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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
eridani
eridani's Journal
eridani's Journal
June 26, 2014
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/24417-a-secret-plan-to-close-social-securitys-offices-and-outsource-its-work
or months there have been rumors that the Social Security Administration has a "secret plan" to close all of its field offices. Is it true? A little-known report commissioned by the SSA at the request of Congress seems to hold the answer. The summary document outlining the plan, which is labeled "for internal use only," is unavailable from the SSA but can be found here.
Does the document, titled "Long Term Strategic Vision and Vision Elements," really propose shuttering all field offices? The answer, buried beneath a barrage of obfuscatory consultantese, clearly seems to be "yes." Worse, the report also suggests that many of the SSA's critical functions could soon be outsourced to private-sector partners and contractors.
A Secret Plan to Close Social Security's Offices and Outsource Its Work
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/24417-a-secret-plan-to-close-social-securitys-offices-and-outsource-its-work
or months there have been rumors that the Social Security Administration has a "secret plan" to close all of its field offices. Is it true? A little-known report commissioned by the SSA at the request of Congress seems to hold the answer. The summary document outlining the plan, which is labeled "for internal use only," is unavailable from the SSA but can be found here.
Does the document, titled "Long Term Strategic Vision and Vision Elements," really propose shuttering all field offices? The answer, buried beneath a barrage of obfuscatory consultantese, clearly seems to be "yes." Worse, the report also suggests that many of the SSA's critical functions could soon be outsourced to private-sector partners and contractors.
June 11, 2014
Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP:
One of the worst failures of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is that, even with subsidies, the premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are unaffordable for far too many people. AHIP now proposes to make the premiums slightly more affordable by offering catastrophic plans with very high deductibles that would make accessing health care truly unaffordable for even more people (cost sharing subsidies are available only for silver plans, but coverage of the proposed catastrophic plans would fall even below the lowest-level bronze plans).
Why would they do this? Could it be that they want to capture a portion of the market of the 31 million people who will still remain uninsured after ACA is fully implemented?
Who would actually select these plans with very high deductibles but lower premiums? Those with very low incomes who would struggle even with subsidized premiums might choose these plans if they consider their subsidized premiums to be “all that they can afford.” These are individuals who would be much more likely to forgo essential health care simply because they couldn’t afford their portion of the deductibles.
Very high income individuals might select these plans to insure against catastrophic losses while deciding to self insure against more modest medical costs. The problem with this is that this is a form of regressive financing of the insurance risk pools. Since average health care costs are well beyond the means of middle income families to pay for them, wealthier individuals need to contribute more to the collective insurance pools (as they would in a single payer financing system). The AHIP proposal for low-premium catastrophic plans would allow them to contribute less than average instead.
For healthy middle-income families there is a preference for the tradeoff of lower premiums for higher-deductibles - an observation confirmed by behavior in the individual insurance market before the enactment of ACA.Families that remain healthy will come out ahead, but those families that later face significant health problems often find that they will face severe financial hardship as well - even bankruptcy.
So the insurance industry is taking a position that they can increase their market, that they will not have to pay for routine medical expenses, and that they can lower their medical losses by paying only for the comparatively few individuals with high medical expenses. Little does it matter that they have the health coverage function backwards in that the healthy and wealthy do very well but the sick and poor suffer. Limiting essential protection for the most vulnerable demonstrates again why the private insurance industry should be dismissed.
The insurance industry has been very successful in getting innovations that benefit themselves. This release by AHIP suggests that this is the beginning of another self-serving public campaign - this time to allow individuals to have (in marketing terms) "the choice of purchasing only the insurance they need” - a high-deductible catastrophic health plan.
Social solidarity takes another beating.
Health Insurers backing cheap plans with inadequate coverage
http://www.ahip.org/News/Press-Room/2014/Policy-Solutions/While millions of Americans have the peace of mind that health insurance provides, more can be done to maximize choice and affordability for individuals and families. As a solution to bring more families into the marketplace:
Health plans support the creation of a new, lower-premium catastrophic plan.
Such a plan would offer consumers the option of coverage that has lower monthly premiums but still provides the comfort of knowing that their costs will be limited in the event of a serious illness or injury.
<snip>
We believe a new catastrophic plan would further the public policy goal of affordability and call upon policymakers to expand consumer choices by allowing this lower-premium option to be offered.
Health plans support the creation of a new, lower-premium catastrophic plan.
Such a plan would offer consumers the option of coverage that has lower monthly premiums but still provides the comfort of knowing that their costs will be limited in the event of a serious illness or injury.
<snip>
We believe a new catastrophic plan would further the public policy goal of affordability and call upon policymakers to expand consumer choices by allowing this lower-premium option to be offered.
Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP:
One of the worst failures of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is that, even with subsidies, the premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are unaffordable for far too many people. AHIP now proposes to make the premiums slightly more affordable by offering catastrophic plans with very high deductibles that would make accessing health care truly unaffordable for even more people (cost sharing subsidies are available only for silver plans, but coverage of the proposed catastrophic plans would fall even below the lowest-level bronze plans).
Why would they do this? Could it be that they want to capture a portion of the market of the 31 million people who will still remain uninsured after ACA is fully implemented?
Who would actually select these plans with very high deductibles but lower premiums? Those with very low incomes who would struggle even with subsidized premiums might choose these plans if they consider their subsidized premiums to be “all that they can afford.” These are individuals who would be much more likely to forgo essential health care simply because they couldn’t afford their portion of the deductibles.
Very high income individuals might select these plans to insure against catastrophic losses while deciding to self insure against more modest medical costs. The problem with this is that this is a form of regressive financing of the insurance risk pools. Since average health care costs are well beyond the means of middle income families to pay for them, wealthier individuals need to contribute more to the collective insurance pools (as they would in a single payer financing system). The AHIP proposal for low-premium catastrophic plans would allow them to contribute less than average instead.
For healthy middle-income families there is a preference for the tradeoff of lower premiums for higher-deductibles - an observation confirmed by behavior in the individual insurance market before the enactment of ACA.Families that remain healthy will come out ahead, but those families that later face significant health problems often find that they will face severe financial hardship as well - even bankruptcy.
So the insurance industry is taking a position that they can increase their market, that they will not have to pay for routine medical expenses, and that they can lower their medical losses by paying only for the comparatively few individuals with high medical expenses. Little does it matter that they have the health coverage function backwards in that the healthy and wealthy do very well but the sick and poor suffer. Limiting essential protection for the most vulnerable demonstrates again why the private insurance industry should be dismissed.
The insurance industry has been very successful in getting innovations that benefit themselves. This release by AHIP suggests that this is the beginning of another self-serving public campaign - this time to allow individuals to have (in marketing terms) "the choice of purchasing only the insurance they need” - a high-deductible catastrophic health plan.
Social solidarity takes another beating.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: Washington state
Home country: USA
Current location: Directly above the center of the earth
Member since: Sat Aug 16, 2003, 02:52 AM
Number of posts: 51,907
