Plan to simplify 2015 health renewals may backfire


#1

From the AP

If you have health insurance on your job, you probably don’t give much thought to each year’s renewal. But make the same assumption in one of the new health law plans, and it could lead to costly surprises.

Insurance exchange customers who opt for convenience by automatically renewing their coverage for 2015 are likely to receive dated and inaccurate financial aid amounts from the government, say industry officials, advocates and other experts.

If those amounts are too low, consumers could get sticker shock over their new premiums. Too high, and they’ll owe the tax man later.

(snip)

It could be a new twist on an old public relations headache for the White House: You keep the health plan you like but get billed way more.

(snip)

Here’s the issue, in a nutshell:

To streamline next year’s open enrollment season, the Health and Human Services Department recently proposed offering automatic renewal to 8 million consumers who are already signed up.

Got to love Obamacare: always more good news for the consumer. :thumbsup:

:banghead:


#2

It’s entirely possible that those who have employment based insurance will also have some unwelcome surprises. The mere fact that this administration put it off until after the 2014 elections is highly suggestive that it will be and that they know it.

As near as I can tell, Obamacare will put a very serious crunch on employers. For those with fewer than 50 employees, it will be a matter of cost. For those with more than 50 employees, it will take a lot of expertise to avoid the big pitfall. If more than 30 employees’ contribution to their own employment-based health plan is more than 9% of their income, then the employer will have to pay a penalty of $2,000 for every employee the employer has, whether one of the 30 or not. That’s a very big ticket item, running into the millions for some.

I suppose the thought was to force employers to either pay more of the premiums than they otherwise would, or to force them to pay higher wages at the low end.

But it’s also an incentive to cut the lower paid employees from full time to part time or find a way to get rid of them altogether by foreign outsourcing or other means. Since the mandates will increase the cost of insurance, one is inclined to think the latter courses will be the ones they take.


#3

All I can say is my cost went down by 50%. My medicine is also cheaper, my office visits cost less…so I can’t complain. And my sister has health care coverage for the first time in her life.

I don’t care what party is in office the next time around, we need a national health care plan that allows all people to get health care, does not exclude people for previously existing conditions and stops making the insurance companies rich. They have been wasting our money and time for years. Time to say good riddance to em.


#4

There is already a national health care plan for the vets. How is the VA health care plan doing??? :confused: :shrug:

PS. We did not need Obamacare for people who want a health care plan can get it or does not exclude people because they (or family member) is already ill. :shrug:


#5

Your cost is lower SO FAR. One of the problems with Obamacare is precisely that it’s almost certainly not actuarially sound. In other words, the premiums, even as subsidized, probably won’t pay the costs. I realize a lot of people don’t like insurance companies. Some do, though. It should be remembered that they are the ones who actually administer all government insurance other than VA, and I think we all know how well VA is performing. The government simply isn’t competent to do it even on that scale, and that’s why they contract out their own coverage, as well as Medicare and Medicaid. Even Obama’s coverage is with one or more insurers.

Insurance company profits are pretty small compared to those of most other companies, and some don’t actually make a profit for shareholders at all; Mutual of Omaha being one of the biggest. It’s not for profit.


#6

We also have a health care plan for everyone over 65. How’s that doing? Ask any senior you know how willing they’d be to leave the system for private insurance.


#7

A world where suddenly paying half price for something that is neither on sale nor cheaper to produce is met with joy.

Dear fellows in Christ, could be a comedy routine.


#8

Simplification under Obama means DO IT OUR WAY AND SHUT UP!

After all, they are smarter than the rest of us and totally competent in everything they do. The IRS is the perfect government agency to reform healthcare because they are so loved and trusted by all Americans.

How many smilies should I use for this?


#9

I have no complaints with my Medicare Advantage plan yet, but I have not used it so far. Oh, and Obama wants to get rid of Medicare Advantage precisely because it allows for more choice and private company participation.

The people who should be really disappointed with Medicare are the younger taxpayers who pay for a wasteful system that will be bankrupt in less than ten years.


#10

Do we get to tell them, in this hypothetical, that the private insurance alternative would be free, like Medicare is, at least for Part A, and that a private “part B” would bear a minimal cost?

Comparing something that’s free to something that isn’t, doesn’t tell you what people would choose if both cost the same.

It may be noted, too, that a lot of seniors, possibly most, also have private Medicare supplement insurance precisely because of some of Medicare’s inadequacies.


#11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.