Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

annabanana

(52,791 posts)
Mon May 8, 2017, 07:14 AM May 2017

Trumpcare allows employers in all 50 states to GUT employees' healthcare plans

Last edited Mon May 8, 2017, 08:33 AM - Edit history (1)


With R's bill..employers would be allowed to buy insurance from "waiver"states!

Their employees could get hit for pre-existing conditions in their premiums . . They'd be "offered" the sub-par, no benefit, cheapo plans!
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trumpcare allows employers in all 50 states to GUT employees' healthcare plans (Original Post) annabanana May 2017 OP
Yes, I read that they would. So we wouldn't be protected by living in a state pnwmom May 2017 #1
Pity that this additional problem is getting NO PRESS! . . n/t annabanana May 2017 #3
rec me.. needs eyeballs..n/t annabanana May 2017 #4
yes. they would be allowed to purchase insurance across state lines underthematrix May 2017 #2
Yeah in unaffordable pools. Demsrule86 May 2017 #14
K & R pnwmom May 2017 #5
Here's an article that addresses your question. It's TERRIBLe for everyone with employer based pnwmom May 2017 #6
What it comes down to.. NO ONE'S SAFE. . . n/t annabanana May 2017 #7
Who thinks they will not do it? kentuck May 2017 #8
Clearly, instead of legislating restrictions on We the People, how about Republicans legislate BlueCaliDem May 2017 #9
That would only work if they CONSIDERED us annabanana May 2017 #10
This is why the "selling across State lines" mantra was always a crock of shit crazylikafox May 2017 #11
yep . . .n/t annabanana May 2017 #12
I'm not overly worried about that. Employers could always reduce the benefits, cancel the plan, etc Hoyt May 2017 #13
They can go after the older employees or those with expensive pre-existing conditions... Demsrule86 May 2017 #15
We had a shot if Hillary won and we took the Senate and House...but that didn't happen. Demsrule86 May 2017 #16
I agree. Healthcare, Supreme Court, Social Security, jobs, etc., all took a hit when HRC lost. Hoyt May 2017 #17

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
1. Yes, I read that they would. So we wouldn't be protected by living in a state
Mon May 8, 2017, 07:16 AM
May 2017

with all the Essential Benefits, because our employers could just arrange insurance through a state that didn't.

It would be a race to the bottom.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
6. Here's an article that addresses your question. It's TERRIBLe for everyone with employer based
Mon May 8, 2017, 07:32 AM
May 2017

insurance.

People with their own policies who lived in states that retain Essential benefits, etc., will be okay. But if you have employer based insurance, your employer could buy a skimpy plan offered in any other state.

https://thinkprogress.org/trumpcare-employer-coverage-5f19af287320

As the Wall Street Journal reports, some policy experts are concerned that the House Republican bill would allow large employers to offer benefits in line with the requirements in any state — including states that choose to make their benefit standards skimpier under Trumpcare.

Under a last-minute amendment added to the bill, states would be allowed to opt out of the regulations that the Affordable Care Act currently imposes on insurance plans. For example, states could obtain a waiver to opt out of Obamacare’s regulations requiring coverage for “essential health benefits,” a set of benefits standardized under the existing health law that includes services like maternity care and mental health treatment. States could also bypass Obamacare’s limits on out-of-pocket expenses for costly illnesses.

So big employers — which are typically always looking to lower the cost of providing health care — could choose the most lenient state-level standards to make their overhead costs cheaper.

“It’s huge,” Andy Slavitt, the former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Obama administration, told the Wall Street Journal. “They’re creating a backdoor way to gut employer plans, too.”

kentuck

(110,947 posts)
8. Who thinks they will not do it?
Mon May 8, 2017, 08:43 AM
May 2017

If they can save money and help their shareholders, they will cut employee benefits to the bone. Of course, they will sell it to them as "cheap".

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
9. Clearly, instead of legislating restrictions on We the People, how about Republicans legislate
Mon May 8, 2017, 08:45 AM
May 2017

restrictions on corporations, i.e., employers, for-profit health insurance, etc?

Why do Republicans - and Democrats - remain silent about that 800lb gorilla in the room every time they draft bills? Why are WE silent about that?

All the problems of higher premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc., can be resolved by pointing out that corporations should do their due diligence as American enterprise, and work to find ways to benefit the profit-makers: We the People.

annabanana

(52,791 posts)
10. That would only work if they CONSIDERED us
Mon May 8, 2017, 09:12 AM
May 2017

"profit makers"..

It seems they think the bozos who inherited the companies are the profit makers...

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
13. I'm not overly worried about that. Employers could always reduce the benefits, cancel the plan, etc
Mon May 8, 2017, 10:11 AM
May 2017

Last edited Mon May 8, 2017, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)

But most did not, especially when they were in competition for employees.

Now, I am worried that today's economics make it more difficult for employers to maintain a decent plan. Sometimes, it's because the owners are just too stingy. So screw them. Other times, it's because they are a small employer who just doesn't have much room to maintain a plan.

In fact, unless things have changed from decades ago, pre-existing conditions were not an issue in employer group health plans as far as the premiums someone with diabetes paid vs. those without, although if every employee has diabetes or something serious, the group's plan costs were more in future years. But group health plans did not charge a higher premium to individuals because of pre-existing conditions.

Whatever, it is time to clean all this crud up and make a standard plan -- kind of like with Medicare supplements where if you buy Plan F, you know exactly what you are getting whichever company you buy it from.

The easiest way to clean it up would be single payer, with Medicare the model. But that won't be happening any time soon.

Demsrule86

(68,347 posts)
15. They can go after the older employees or those with expensive pre-existing conditions...
Mon May 8, 2017, 11:20 AM
May 2017

Often they want to get rid of older employees anyway...this bill is a awful, and everyone should be worried...first time, they took aim at employer health insurance.

Demsrule86

(68,347 posts)
16. We had a shot if Hillary won and we took the Senate and House...but that didn't happen.
Mon May 8, 2017, 11:21 AM
May 2017

Now it will be years...and I pray we keep what we have.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
17. I agree. Healthcare, Supreme Court, Social Security, jobs, etc., all took a hit when HRC lost.
Mon May 8, 2017, 11:28 AM
May 2017
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trumpcare allows employer...