Like Your Health-Insurance Plan? Great. Keep It! Don't Like It? Too Bad. Keep It!
As Obama has attempted to sell health-care reform to the public this year, one of the key messages has been that those who like their current plans will be able to keep them. One of the main reasons he's emphasized this is that, during the HillaryCare debate in 1994, the fact that many people would have to switch away from their plans proved a major obstacle to reform. Of course, Obama usually omits the fact that those people will only get to keep their plans if their employers continue to offer them, which is a less than sure thing given the structural changes to the insurance system that reformers are proposing but it's certainly more true under current proposals than it was in 1994.
What Obama doesn't say, however, is that many people who don't like their plans may be forced to stay with them. Mary Agnes Carey and Julie Appleby explain:
Under the main health bills being debated in Congress, many people with job-based insurance could find it difficult to impossible to switch to health plans on a new insurance exchange, even if the plans there were cheaper or offered better coverage. The restrictions extend to any government-run plan, which would be offered on the exchange.
The provisions could change, and there are a few exceptions: Workers would be allowed to buy insurance through the exchange if their job-based coverage gobbled up too much of their incomes or was too skimpy. Also, under the House proposal, people could get insurance through the exchange if they paid their entire premiums— a cost that would be prohibitive for many workers.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In other words, they limit you to one, maybe two choices, and call it freedom.
"Also, under the House proposal, people could get insurance through the exchange if they paid their entire premiums- a cost that would be prohibitive for many workers."
I'm sure someone will let me know if I'm reading this wrong, it's been a shitty week, but all this seems to do is mean that these plans are offered on the exchange instead of the open market, right? I mean, if I blow off my company's plan right now, I have to pay the whole premium...which is fine.
Now, as for the concept of me not being able to quit my plan just because, that's a load of bullshit.
Hey, worked for the Soviets.
"Would you prefer to be shot or strangled?"
In other news, Ted Kennedy is still dead.
Here is my question. Who decides what plan is offered to the Government? The Government itself? I mean they give themselves pay raises for their shitty performance, do we actually think they will no longer offer themselves their golden health care coverage?
All the pols when asked at town halls why they will not go on this wonderful plan all have the same talking point. They say we have the same option as you will have, if we like it we can keep it. But what they fail to mention is that they will never NOT OFFER the plan they have to themselves. NOw what I want to know is who decides what plan they will be offered, themselves?
Correct me if I am wrong but if you work for the Feds or the State you are by all standards working for the tax payers and general populous of the country. As in YOU all WORK for US.
So then by that token we should then be able to decide what OPTION we will continue to offer them. Not have them deciding what option to continue to offer to themselves.
Anyone that thinks the plan is so great but does not want any part of belonging to it should be signaling you like a Hooker on Bourbon Street that something isn't quite right. Yet we have no shortage of people that want to believe the crap they are fed as thought they are the ones that will benefit while our public servants will be sacrificing for us all.
What does this gobbletygook mean?
Frankly, how do older folks make head or tail out of medicare rules? Part A, Part B, gap coverage, prescription. If you work, don't sign up for this. Skip that. Etc. Considering how many Americans eligible for medicaid and schip don't sign up, I think confusion and obfuscation is a deliberate "cost savings" measure and a great way for one's congressman to "serve his constituents" by having a staffer cut through the red tape for those of us totally confused.
Ten Questions Politicians Won't Answer by Tom Coburn:
5. If the public option is so wonderful, will you lead by example and vote for a plan to enroll you and your family in the public option?
I offered an amendment in committee to force members of Congress to enroll in the public option. Nine out of eleven Democrats on the health committee who back the public option refused. If the politicians creating the public option don't have confidence in it, neither should the American people.
Workers would be allowed to buy insurance through the exchange if their job-based coverage gobbled up too much of their incomes
What if their taxes gobbled up "too much", whatever *that* is?
What creech said.
people could get insurance through the exchange if they paid their entire premiums- a cost that would be prohibitive for many workers.
Doesn't this presume that the worker's present wages aren't already reduced by the "benefit wages"? Employers should increase your wages if you reduce your benefits - if one opted out of an employer's health plan they'd get higher wages, of which some or all would go towards the employee's own purchase of health insurance.
Of course, the bill says you either keep your existing plan or go on the government plan - you can't opt out of your current plan and go buy another one. The caveat is employers ending insurance plan benefits and not paying the employees for the loss of benefit: "But you're still getting the health insurance!"
The caveat is employers ending insurance plan benefits and not paying the employees for the loss of benefit:
Perhaps the workers won't see a raise because an employer who doesn't pay for insurance will have to pay a special tax.
Universal healthcare will fix all this.
Serious question to someone knowledgeable in these matters: Will the current proposed legislation, if passed, allow me to keep my HSA plan that I really like? Or will I have to upgrade to a more "comprehensive" plan?
Setting aside the "insurance company voluntarily chooses to stop offering HSA plans" scenario; I'm looking more for the gov't will require.
Oh, and the HSA plan is NOT through my employer. I bought it privately.
Universal healthcare will fix all this.
You mean fix like my wife had the dog fixed?
Will the current proposed legislation, if passed, allow me to keep my HSA plan that I really like? Or will I have to upgrade to a more "comprehensive" plan?
See the articles linked in couple comments I made on another thread this morning.
who needs Republican nutjobs when you have Libertarian nutjobs?
Who the fuck actually "likes" their health insurance policy/company? This whole "people liking their health insurance" crap is just a red herring. Maybe some really healthy people with very low premiums who've made no claims "like" their policy. Once you get sick and the United Healthcare death panel refuses to pay for expensive, life-saving medical treatment because they deem it either "not medically necessary" or "due to a preexisting condition" then you're purported love of your health insurance will vanish faster than a pound of cocaine seized by a police officer.
Once you get sick and the United Healthcare death panel refuses to pay for expensive, life-saving medical treatment because they deem it either "not medically necessary" or "due to a preexisting condition" then you're purported love of your health insurance will vanish faster than a pound of cocaine seized by a police officer.
You Tell'm BruceM:
It is so so true. And the General American Population is Very Very Very Very Very STUPID!!!
They believe statements like 80% of the people insurance are happy with their insurance policy...for the very reason you stated.
I'm a firm believer in the free enterprise system. I don't believe that we should have a single payer system. After debating this topic for weeks, with people on this site, i no longer believe in the Public Plan.
Why am I now against the Public Plan. Because it won't help anyone. If you get cancer or a stroke and loose your job and your private insurance coverage...you're not goin 2 b able 2 pay the premiumns on the Public Plan either.
But no matter how you look at it. Once people get cancer, have a stroke, or have a pre-existing condition, the government (Us, the taxpayer) today, tomorrow, and forever, will have to make good of what the insurance companies do NOT cover. That is, paying for the medical care of these people who, after exhausting every resource they have including loosing their home, loosing their retirement, and loosing every penny they have.
This is basically what we have today. If you ask me, the only thing that the libertarians and the anti-obama people really need to shut them up already and make them happy is to merely lift ALL government mandates on insurance companies. This way, they (insurance companies)can do what they want and face the consequenses of the free market. Nevertheless, the government is going to have to be their for the people that the free market will not be able to cater to.
Insurance companies (especially profit-driven ones) have to deny coverage for the sick...either by dropping people or rationing It's a pyramid scheme. There's really no way around it. It depends on most people paying premiums and not making claims. This will NEVER change.
Very interesting post, I really enjoyed reading it - thank you for the information.
Health Nutrition Expert?s last blog ..The Fundamentals Of Optimum Health Nutrition