance market access to the sort of comprehensive coverage that is taken for granted in the employer group market.
“Taken for granted”. God Jim you’re a putz. That access has always been there. Full-coverage plans have always been available. What’s happening now is the choice of buying a plan that doesn’t include maternity care, aroma therapy and acupuncture is being eliminated. They can’t be legally sold. Welcome to the new world. And when people are FORCED to go the the federal government for health insurance, many of them will find themselves AUTOMATICALLY enrolled in medicaid. No back button. No cancel button. “Welcome to the dole. Your food stamps are in the mail.” For people like you I’m sure its a saliva-leaking rubbing-hands-together moment. Hope you enjoy the massive loss of dignity going on. Prick.
That access has always been there
No, it hasn’t. I applied in 2011 and was turned down.
doesn’t include maternity care, aroma therapy and acupuncture is being eliminated
Are you making a joke? I enrolled in a Healthcare.gov plan that doesn’t include aroma therapy or acupuncture. Maternity care is taken for granted in the group market.
when people are FORCED to go the the federal government for health insurance
Who is forced to go the the federal government for health insurance?
many of them will find themselves AUTOMATICALLY enrolled in medicaid
Having helped a disabled acquaintance deal with the huge stack of paperwork involved in getting on Medicaid in the past, I can only say: if only it really is that easy.
the massive loss of dignity going on
Your concern for the dignity of poor people who want health insurance is noted.
“Who is forced to go the the federal government for health insurance?
many of them will find themselves AUTOMATICALLY enrolled in medicaid
Having helped a disabled acquaintance deal with the huge stack of paperwork involved in getting on Medicaid in the past, I can only say: if only it really is that easy.”
The origins of this is that some people would enter their data in the exchange and there is a bug that says congratulations you have been enrolled in medicaid when people were not trying to enroll in medicaid. It is unknown whether or not these people were actually enrolled in medicaid or if the message was sent in error. The reason it is unknown is because the healthcare.gov administrators did not know and were incapable of straightening out the situation.
Not sure if this specific problem ever got fixed but it was reported by early adopters.
The Post has an article on poor people in Kentucky getting approved for Medicaid.
Here’s some of the dehumanizing loss of dignity on display:
“All right,” she said to her next client, a 52-year-old disabled master electrician who said his mother, two brothers and two sisters all died from lung cancer. He had been ignoring a spot on his lung discovered during a visit to the emergency room after he had broken his ribs several years ago.
He also vaguely recalled being told at the time he had something called “wedging of the spine.”
“What do I need here?” said Jeff Fletcher, who was being sued for those medical bills. “Proof of income?”
“Yep,” Lively said, and Fletcher pulled out documents showing that he and his wife live on about $500 a month in food stamps and her disability check.
“You smoke?” Lively asked, going through a few routine questions.
“Right- and left-handed,” he quipped as she typed.
“All right,” Lively said after a while. “You are covered.”
“I’m covered?” Fletcher said. He slapped the table. He clapped twice.
“Woo-hoo! I can go to the doctor now?” he asked Lively. “I’m serious. I need to go.”
But if this guy already had health insurance and was diagnosed with lung cancer, he would be shopping for a new policy and possibly a new doctor right now mid treatment. Because he is older and on Medicaid, he is the demographic that is most effected by shrinking networks and changes in health insurance policies. While this guy will be doctor shopping for the first time, other Americans who are his age and older who already had health insurance will also be doctor shopping because their policies were cancelled and networks changed.
My insurance was cancelled and I am waiting to get a biopsy until I find out if I get to keep my current doctor. Going through the stress of doctor appointments and tests then turn around and have to bring a whole new team up to speed is something I would like to avoid. And with all the uncertainty about what the law says and when different portions go into effect or how administration dictates can change the situation at any moment, it is a good idea to wait and see how things settle.
Have you asked your current doctor which insurance networks he or she is in?
