At Work

An ACA Alternative Spelled Out In Legislative Language – What the hell are we doing?

Republicans have a plan … to make health care more complicated and far less friendly toward lower-income Americans and any worker with employer-subsidized coverage.

Our approach to paying for health care is really quite absurd. We approach it with false assumptions, with no understanding of human nature and the inability to focus on the fundamental problems. At one extreme we have the Sanders pay for everything approach and at the other the every man for himself approach like the following.

No politician understands the confusion and lack of understanding the average person has about health insurance or the problems they face when using it. It’s too complicated‼️ There are too many variables, too many payment systems and standards, too many rules.

You may receive health care under any number of systems from simple fee-for-service to accountable care organizations, HMOs, EPOs or an array of trendy ideas. We are nuts‼️

And yet we fail to even talk about a uniform billing system or a system that allows any health care provider to access medical histories and treatment records to avoid duplication or unnecessary care. We don’t require a new drug to demonstrate it is better than an existing drug treating the same condition, but we allow it to be advertised to uninformed consumers. What the hell are we doing⁉️

The payment to providers for a health care service is different under Medicaid, Medicare, self-pay, and each different private health plan. Nobody knows the true cost of anything‼️

Following is a link to a summary of possible legislation if you are interested. More nonsense in the realm of fantasy if you are interested in actually addressing the fundamental problems.

The Sessions-Cassidy Bill: An ACA Alternative Spelled Out In Legislative Language | At the intersection of health, health care, and policy.

According to the analysis, there’s not enough detail yet to know whether HAELA would increase or decrease coverage compared with the ACA. Some elements of HAELA should expand coverage, including universal tax credits, auto-enrollment by states into coverage plans or Roth health savings accounts, penalties for not maintaining continuous coverage, “and the availability of low cost (but low value) insurance.” The bill also grandfathers those now covered by income-based tax credits and Medicaid expansion.

But the bill also:

😷Caps and then reduces Medicaid funding to states

😷Cuts eligibility levels for Medicaid

😷Limits access to income-based tax credits

😷Repeals mandates for individuals and employers

😷Encourages employers to drop tax exclusion subsidized employer-sponsored coverage

😷Premiums would be lower, but only because of limited benefit plans and “skimpy coverage plans” available with the repeal of the essential health benefit requirements, according to the report.

Source: The Sessions-Cassidy Bill: An ACA Alternative Spelled Out In Legislative Language

image

Advertisements

6 replies »

  1. Premiums would be lower, but only because of limited benefit plans and “skimpy coverage plans” available with the repeal of the essential health benefit requirements, according to the report.
    It cannot be any worse than what my brother in law (a smoker age 60) was quoted for a policy $750 per month with a $6,000 deductible. He does not qualify for a subsidy because of my sisters income. Paying the $1,200 penalty per year is much cheaper. He just hopes he can make it to 65 to get medicare.

    Like

    • I hope they realize that the Medicare total premiums, including supplemental coverage and Part D can easily be $700-$800 a month for two people.

      Like

      • Not if you are low income. My sister is 66 she has Medicare and her boss pays for her supplemental coverage. But, when she retires in Feb 2017 she chooses not to buy a supplemental coverage policy. She is in good health and has only been to the doctor twice in the last 5 years.

        Like

      • Not sure of the facts, but if she is working and her employer offers coverage to employees, she can’t have Medicare, but must retain employer coverage until you actually retire.

        Like

      • She works for a State Farm agent (35 years) with just 5 employees. I do not think he has to offer medical coverage, he just does, so when she turned 65, she went on Medicare and he gave a raise to cover her Medicare premium and supplement, since he no longer had to cover her medical insurance premium.. Still saving him $300 per month.

        Like

What's your opinion on this post? Readers would like your point of view.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s