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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: When many employers stop offering health insurance to their employees... [View all]OrwellwasRight
(5,317 posts)54. Virtually all insurance will be sold inside the exchanges if not-employer sponsored.
That is the point of the exchanges.
Currently, federal law does not place any limits on the ways that insurers set their premium rates. However, beginning January 1, 2014, insurance companies must meet minimum premium rating rules for health plans for individuals and small businesses. Health plans will be allowed to adjust premiums based only on the following factors:(emphasis added)
Individual vs. family enrollment (i.e., individual + spouse, individual + dependent(s), etc.)
Geographic area
Age (but cannot vary by more than three times among adults)
Tobacco use (the rate cannot vary by more than 1.5 to 1)
Other factors that insurers traditionally use to charge higher premiums, such as health status, use of health services and gender, will no longer be allowed under the ACA. The rating rules in the ACA set a floor, so states can retain or enact a tougher standard than federal law.
http://101.communitycatalyst.org/aca_provisions/setting_premiums (see also page 46 of the ACA, consolidated law, dated June 9, 2010)
From the ACA itself:
SEC. 2704 [42 U.S.C. 300gg3]. PROHIBITION OF PREEXISTING CONDITION
EXCLUSIONS OR OTHER DISCRIMINATION BASED
ON HEALTH STATUS.
(a) IN GENERAL.A group health plan and a health insurance
issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may
not impose any preexisting condition exclusion with respect to such
plan or coverage.;
Page 45 of the consolidated law, dated June 9, 2010.
I believe "no exclusion" means "no exclusions". Otherwise, it would say "except for temporary exclusions for new customers" or some such nonsense.
And, yes, I said there can be enrollment periods. This will cut down on abuse (like buying insurance on the way to the hospital) and keep costs down for us all.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
124 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
When many employers stop offering health insurance to their employees... [View all]
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
OP
"professional" companies won't change anything - tech, engineering, etc.
banned from Kos
Jun 2012
#1
They're not paying 0. They're paying thousands for an employee's policy right now nt
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
#25
You are confusing "penalty". Corporations are definitely paying right now.
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
#39
If they pay the cost now when there is no penalty for dropping it, then
OrwellwasRight
Jul 2012
#111
The more pressure that builds, from every front, to enact single payer, the better
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
#78
More and more companies were dropping coverage BEFORE the ACA. That's a fact.
OrwellwasRight
Jun 2012
#52
My point is that not many companies that provide coverage now will drop it.
OrwellwasRight
Jun 2012
#57
Even the best tech companies like Bell Labs, IBM etc. have dropped pension plans
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
#5
Nothing like a 16% 'real' unemployment rate to induce employees to
coalition_unwilling
Jul 2012
#101
Absolutely FALSE. "Contract" work is already the norm in several professional fields.
Romulox
Jun 2012
#80
I'm no "reich winger" newbie, and I'm advocating FOR a path to single payer. nt
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
#14
I'm not. Its in my very first sentence that I qualify it - I never said "all"
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
#63
You said enough would drop it to collapse the employer-provided insurance system.
OrwellwasRight
Jul 2012
#119
They're not paying 0. They're paying thousands for an employee's policy
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
#23
Yes, they currently pay more for insurance, and they could drop it without a penalty.
OrwellwasRight
Jun 2012
#32
They are dropping coverage - more and more companies are doing just that.
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
#43
Why are you so invested in maintaining the status quo? Healthcare tied to employment is so great?
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
#93
I'm not changing the subject and I've never said "all" companies. Please try to read for accuracy nt
riderinthestorm
Jul 2012
#102
If you dropped it today, you'd save $3500. If you dropped it after 2014, you'll save $500.
lumberjack_jeff
Jun 2012
#76
Personally? We can't drop it since my husband has Stage IV, Grade IV lymphoma
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
#83
You could cut your employees compensation by $3500 without ramifications? n/t
lumberjack_jeff
Jun 2012
#74
Remember its been defined now as a "tax" - raising "taxes" will be verrrry difficult imho. nt
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
#7
Increasing penalties, increasing taxes, increasing premiums and increasing bankruptcies
kenny blankenship
Jul 2012
#104
Oh, I completely agree. 110% agree but the bean counters will win on this I predict
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
#28
Virtually all insurance will be sold inside the exchanges if not-employer sponsored.
OrwellwasRight
Jun 2012
#54
I don't see why having to pay a penalty would have any effect on employr offering ins. if he's
Honeycombe8
Jun 2012
#30
I agree and its what many, many DUers feared in the HCR negotiation phases.
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
#45
Currently health insurance is a big plus in attracting and retaining employees.
FarCenter
Jun 2012
#49
I'd like to believe you can find any kind of coverage for $4k but if there is, I don't know it
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
#75
I'd wager the majority of private American employers no longer provide health insurance. So what's
Romulox
Jun 2012
#79
I agree with all of your post, save the part about Single Payer. Single Payer is impossible, now.
Romulox
Jun 2012
#77
This makes absolutely no sense...If an employer is paying for insurance or the gateway for employees
rustydog
Jun 2012
#94
"They will begin to wonder why health insurance was ever coupled with employment"
4th law of robotics
Jul 2012
#99
IMO employer offered health insurance will be a thing of the past. To my knowledge
RKP5637
Jul 2012
#105