How People Who Get Insurance Through Their Small-Biz Employer Will Soon Be Screwed By Obamacare
Ariana Eunjung Cha writes in the WaPo about the second wave of health-insurance disruption, which affects small businesses, and the Obama admin's lie when health insurance plans were getting canceled this past fall, saying that the cancelations only affected the small minority of Americans who, like me, buy individual policies. (As if that's okay.):
But according to industry analysts, insurers and state regulators, the disruption will be far greater, potentially affecting millions of people who receive insurance through small employers by the end of 2014.While some cancellation notices already have gone out, insurers say the bulk of the letters will be sent in October, shortly before the next open-enrollment period begins. The timing -- right before the midterm elections -- could be difficult for Democrats who are already fending off Republican attacks about the Affordable Care Act and its troubled rollout.
Some of the small-business cancellations are occurring because the policies don't meet the law's basic coverage requirements. But many are related only indirectly to the law; insurers are trying to move customers to new plans designed to offset the financial and administrative risks associated with the health-care overhaul. As part of that, they are consolidating their plan offerings to maximize profits and streamline how they manage them.
"If they do it one way, the word canceled gets attached to it. If they do it another way, they say they are amending the policy. It sounds more gentle but it's the same thing," said Gary Claxton, an expert in private insurance at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "The basic point is, for many people in the small-group market at some point soon their coverage is going to change."
The transformation of the small-group market is just one of the many ripple effects of the Affordable Care Act that will reshape the insurance industry in coming years. With millions of previously uninsured people getting coverage, the insurance industry's business model is being upended, and that's leading to changes involving all sorts of products, not just those sold through the online marketplaces to individuals.
All of you Obama voters, about now, are you wishing you'd voted differently?
And also from the piece, check out how the government has yanked away people's ability to buy health insurance through an association:
Also facing disruption are people who purchase insurance through professional or trade associations and don't have any employees. This includes some doctors, lawyers and accountants in solo practice. Under the health law, that type of association plan is not allowed; sole proprietors must purchase coverage on the individual market.Cynthia Rutzick, 49, who has her own law practice in Oak Hill, Va., said that the policy she had been buying for years through the state bar association was already offering the benefits mandated by the health law.
But the policy, which cost $1,500 a month for herself, her husband and their two children and included 94 percent of the physicians in her area, was canceled. The new one, which costs $1,600 a month for her and her two children (her husband is going on Medicare next year) includes 82 percent of area physicians. Her broker said plans like her old one don't exist anymore.
"So I had a blue car, but could not go out and buy another blue car," she said. "I have to buy a red car, and it's not as good and way more expensive."
via @ByronYork
Coverage. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I now wonder what these changes will mean to the Screen Actors Guild, and I still wonder how it affects Patrick.
Radwaste at January 12, 2014 7:12 AM
"You" meaning the world in general?
As I wrote a friend this morning, am I every glad I bought my health insurance myself rather than getting it through a writers association or SAG/AFTRA.
Amy Alkon at January 12, 2014 7:25 AM
But somehow the Treasury is finding a way to exempt volunteer firefighters from the employer mandate.
Isn't that changing the law without Congressional action?
Jim P. at January 12, 2014 7:54 AM
Isn't that changing the law without Congressional action?
The Emperor no longer needs such action, and the Senate is merely a debating society, and at some point it will simply be dissolved.
Frankly, I'd rather live under Palpatine's rule: he at least is efficient and effective, and his enemies feared him. Teh Won? not so much.
I R A Darth Aggie at January 12, 2014 9:26 AM
Yes, I mean you" as the plural.
As we all can see from the rates and high deductibles, what people are getting for their money is – not so much.
Reminder: this action STOPPED CANCER TREATMENTS FOR THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS.
Radwaste at January 12, 2014 9:49 AM
I think Obamacare has nothing to do with medicine or health care. It's just a re-distribution scheme to get more low-skills people employed by the government, either federal or state.
Higher deductibles, higher rates,less actual services. I predict under-ground buyers' clubs forming for people who don't want the government to know every detail of their medical histories.
KateC at January 12, 2014 9:57 AM
Reminder: this action STOPPED CANCER TREATMENTS FOR THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS.
Posted by: Radwaste at January 12, 2014 9:49 AM
No, it didn't. It stopped making third parties PAY for cancer treatment. A distinction with a very real difference.
Insurance does not equal health care. Like college tuition, it has evolved into a pernicious form of cost shifting.
Isab at January 12, 2014 10:05 AM
If they didn't exempt volunteer firefighters, there would be some serious problems. Plus, VOLUNTEER. Are we going to count the volunteers for Meals on Wheels? The shelters? Seems stupid to me.
It's bad enough all my part time firefighters just got their hours cut to stay below the minimum. If I had to count the 40 volunteers I had, my budget would be shot.
Daghain at January 12, 2014 10:54 AM
So does the executive branch allowing Congresscritters and [some] staff to keep their insurance by defining the Fedderal government as a "small employer" [111] go away?
John A at January 12, 2014 11:50 AM
"Also facing disruption are people who purchase insurance through professional or trade associations and don't have any employees. This includes some doctors, lawyers and accountants in solo practice. Under the health law, that type of association plan is not allowed; sole proprietors must purchase coverage on the individual market."
That is personally going to affect me -- I wonder what that will do to association memberships -- I think many do exist as a way to obtain health care.
And I do wonder what the stated rationale for that was, not the real rationale, but the marketed rationale.
jerry at January 12, 2014 12:05 PM
And I do wonder what the stated rationale for that was, not the real rationale, but the marketed rationale.
