Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 7:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:53:00 PM (view original):This law doesn't put Americans with strong, employer-subsidized health plans into the exchanges (other than congress and their staff).
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 6:50:00 PM (view original):The two go hand-in-hand. The law was written by proponents of a single-payer healthcare system and was designed to ultimately produce something very close to it. The penalties to employers are low enough that it makes much more sound, fiscal sense to pay the penalty and move on.
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:47:00 PM (view original):Congress is required to be in the exchanges. Are you arguing that they shouldn't get a subsidy or that the exchanges aren't good enough for everyone else?
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 6:32:00 PM (view original):As voted on by Congress. So, again, what's good enough for the America is not good enough for them.
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:10:00 PM (view original):No. Congress and staff get the subsidy as a term of their employment.
If my company chooses to pay the penalty and dump me on the exchange, do I get the same subsidy Congress gets?
So, in other words, if putting Americans with strong, employer-subsidized health plans on the exchanges without subsidy is a good solution, why isn't it good enough for them?
Maybe not directly, but certainly indirectly.
We received the standard email from our H.R. department this morning notifying us that open enrollment for 2014 benefits will be starting in a couple of weeks.
Two things jumped out at me as I read the document that was attached to the email:
1) "In 2014, plan premiums are scheduled to increase 8% to 9%
due to a number of factors, including health care reform fees
. . . :
2) "Beginning in 2014, we are implementing a $900 annual surcharge for spousal coverage
if your spouse or same-sex domestic partner has coverage available through another employer sponsored medical plan and remains in the <my company> medical plan."
So I look at this $900 "spousal surchage" thing and say "WTF!" and start Googling. Apparently, this has been around for a couple of years, but with the implementation of the ACA now upon us, companies implementing a "spousal surcharge" is becoming much more prevalent as they look for ways to cut their expenses with respect to healthcare benefits BECAUSE of the impositions of the ACA. Some companies, such as UPS, has dropped spousal coverage altogether from their healthcare plans.
So if you work for a company such as UPS, and your wife is not employed or is employed by somebody who does NOT offer healthcare benefits, he or she has no choice but to be FORCED into the exchanges.
Or . . . if you're in a double-income household where you have a choice of "his employers benefits" or "her employers benefits", you may now have to make a choice of staying in one plan (and paying a surcharge, commonly around $100 a month, or $1200 annually), or splitting between the two plans (which most likely would be more expensive than a single family plan if it weren't for the surcharge). Either way . . . your healthcare insurance costs have increased BECAUSE of the ACA
So, please tell me again . . . how is this good for America?
10/8/2013 12:18 PM (edited)