Small Businesses are about to get hit by a freight train

Well the real reason is to decelerate the increasing health care costs. It is working but they also introduced features I don't think will help that effort at all. Also some balloon squeezing that puts unfairs burdens.


I still disagree with all of the preventative care being free. Telling a ****** that he is prehypertension and prediabetes won't stop them from eating themselves to a diseased life. It will cost everyone else in the form of much higher premiums. No copay preventative care is extremely expensive, I don't think I have ever even had an OPTION to get a plan like that, and my previous job had 10 plans I could choose from.

 

Only way to lower costs without shortages and rationing is choice, competition, and dollars controlled by the affected parties.

If I CONTROL the dollars, and I have a CHOICE of providers and insurers, they must COMPETE for my dollars if they want to earn their greedy evil profits.

Third party payers and monopoly providers make for poor quality and high costs, since there is zero incentive to improve the former and reduce the latter.

Basically the exact way we run our public education system, with predictable results.

 

What choice is there is there when you have a heart attack and are about to die? Let me go ahead and call the hospitals to see who has the lowest price?

 

because no one enters the health insurance market until they have a heart attack? You have never made any choice related to health insurance or providers?

 

Sounds like a free market solution.

We already get to do this in the individual insurance market, and there's no evidence that the rates there are more competitive or pressured down than the small group or large group markets, as far as I know.

But based on what we're seeing in this thread, you'll get your wish in a larger scale. I agree with you that employer-based health care is a horrible idea in general for the reasons you stated. The health care exchanges are the direct remedy to that problem - forcing insurers to compete in an open and transparent market. If small businesses are priced out of the insurance market, then that means more individuals will be shopping on the exchange and we'll get to see how well that helps control costs.

The Wyden amendment would have been a significant improvement to the health care law by allowing individuals to opt out of their group coverage and use that money to buy on the exchange if they wished.

 

Disappointing that you don't think your fellow man would render aide in such a scenario without being compelled to.

 

This is....

It was set up to fail. Is it better than what we had? Maybe, we don't know yet, but it isnt as good as it should be.

 

This has been proven by scholarship to be absolutely false both theoretically and empirically in the case of health care (as well as a number of other industries) for nearly a half century at this point.

It's not really considered a disputable or debatable proposition that the market for health care doesn't work the same as widgets or guns or butter .

I know that this is lost on you and don't care. PS how did you attain the rank of commodore during your service by being this dumb?

 

Sigh. There's significant asymmetry of information between players in the market. Purchases often can't be delayed. Purchases frequently cannot be consumed anywhere besides the point of delivery. Especially in rural areas, there may be only a single point of delivery for buyers to access. Because of these and other factors, there's reason to believe that this would not be a functioning market that delivers better outcomes at a lower cost.

If you have an example of a country that gets good outcomes with a Randian free market like you're suggesting, I'd love to hear about it. I want a system that delivers better health outcomes at a lower cost, and I don't want my countrymen to face financial ruin when they get sick. I don't much care what method we use to get there, as long as we get there.

Now, I can give you a number of examples of countries that cover everyone and get comparable (or better) outcomes at a much lower cost, but they all do it through either single-payer or subsidized, mandatory private insurance (like Obamacare) Unless you can present countries that have enacted your vision, it seems you're neglecting a proven method to chase a utopian dream. Not only is this a needless risk, it's not even conservative, at least as Burke or Chesterton would understand the word.

 

While no longer active in the health insurance field, I still receive some newsletters to satisfy some curiosity about what is going on. Thought this was interesting:

"I have attached PDF’s of the recently released shorter exchange applications that are a direct result of NAHU’s intervention. Note that there is now a place for agent or broker information and that the application is considerably shorter than the original 21 pages. As I get more details on preparing agents to sell on the exchange I will update you."

The update is that the paper application is down to 7 pages for those seeking a subsidy and 3 pages for those not. Apparently, the original version had no place for BROKER information which would seem to give indication of a complete government takeover...... cutting out the middlemen.... and UP goes unemployment.

How's that for efficiency? And that is just the application!

P.S.-- I originally posted this because in the part I bolded above it read 231 pages. I think that was just a typo (having meant 21 pages) but I'm not really sure now...

 

I read somewhere that the application is now significantly shorter because it was originally designed for a family of six, and is now for setup for either a single person or a couple with no children (I can't remember which) and requires the applicant to get the extra pages for each additional family member.

 

Id really like to know how this would affect my family's businesses. This could be a life changing kinda thing ya know

 

If your family buys insurance privately (not as part of a group plan), their insurance is going to be more expensive next year. Possibly a lot more expensive.

If your family has more than a certain number of employees, they will have to provide insurance for all full time employees.

In short, either way your family's income will be impacted by health insurance costs.

 

Historically it has been one app fits all.... and that is when they were recording a complete overview of medical history. Those were 5-7 pages but in the end were down to two pages with most of the medical history being recorded with a phone interview with underwriters. This is seeming bloated at a time when it should be streamlined.

 

If yall dont mind a cliff notes summation for me....my eyes are glazing over at some of this.
work for a small company of only three(owner, manager and me) full time employees, never had any sort of insurance. What impact could I be looking at? Is the company going to be forced to provide insurance, or is it too small to be effected?

 

The employer mandate only applies to businesses with 50 or more full time employees. If you buy your insurance on your own, all the insurance companies are saying that the rates are going to increase significantly.

 

well, then no worries.

I will continue to not have my own insurance as I havent had it for the last 25 years....at least until they force me to buy some, and then you cant miss the lower rates you never had.

btw...if that is the case, shouldnt the thread title be directed at mid-size businesses? Most small businesses have less than 50 employees.

 

There'd be less shock value then.

 

As of next year, you'll be required to buy insurance on your own or pay a (fairly small) tax penalty. Depending on your income, you or the business may qualify for subsidies.

To be fair, the thread title was referring to something slightly different - that rates are projected to go up for small businesses that do currently provide insurance voluntarily.

 

Of all the people on the BBS I would expect you to want insurance more than anybody else. Btw the penalty is 1% of your income or $95 which ever is higher.