Employer-Backed Insurance Could Take a Huge Hit from GOP Healthcare Plan

[Jimbo101]

NBC News

The Republican healthcare plan could signal the beginning of the end for employer-based healthcare insurance, a perk that millions of Americans take for granted.

Roughly half of Americans were covered by employer-sponsored health plans in 2015, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. But that could change, according to the Congressional Budget Office's report on the GOP's American Health Care Plan.

Lawmakers and regular Americans digesting the findings of the report have focused on the big numbers: 24 million fewer insured and $337 billion in savings over the next decade. But a potentially more troubling sign comes from a comparatively smaller number: 7 million, the number of people the CBO estimates will drop off the roles of employer-sponsored health insurance over the next decade.

More and More Employers Would Stop Offering Coverage

Even defenders of the agency's assessment of health care reform acknowledge that it had a big miss estimating the number of participants in the Affordable Care Act. One reason for the miss is that employers didn't drop health care benefits to the extent the CBO estimated.

[Wellstone ruled]

1. The major thing is this,

Employers will now be able to restrict or be able to charge more for preexisting conditions.

[Ms. Toad]

3. I don't believe this is the case.

Can you please provide your source?

From the drafts I've reviewed, the employer change is to the mandate to provide insurance (or the penalties associated with not providing coverage) - not to who can be covered if health insurance is offered (which is covered by laws that predate the ACA).

The only change I'm aware of in connection with pre-existing conditions isn't specifically related to pre-existing conditions - but to a gap in coverage. (With or without pre-existing conditions.) Aside from insurers being able to charge 30% more for one year for a gap in coverage, I believe pre-existing coverage is the same.

[Wellstone ruled]

5. We have been out of the Work Force for

over a decade. In saying that,flunk the Retirement thing five different times. Had a few Part time things and in each place,if you were needing the possible Insurance Coverage,well good F---n luck. And yes there were limits,and Certain Conditions were not covered,fortunately we did not need this POS. But,several Thousand of other Employees did.

[Ms. Toad]

8. I'm asking specifically about your assertion that Trumpcare would permit employers to charge more

for pre-existing conditions. I don't belive that is part of his proposal. I'm asking for the source for your assertion that his proposal will roll back not only the ACA, but a decade or so of law before that.

Insurance through the employer under the ACA has been around less than a decade. Before that other laws (HIPAA, for one) required employer-based insurance cover pre-existing condtions as long as you had continuous coverage. If you didn't have continuous coverage the price was still the same for employer-based insurance - but there was a waiting period for coverage of those conditions.

His proposal is bad enough, without attributing changes to insurance access that he has not proposed.

[Wellstone ruled]

9. As of this afternoon,

there is speculation that persons with preexisting conditions would be open to being uninsured even in the Corporate work place. This topic was discussed on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman. Theory being,one,corporations would eliminate coverage as a money saver.

Understand what you say about present coverage,remember we are in chartered area with this new crowd. Understand,these folks want any and all ACA rules gone. Do remember those years when there were Caps,and denied Medical procedures and other specialized medical care.

Yes one would be able to purchase Insurance with a pre existing Medical issue,for one,I know the cost will be ungodly ridiculous. We went down that road in 1966 with our Daughter. My Employer change Carriers in the month of March,our Daughter was diagnosed with a Heart Value problem. Blue Cross the new provider said tough shit,the bill was 44k just for the Specialist,Blue Cross paid for the Hospital Stay,and that was in 1967 dollars.

When we appealed,my employer threaten the Carrier with termination of service,and yes Blue Cross won their case but lost the contract within 24 hrs of their win.

[Ms. Toad]

12. You're still not answering the question.

Please point to the specific language in the proposal that would permit employers to charge more for pre-existing conditions.

I am not suggsting that in 1966 insurers were not permitted to charge people with pre-exisiting conditions more - I have a daughter whose medical expenses each and every year run between $40,000 and $60,000. It is a real problem, and one I have lived with personally, every year, since 1994. I pay very close attention to what is, and is not, permitted in every current law - and every proposal - including reading the entire ACA in the era when lawmakers alleged that it was impossible to know what was in it until after it passed.

Based on my reading of the AHCA proposal, it does not permit discriminatory charging based on pre-existing conditions, and it does not remove protections that existed in employment situations (since at least the late 1990s when HIPAA was passesed - by now, my memory of exactly when that change occurred is fuzzy, but I know exclusion of pre-existing conditions in employment or continuous coverage has been around at least that long).

It is important to fight the demons in front of us - not to create demons that do not (at present) exist. I'm asking you to identify the language in the proposal that would retract protections in the law that existed for employment based health insurance long before the ACA was passed.

[Wellstone ruled]

15. You are correct

that pre-existing will stand.

[Wellstone ruled]

16. In the recent CBO report,

there is a statement as to Individual Mandates being eliminated by 2026,very troubling. Noticed the projections of 52 million more uninsured,ouch.

[Ms. Toad]

17. That's a real fear -

(and one I've been writing to Congress critters, the president, and the first lady about since the proposal emerged), because when the healthy drop out of the insurance pool (because paying directly for their care is far less expensive than buying insurance), leaving only the individuals like my daughter, the rates go up, making health insurance out of reach. Essentially, it forces the sick to pay the full out-of-pocket price for their care very-expensive-care through premiums since the only ones buying insurance are those who have extraordinary expenses.

[Wellstone ruled]

18. Can not even get my head around what

COBRA Policies will be priced at. That can be State Depended as we found out some fifteen years ago.

[Ms. Toad]

19. They may not be impacted much.

They were already out of most people's reach - so not a good option unless your care was very expensive and the gap was temporary.

But the cost will be based on the worker pool - which is typically relatively healthy

I don't think HIPAA policies (beyond 18 months) are based on the worker pool - so for employees leaving a place too small for COBRA those may be an even bigger disaster than COBRA is now.

I'm more terrified about the non-employment based insurance, which will only include those who choose to purchase coverage (i.e. the sickest)

[gopiscrap]

2. WE NEED TO GO TO A UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM

[Doreen]

4. No shit!!

[dalton99a]

11. It's the best and permanent solution.

[roamer65]

6. The rate hikes will force companies to drop coverage...

or make employees pay the vast majority of their insurance premium.

Within 5 years, the best an employer will do is to give someone "access" to buy insurance at a "group rate".

[Kimchijeon]

7. That's the thing, people who think they are safe

because they have healthcare through their employer- and I know several who don't care because they think "oh well this won't affect me"... yeah, think again. You will be fucked as well.

[dalton99a]

10. They certainly will feel the pain.

There are serious ramifications for everyone.

[Wounded Bear]

14. Which reminds me of that coal miner in Chris Hayes' town hall...

he got his coal mine job back, and it's health insurance (which might have been from the union, not the company BTW), and in the end voted Trump because of his promise to bring the coal jobs back.

Does that guy really think his job is really all that secure, along with the benefits it brings?

He was concerned about the Medicaid cuts and all, but he didn't seem all that personally invested in that.

[MineralMan]

13. Without a mandate requiring employers to cover their employees,

an enormous number of companies will simply stop paying for health insurance for their employees. Others will shift more and more of the costs onto those employees.