Posted by: jerry at January 12, 2014 12:05 PM
I would guess that people who get their insurance through professional associations tend to be better educated and healthier than other individuals. They want as many of these people as possible forced into the Obamacare risk pools, In order to subsidize all the unhealthy people signing up.
I imagine the insurance companies themselves vetoed these association policies, because they knew how it would skew the risk pools.
Isab at January 12, 2014 1:51 PM
Isab, Be sure to tell that to those who can't get care now. I'm sure they'll be happy to hear it from you.
OF COURSE "Insurance" is not "care". However, the arrangement thousands of Americans had to receive cancer treatments depended on their having insurance and that was canceled.
Radwaste at January 12, 2014 5:34 PM
Isab, you are correct. My insurance company and the bar association fought to keep the plans they offered to solo practioners and small firms (which met all the requirements for coverage under Obamacare, at a better price). But The Man wanted our kind and our employees thrown onto the Obamacare roster because we're healthy working folks who are not eligible for a subsidy. I was told this directly by the insurance company and the bar association.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go bang my head against a wall and howl with rage, which is what I do every time I think of this issue. Then I need to do more work to help pay for my new, costlier insurance.
At least I CAN pay for it. I know several people who make too much for the subsidy, but barely enough to survive paycheck to paycheck in NYC. They're all opting for the fine -- they really have no other viable choice. And at least I have the satisfaction of knowing I always opposed both Obama and this elephant fuck of a law. Most of my screwed-over friends were all for it, until they were face to face with the results. So maybe I shouldn't feel sorry for them.
Did I mention that everything about Obamacare makes me insanely bitchy? I've actually left parties when the subject comes up so I won't end up ranting like a madwoman and frightening the guests.
Gail at January 12, 2014 5:44 PM
...or rather, you are INcorrect, Isab. My insurance company, at least, was in favor of keeping the bar association policies.
(Though you are correct that the reason the policies were killed is to add all of us healthy, relatively wealthy types to Obamacare ).
Gail at January 12, 2014 6:01 PM
Did I mention that everything about Obamacare makes me insanely bitchy? I've actually left parties when the subject comes up so I won't end up ranting like a madwoman and frightening the guests.
Posted by: Gail at January 12, 2014 5:44 PM
You and me both. I'm always afraid that I am going to start foaming at the mouth, and they are going to drag me off for a rabies shot.
And Radwaste, If you personally know anyone who has lost access to a doctor or a treatment, here is how an adult handles it.
Patient: "Doctor, I am in the middle of treatment by you, and you are not a covered physician in my new health care plan. Can you recommend a colleague who is?"
Doctor: "possibly, but we might be able to work something out. You know Insurance only pays half or less of my total bill, so for a cash payment, that will be a lot less than the list price, I am sure we can tailor your treatment to be affordable"
Worst case, most people understand that bankruptcy is better than death. When you have medical bills you can't pay, unlike the IRS, or child support, no one garnishes your salary, or puts you in debtors prison. The worst you might end up with is a judgement against you, and paying a doctor or hospital a few hundred bucks a month for life. Student loans are bigger debt, and not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Isab at January 12, 2014 6:15 PM
...or rather, you are INcorrect, Isab. My insurance company, at least, was in favor of keeping the bar association policies.
(Though you are correct that the reason the policies were killed is to add all of us healthy, relatively wealthy types to Obamacare ).
Posted by: Gail at January 12, 2014 6:01 PM
Gail,the insurance companies I am talking about are the ones participating in Obamacare. My guess is your insurance company is not now offering coverage under Obamacare in your state. If they are, they are playing both ends against the middle, and lying to you, in the process.
Isab at January 12, 2014 6:21 PM
Jerry: "And I do wonder what the stated rationale for that was, not the real rationale, but the marketed rationale."
There was no need for any rationale for that in the marketing since everyone had to wait until after the bill was passed before they could see what was in it.
Ken R at January 12, 2014 9:51 PM
Yeah, Ken, I suspect that's the correct answer.
jerry at January 13, 2014 6:45 AM
"I imagine the insurance companies themselves vetoed these association policies, because they knew how it would skew the risk pools. "
I suspect a lot of the insurance companies were secretly pleased to see them go away. Trade associations are often the best at policy-shopping, because their members pay the full cost of their policies.
(Which makes me wonder... what happens with policies offered through unions? I suspect they are not touched, but I don't know that for sure.)
Cousin Dave at January 13, 2014 9:55 AM
Between Jerry Brown and President Obama giving away the insurance store this year, my benefits have fallen but my costs have risen.
Somewhere there's an illegal alien who thinks this is fabulous.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 13, 2014 1:54 PM
(Which makes me wonder... what happens with policies offered through unions? I suspect they are not touched, but I don't know that for sure.)
Posted by: Cousin Dave at January 13, 2014 9:55 AM
I would suspect that you are right. People that work for the unions are undoubtedly exempt. However, the majority of union members, are getting their insurance through their employer, and not through the union itself.
A lot of lawyers probably didn't bother to read through Pelosi's manifesto to find out how screwed they were.
They were so relieved that they had killed Tort reform (essential to any insurance overhaul), they just let it slide on by.
Ironically, a lot of trade and professional associations could probably get out of the ACA by becoming a union, instead of an association.
Isab at January 14, 2014 3:07 PM
Gee, if I don't know someone personally, then this didn't happen- and Americans deserved to lose their coverage due to government meddling. After all, it's no big deal. They could just be "adults".
Good to know.
Meanwhile – new policies start up with new deductibles to be met. Good luck paying those.
Radwaste at January 14, 2014 4:17 PM
Leave a comment