Obamacare penalties spawn 'skinny' plans

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Politico

Employers heaved a sigh of relief when the Obama administration announced it would not enforce Obamacare’s mandate that large companies provide insurance to their workers next year.

But some companies plan to offer “skinny plans” designed to duck the biggest penalties anyway, according to industry consultants. And the Obama administration has extended its blessing to this limited coverage, even though it would not protect individuals from medical bills that could cause financial ruin in the case of severe injury or illness.

The health law spells out in detail the comprehensive coverage that insurers have to provide on the new insurance marketplaces or exchanges. But it’s nearly silent about what the employers who provide insurance to a majority of Americans need to include in their health plans.

“There are no rules on how good that coverage has to be,” said Gretchen Young, senior vice president of health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/some-workplace-health-plans-will-be-skinny-94239.html?hp=r12

[GeorgeGist]

1. Another shoe drops.

[Hydra]

2. What could possibly go wrong?

I thought this was supposed to be helping people?

[SoapBox]

3. Big monied companies...hammer...chisel...

chip, chip, chip.

[tularetom]

4. If it's in Politico it must be true, huh?

I generally believe about 10% of what I see from that POS site.

But if this is true it just reinforces that the insurance companies are the turd in the punch bowl of the entire health care debate. The employers want to offer the cheapest insurance they can find and the insurers are eager to provide them with a crappy product.

I'm increasingly pessimistic that Obamacare will do much to improve health care for the majority of Americans. It'll still be prohibitively expensive and the insurance companies will still be in the drivers seat.

[christx30]

11. Some employees don't want

to have to pay for insurance that they don't want. I don't need coverage for substance abuse (I don't drink or do drugs) or contraceptive care. I'm healty, so I would probably just go for a skinny plan, if that would free up money for my actual monthly expenses.
If I absolutely have to, under threat from the law, have to have some kind of plan, I'll get the absolute bare bones one that I can.

[matthews]

15. Unfortunately it is true...

These plans are offered to people and they have high deductibles and very very little coverage. If you're lucky it's a $10,000.00/year maximum payout. And the people who are getting offered these plans are usually low wage and they can't afford the premiums anyway, so a lot of them can't take out the insurance. Truth be told, with all the exceptions and the low yearly maximum payout, one trip to the hospital can bankrupt you just as easily as no coverage at all. I've worked for a place that had one of those plans.

I also worked for a place that offered what is considered decent coverage (United Health Care) but I paid $350.00 a month for my son and I. Problem was with a $5,000 deductible, I was screwed anyway. And when they started cutting my hours, all I ended up working for was to pay for my insurance. One payday I had $147.00 left over for two weeks. But of course when it got to that point they were going take my insurance away anyway because I wasn't a full-timer anymore and didn't qualify for benefits.

They got you coming and going.

[elleng]

5. Feds provide 'skinny' option to employees too.

Makes sense, imo.

[loudsue]

6. Obama won't enforce the mandate on large companies.

More of that compassionate conservatism that bush was famous for.

[NealK]

18. +1 n/t

[EC]

7. Couldn't the employees

shop the market instead then and get better policys? I can't understand employers that have the cash that don't offer benefits to their employees. Do they really hold such distain for them? I suspect it's apathy more than anything, we're all replaceable so it really doesn't matter to the employer rather we live or die.

[tridim]

8. Yes, and doing so will raise the rates of said company's skinny plan due to the shrinking pool.

I don't take my company's crappy insurance. I pay less for an individual plan that is much better.

In general employers are CHEAP and they will do ANYTHING to save a buck.

[penultimate]

27. I'm in the same boat as you...

The company offered a really shitty plan that cost a ridiculous amount. So I just went with individual insurance that had way better coverage and cost about $50 less.

[forestpath]

9. Obamacare is such a fraud. Only thing he cares about is protecting the 1%.

[tridim]

17. No and No.

The opposite is true on both points.

[penultimate]

30. Most of us will be better off with it than without it

Right now, many people do not have insurance through their company and they cannot afford decent individual plans. Even if the companies get off the hook for the next year, at least now individuals can get their health insurance purchases subsidized. So now those making only 8.50/hr would only have to pay like $50-60/mo for decent insurance that won't fuck them over due to preexisting conditions (or other shit) That same person would qualify for medicaid if they had children. Also, if a single person was making the federal minimum wage, they would qualify for medicaid even if they do not have kids.