“ave a group plan for my business, and I got my renewal packet from my broker weeks ago. ”
Uhh last week you said you have an individual plan.
“The big ticket ACA item is covering everyone without regard for pre-existing conditions,”
Hmm, I am not so sure. I think the big ticket part of Obamacare is providing subsidies for people to buy health insurance and the expansion of Medicaid.
“That’s because the Obamacare requirements don’t add much to what employer group plans were doing already.”
Then why delay the employer mandate?
“A primary goal of Obamacare was to give people in the individual insurance market access to the sort of comprehensive coverage that is taken for granted in the employer group market.”
As someone who has had insurance on the individual market, I can tell you individual plans did offer comprehensive coverage. This is just another lie about what the insurance industry used to be like and the types of policies that were cancelled due to Obamacare.
Uhh last week you said you have an individual plan.
Uh, no, I didn’t. I applied for an individual plan in 2011 and was turned down. I am enrolled in an exchange plan for 2014.
I think the big ticket part of Obamacare is providing subsidies for people to buy health insurance and the expansion of Medicaid.
In terms of federal budget impact, that’s right. I was referring to the provisions that have the biggest impact on individual market premiums, as compared to pre-ACA individual market premiums.
Then why delay the employer mandate?
Your question is a bit of a non sequitur. The ACA doesn’t add much to what employer group plans were doing. According to one study only 1% of group plans fall short of ACA requirements. But a small percentage of large employers don’t offer employer coverage at all; they are the ones affected by the employer mandate.
To simplify: there isn’t much difference between pre-ACA group coverage and post-ACA group coverage. There’s a big difference between no coverage and post-ACA group coverage.
As for why the employer mandate was delayed, the DOJ says they weren’t ready to enforce it, it isn’t central to the ACA’s coverage-expansion goals, and the administration wanted to postpone political blowback from the affected businesses. Take your pick.
I can tell you individual plans did offer comprehensive coverage. This is just another lie
Most individual market plans aren’t comprehensive (i.e. they fall short of the actuarial value of ACA “bronze” plans). You’re fortunate to have a better-than-usual individual plan; most aren’t so lucky.
Your story changes all the time. Last week you said you could only get an individual plan. This week you say you have a group plan. Next you will say you have both but that wont explain why you mistepresented your position.
On premiums, you miss the foundation of the theory in creating large groups. Obamacare essentially creates a large group, which is why men pay for maternity care and women pay for prostate exams. This drives premiums higher. Any given item may not be a large addition but they add up.
On comprehensive, you picked a term to denegrate old plans and excuse Obama’s lie regarding them. You were lying to support your party’s leader. Then you move the goal posts to actuarial standards of a bronze plan but in doing so change the definition of comprehensive. What is comprehensive under Obamacare? Well, men paying for maternity care but really the standard can change at any time due to the whims of politicians and political appointees. You use comprehensive as a euphamism for coverage dictated to you by the government.
On the employer mandate, you claim only 1% of plans would be affected. I think this is another lie just like the lies about individual plans. It is more likely that businesses would have seen similar cancelation rates. I predict that over the next year many business plans will be cancelled, just like they were last year, as companies get compliant. Democrats will claim any policy canceled before the mandate goes into effect was evil insurance companies but in reality if companies get new plans to meet the new standards it is because of Obamacare regardless of when they do it. This is clever because it spreads out cancellations and allows Obama’s defenders to blame them on nefarious actors. It is also an example of the dishonesty that permiates this entire process from Obama and the Democrats.
You already said your policy saw a major price hike. The question is, was this because it was becomming Obamacare compliant? Before you type no remember we can’t trust you ever shifting story. We need actual data but it isn’t in the best interest of Obama, the Democrats, and their crony insurance companies to let that data out. Maybe in 20 years we might get a good look at the actual data but I doubt it.
