 |
|
Sure, let them offer group policies if they want, but I have
Posted on: October 6, 2017 at 12:11:15 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
72409
Member For:
21.47 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
checked out prices for individual policies vs group policies and the individual policies were almost always cheaper than the group policies for the reasonably healthy people, often WAY cheaper. For those with cancer or serious illnesses that wasn't the case most of the time, but in Missouri we had a Health Insurance Pool for those who could not get decent priced coverage. They could get a nice policy through Anthem with rates that were capped at double the price for a healthy person in our state. The rates were subsidized by all of the companies doing business in the state.
That sounds like it sucked for the people with AIDS or kidney failure, cancer, COPD etc., but in fact I found that Obamacare policies could sometimes be 50%-100% higher for ALL people, including healthy ones than those subsidized rates for the unhealthy were before Obamacare.
The bottom line is that the group policies were usually much more expensive than getting individual policies for everyone and had far less flexibility. On individual plans people could pick plans that included their favorite doctor(s), whereas with the group policies people were often forced to ditch doctors they really liked when companies switch to a different plan from year to year. They also had fewer choices with regards to the types of plans, coverages and so on & usually could not pick which insurance company they wanted.
On top of that if people got too sick to work and lost their jobs or retired they often lost their group policy coverage. They got the government mandated COBRA option for awhile, but it was often overpriced and IT ENDED ready or not. Hunting for a new policy when you have cancer surgery coming up is a suboptimal position to be in. Had they had an individual policy they could just keep paying the same premiums to the same company and kept their same doctors with no interruption. The company could also not raise their rates any higher than they would for anyone else of the same sex & age in the same plan.
Bottom line, individual plans were almost always the superior option. More flexibility, more stability and usually significantly cheaper if you counted both the employers' and the employees' contributions. The savings would be even more pronounced if you take into account company additional HR costs for administering health insurance plans for the employees. They need additional accounting, legal and tax consultation & people keeping track of the various employees and former employees & making sure to giving them all of the government mandated forms and notifications in timely fashion... or pay the significant penalties for failure to do so. Unfortunately, tax policies pushed everyone into group plans. They would not give individuals tax breaks for paying for individual policies, so there was a strong incentive to push companies and employees into group policies.
To my mind it is also fairer and would tend to reduce the incentive for age discrimination against older workers... and against those with health conditions. The older they get the greater the employers' health insurance costs went. If they laid off older workers and hired younger workers they saved on health insurance. People also got fired when they had significant health problems, or if a family member did, especially for smaller employers, because of the sometimes massive impact it could have on their health insurance premiums. I spoke with someone who worked at a small Midas Muffler shop who was distraught because they had to fire someone because his wife got cancer. The impact on the health insurance premiums if they kept him employed was a lot and the owner said he just could not shoulder the big jump so the poor guy got laid off... while his wife is dealing with a cancer diagnosis... and she lost her health insurance coverage when she needed it the most. Had they had an individual policy, which would have likely been significantly cheaper than the original group plan, he could have kept his job and they could have kept their health insurance with the same premiums they had been paying and no increase beyond what anyone else received over the following years.
But again, the government subsidizes the group plans, but no tax deductions for individual plans. I do not see the sense in that. It distorts the efficient allocation of resources.
That sounds like it sucked for the people with AIDS or kidney failure, cancer, COPD etc., but in fact I found that Obamacare policies could sometimes be 50%-100% higher for ALL people, including healthy ones than those subsidized rates for the unhealthy were before Obamacare.
The bottom line is that the group policies were usually much more expensive than getting individual policies for everyone and had far less flexibility. On individual plans people could pick plans that included their favorite doctor(s), whereas with the group policies people were often forced to ditch doctors they really liked when companies switch to a different plan from year to year. They also had fewer choices with regards to the types of plans, coverages and so on & usually could not pick which insurance company they wanted.
On top of that if people got too sick to work and lost their jobs or retired they often lost their group policy coverage. They got the government mandated COBRA option for awhile, but it was often overpriced and IT ENDED ready or not. Hunting for a new policy when you have cancer surgery coming up is a suboptimal position to be in. Had they had an individual policy they could just keep paying the same premiums to the same company and kept their same doctors with no interruption. The company could also not raise their rates any higher than they would for anyone else of the same sex & age in the same plan.
Bottom line, individual plans were almost always the superior option. More flexibility, more stability and usually significantly cheaper if you counted both the employers' and the employees' contributions. The savings would be even more pronounced if you take into account company additional HR costs for administering health insurance plans for the employees. They need additional accounting, legal and tax consultation & people keeping track of the various employees and former employees & making sure to giving them all of the government mandated forms and notifications in timely fashion... or pay the significant penalties for failure to do so. Unfortunately, tax policies pushed everyone into group plans. They would not give individuals tax breaks for paying for individual policies, so there was a strong incentive to push companies and employees into group policies.
To my mind it is also fairer and would tend to reduce the incentive for age discrimination against older workers... and against those with health conditions. The older they get the greater the employers' health insurance costs went. If they laid off older workers and hired younger workers they saved on health insurance. People also got fired when they had significant health problems, or if a family member did, especially for smaller employers, because of the sometimes massive impact it could have on their health insurance premiums. I spoke with someone who worked at a small Midas Muffler shop who was distraught because they had to fire someone because his wife got cancer. The impact on the health insurance premiums if they kept him employed was a lot and the owner said he just could not shoulder the big jump so the poor guy got laid off... while his wife is dealing with a cancer diagnosis... and she lost her health insurance coverage when she needed it the most. Had they had an individual policy, which would have likely been significantly cheaper than the original group plan, he could have kept his job and they could have kept their health insurance with the same premiums they had been paying and no increase beyond what anyone else received over the following years.
But again, the government subsidizes the group plans, but no tax deductions for individual plans. I do not see the sense in that. It distorts the efficient allocation of resources.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Sure, let them offer group policies if they want, but I have - JeffB MU - 10/6 12:11:15