Even though I won't qualify for any subsidies (at least not at this current moment, but what will happen in the future) and my premiums will be slightly higher (based on the calculators I've seen), the plans are slightly better than what I currently have AND there will be laws that prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions or raising rates past a certain level. Where as right this moment, if I was to get very sick, I'd be at the mercy of the insurance company. At least the health care laws make it so that no matter what, I should be able to afford insurance no matter what my health condition is (even if the premiums do go up a couple hundred dollars more, at least I'd have insurance and that's cheaper than paying $100,000 out of pocket)

Also, the more healthy people who buy insurance, the lower the premiums... At least in theory.

I mean, that's my understanding of how it's all supposed to work. If I'm wrong about anything, I'd like to hear about how and why.

[Laelth]

10. Really?

There are no rules on the insurance coverage that employers are required to provide? Really?

If so, that stinks!



-Laelth

[Doctor_J]

12. there are rules, but they have been waived (for one year)

Disaster coming November 2014

[Laelth]

14. I was aware that the employer coverage requirement was waived for a year.

But the article above suggests that even when the requirement goes into effect in 2014 that there will be no rules on what kind of health care coverage employers must provide under the ACA.

I'd like to know whether that is true. As I said, if so, it stinks.

-Laelth

[progressoid]

13. What?

For profit insurance and health care isn't working?

Who knew?

[SoapBox]

16. ROFL!

And remember their motto!

Just...Die...Quickly!!

[Lasher]

19. This has been a trend for years anyway.

Keep your employees on part time status so you don't have to pay the employer portion of payroll taxes. It's handy to blame it on Obamacare, though.

[progree]

20. Keep your employees on part time status so you don't have to pay the employer portion of payroll tax

[font color = blue]"Keep your employees on part time status so you don't have to pay the employer portion of payroll taxes."[/font]

I thought they could evade providing health benefits by having part-time workers working less than 30 hours a week under the ACA. And before ACA (like now as far as benefits requirements) many companies simply have a policy that they don't give health benefits and some other benefits to part-time wokers -- companies aren't currently required to provide health care benefits (other than the Medicare part of the payroll tax) or most other benefits to anybody.

But as far as payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) employers have to pay 7.65% of the worker's wages, regardless of whether the worker works 1 hour or 70 -- that's been true for many decades and nothing in the ACA changes it. Unless I missed something?

[Lasher]

26. You're right, I don't know what the hell I was thinking.

Duh.

[penndragon69]

21. State minimume coverage.

You won't even have to have it until you are on your way to
the doctor or hospital, just stop by the kiosk in the lobby, pay
$50 and print out proof of insurance.

So what if it covers NOTHING because all you need is a card
saying that you are insured.

Pass the buck onto someone else like usual.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

22. Health insurance =/= healthcare.

Rich politicians dem and repuke don't seem to get this.

[Fumesucker]

25. There's plenty of posters on DU that "don't get it" either n/t

[Fearless]

23. I'm sorry we're not rich enough.

Screw the employees.



Pretty soon we'll just have a generation of people who have to work two part time jobs and STILL have no health care.

THIS IS WHY SINGLE PAYER WAS KEY.

[area51]

24. Yes, the ACA that we got

is based on the rightwing Heritage Foundation and a Newt Gingrich wet dream, which was to make a law forcing people to buy a lightly regulated, for-profit product from companies which are known serial killers.

Single-payer is key to keeping people alive, not to mention, affordable health care. The ACA is an unworkable solution. Punishing individuals who don't buy the insurance, without a public option, will still leave them w/o health care, which was supposed to be the whole reason behind hc reform.

And this shit will continue until people rise up and do something.

Anyone in their 20s or 30s who has marketable skills would be better off trying to move to a first world country with health care as a basic human right. And anyone who goes to Canada or Europe on a vacation, should apply for health care asylum there due to our broken health care delivery system. I'm not saying it would work to get to stay in those countries; I'm saying it needs to be done to embarrass the US on the world stage.

[Sunlei]

28. leave it to ERISA Industry Committee to exploit any loopholes they can to screw workers.

It took several years to roll in big policy changes like SS, Medicare and Medicade.

Be the same with AHC, 'Obamacare'

The insurance industry will try to keep the profits and keep out the unprofitable Americans. Businesses will try to get away as cheap as possible.

Bet big business will still take out life insurance on their employees and profit from employee deaths.

[Safetykitten]

29. If there was only a way people could of seen this coming...