Also, if Obamacare only impacts 1% of group plans and individual plans are only 3%, as Obama claims, then why did we have the government take over such a large part of the economy and dictate how doctors do their jobs? Obamacare defenders have been saying how turrible insurance was under the old system and how it needed the government telling everyone what to do but in defending Obamacare you now claim that it wont do much? That’s a lot of money, social upheaval, and loss of choice for something Democrats say wont affect many people.
Last week you said you could only get an individual plan.
No, I didn’t. You are simply misremembering.
On the employer mandate, you claim only 1% of plans would be affected.
No, I didn’t. What I said (with a link to a study) was that 1% of current employer plans already meet ACA requirements (i.e. for comprehensiveness, aka actuarial value). The delayed employer mandate is about penalizing large employers that don’t currently offer employer plans.
I think this is another lie just like the lies about individual plans.
Did you read the study?
We need actual data
FWIW, when I got my 2013 renewal packet it included a somewhat confusing “Rate Explanation” sheet. That sheet analyzed the 2012-to-2013 increase in my plan’s premium, based on the premium for a single individual (our policy actually covered our whole family). The single person premium for the plan (Anthem GHSA451VD, if you’re curious) went up from $482.15 to $812.49. Of that $330 increase, $272.39 was attributed to “group characteristics and rating factors.” In other words, they looked at our “group” — me and my family — and decided that they needed to charge us a lot more. The rest was attributed to “Increase in health coverage plan rate due to trend”, which was summarized as “the utilization of services and the underlying cost of health care for all small group customers.” Like virtually all group plans, the plan already included things like maternity care.
I agree that it’d be nice to know exactly why premiums are what they are — the system is very opaque. But at least, starting next year, I will know that my mysterious premium is only a factor of my age, tobacco non-use, and the composition of my risk pool (i.e. the thousands of fellow NH residents who buy on the exchange). It won’t all be about what some risk model thinks about my individual health future.
why did we have the government take over such a large part of the economy
It didn’t — we still have private insurance, private hospitals, private doctors, etc. Regulating an industry is not the same thing as taking it over.
you now claim that it wont do much?
It does as much as was politically possible. There’s a good case to be made for more sweeping reform, but as the firestorm over cancelled plans shows, there’s enormous political cost to changing anything. Imagine what the reaction would be to a plan, from either party, that did away with all current insurance plans?
“They’re lying about everything now.”
Now?
That’s rewriting history to say now.
We’ve seen the First Lie (“You can keep your plan!”) and people are starting to figure out the Second Lie (“Cost to the consumer will go down!”)… I’m waiting for them to figure out the Third Lie (“Care will be better and more available!”)
Obamacare is the single most destructive piece of legislature ever passed. It will harm more Americans than even the Great Society poverty-enhancement programs. And while it is amusing to watch Liberals lie to themselves about how this horror won’t destroy their own futures (along with ours), I do wish I was watching it from much further away…
“This has already happened. I have a group plan for my business, and I got my renewal packet from my broker weeks ago. ”
Professor, I am confused.
I am not demanding that anyone on Rand’s fine, fine Web site share the details of their personal story let alone their full name. And maybe someone needs to make the case amongst this thicket of Libertarians for the government stepping up to provide a way for all Americans to get health care, and sometimes personal stories get expressed.
But I thought “Jim”, as part of the discussion of the pros and cons of the PPACA (mainly the cons apart from brave people like Jim) and as part of setting the record straight, posted about applying for a health care plan on one of the “Exchanges”, not saying which state or the Federal one, claiming it wasn’t too hard to “get through”, and getting a plan that benefited from the Federal subsidy, saving Jim 900 dollars a month in cost, a Healthcare.gov success story for him, although it rubbed some of the more Libertarian-oriented around here the wrong way.
Earlier than that, when the Exchanges first “went live”, “Jim” expressed that he would be “first in line” on the Exchange, he needed the Exchange to meet his health needs, and he would report on the experience. This provoked a lot of flack from many of us around here who don’t cotton to “the government takeover of 1/6 the economy”, but I expressed to “Jim” the sentiment that we might disagree on policy, but I wished him every success purchasing a health care plan he needed on an Exchange.
I never accuse anyone of misrepresentation around here, and my memory didn’t serve me regarding a plot point in a Hollywood movie I was using as a political point. But if a person is operating a business that has a group plan renewed through an insurance broker (that private detail was offered to counter a political claim that the ACA will impact the small business market), why would a person need to purchase an individual plan on one of the exchanges (again, a personal detail to counter an assertion that the Exchanges are “broken.”)?
Again, I am not accusing any participant in Rand’s fine Web site of anything, but if the personal details and stories, shared as a way of advancing a policy and political discussion of importance to all Americans, if those details and accounts keep changing, we are not being served by an effective voice in defense of the President and his signature legislation.
Well, early on I tried out the Kentucky exchange, one of the few that is said to be working, and through a strange bug or perhaps some unread codicil in the law or HHS regulations, I was sent a pair of Swedish exchange-student nurses for my personal care and who, as it turns out, both happen to be nudists. Surely not everyone who signs up through an exchange gets sent girls as lovely as Katrine and Elisabet, but I can’t be the only one who’s enjoying these fine perks of free socialist health coverage, I’d say more about the benefits of Obamacare, but Katrine says it’s time for our bath.
This is almost enough to make me want to move to Kentucky. Then I remember driving through Paducah in 128 degree weather last June…
I’m starting to think the only ones who will end up profiting from Obamacare will be comedians.
I’m glad other readers on this site are starting to figure this out. Infiltrate non-progressive blogs and defend the progressive agenda by any means necessary.
” are starting to figure this out”
Dude, where have you been? This isn’t new behavior.
It’s not that complicated. My wife and I have had a business for over a decade, and we’ve paid for health insurance for our employees with a group plan. Because my wife and I are the only employees in our state (NH), we’ve always had a separate plan from our out-of-state employees — a “group” plan with only one enrollee (me).
The premiums for our group plan have been steep — for employee+spouse coverage the premium rose from $824/mo in 2012 to $1,356/mo in 2013 — and that’s for a high-deductible HSA plan. Back in 2011 I applied for insurance on the individual market, just to see how it would compare, but I was turned down flat. I don’t know why; I’ve never been hospitalized or had cancer, heart disease, major surgery, etc. But presumably there’s something about my medical history that triggered that rejection, and has been driving our premium increases. Or maybe it’s just a bug in the risk model — there’s no way to know.
So I was looking forward to Healthcare.gov opening, so I could compare the plans there to what my broker offered on the group market. The site was very glitchy at first, but I got far enough to get information and prices for the 10 plan options, ranging in price from $772/mo to $1,269/mo (New Hampshire is one of the 36 states using the federally-run exchange, because our GOP legislature in 2011 blocked creation of a state-run exchange).
In early November I got the annual group coverage renewal packet from my broker. The recommended option has a premium of $1,577/mo. A 16% hike from 2013, not nearly as bad as the 64% hike we had in 2013, but still much more expensive than even the priciest HC.gov option.
So I went back to Healthcare.gov and enrolled in an $808/mo Bronze HSA plan with a high deductible. The site worked much better in November than it had in October.
I’m taking a risk — if Obamacare is repealed, it seems unlikely that I’ll be able to get back into the group insurance market, and I know I wouldn’t get approved for individual coverage. So if that came to pass I might have to close the business and get a job that offers health benefits. One of the less-talked-about advantages of Obamacare is that by guaranteeing access to individual insurance, it makes it possible for people to start and maintain small businesses without risking their health coverage. Hopefully once people have seen and enjoyed that benefit, there won’t be political support for going back to the way things were before the ACA.
“One of the less-talked-about advantages of Obamacare is that by guaranteeing access to individual insurance, it makes it possible for people to start and maintain small businesses without risking their health coverage.”
If insurance premiums don’t suck up all of the money they would like to invest in starting a business. If the goal was to make it easier on people to buy insurance, there are many other things that could have been done to empower the consumer but Democrats have attacked these proposals and existing programs.
My guess is that you couldn’t get insurance on the individual market because you support Obamacare, which indicates a very high likelihood of future mental-health expenses. ^_^
“They’re lying about everything now.”
“It’s not that complicated” followed by six paragraphs of explanation. How’s this instead: I buy what I choose to buy, and it’s none of the government’s business. That’s a lot simpler.
“A primary goal of Obamacare was to give people in the individual insurance market access to the sort of comprehensive coverage that is taken for granted in the employer group market. ”
That was never a goal of Obamacare. The goal of Obamacare was and is to get us to a single payer government system. Period. (#1)
“It doesn’t change the employer market all that much.”
*YOU* used to argue that the idea of Obamacare was to get us away from an employer based market and you asked, “Isn’t that a good thing?”
NOW you’re telling us it doesn’t affect it much?!?!?!?
And of course you are wrong on the latter – the employer based insurance system will be gutted and millions MORE thrown off of their insurance because of …see #1.
Your positions are so elastic……
NOW you’re telling us it doesn’t affect it much?!?!?!?
No, it doesn’t affect people in the employer market much. But by bringing many of the features of the employer market to individuals, it creates a new alternative. Today there are people who take or keep a job simply because it’s the only way they can get health insurance. Under the ACA they will have a new option (i.e. getting insurance on the exchanges), so they may take a different job that doesn’t offer health benefits, or work for themselves, because now they can.
“No, it doesn’t affect people in the employer market much.”
Then why delay the employer mandate?
“But by bringing many of the features of the employer market to individuals, it creates a new alternative.”
You are misrepresenting individual plans under the old system.
” Under the ACA they will have a new option (i.e. getting insurance on the exchanges),”
They could always buy insurance on the individual market.
“so they may take a different job that doesn’t offer health benefits”
Only if the increase in compensation is enough to cover the increase in cost and that has also always been the case. The thing that is different under the new system is the requirement to buy health insurance. So, a person can choose to look for a job that doesn’t provide insurance but they cant choose not to have insurance and save those premiums. The equation didn’t really change except for the forced application of a mandate that reduces the freedom of choice in an individual’s life.
“because now they can.”
Assuming they can afford it but that was always the case.
They could always buy insurance on the individual market.
No, they couldn’t. I know I couldn’t. According to one 2009 study, “nearly three-quarters of people who tried to buy coverage in this market never actually purchased a plan, either because they could not find one that fit their needs or that they could afford, or because they were turned down due to a preexisting condition.”
Under the ACA they can’t be turned down, and they’re eligible for subsidies.
Assuming they can afford it but that was always the case.
If they can’t afford it, they get a subsidy. That was not previously the case.
Your comment was about people switching jobs or starting companies not people with pre-existing conditions. I am not surprised that on a post about Obama and his supporters being dishonest, that you would be dishonest in your defense.
A good example of dishonesty is claiming that everyone who can’t afford health care will get it for free with subsidies.
Your comment was about people switching jobs or starting companies not people with pre-existing conditions.
Some people who want to switch jobs or start companies have pre-existing conditions. Even people who don’t think they have pre-existing conditions — like me — could be turned down. The pre-ACA individual market was full of uncertainty. Leaving a job with health coverage was a big risk, not knowing whether you would be able to get individual insurance.
A good example of dishonesty is claiming that everyone who can’t afford health care will get it for free with subsidies.
The subsidies are designed to make coverage affordable for everyone. If your income is so low that you can’t possibly afford coverage, you get a subsidy or are eligible for Medicaid (if you live in a state that is expanding Medicaid).
“They’re lying about everything now.”
One of the more amusing things about the Obama administration is that it shows exactly how little Democrats really care about being deliberately lied to by the President- which kinda puts all that “Bush Lied!1!!” hysteria into proper perspective.