<p>BD, I meant, “Whether your new options are “worse” can’t be generalized to the rest of the folks out there.” Ie, it’s specific. And, no, it doesn’t “sound” right. But we don’t know how your company defended it.</p>
<p>"I doubt that your benefits would remain so generous if this policy were to change… "</p>
<p>"If health care costs could not be expensed on corporate books there goes employer sponsored health care.</p>
<p>If I had to pay tax on my health care benefit like I do on my life insurance benefit we would also see a different system."</p>
<p>Agreed. So be it. Having massive amounts of corporate and individual writeoffs makes everything incredibly complicated, people and companies trying to game everything for maximum payout, and he can afford the best tax attorneys wins.</p>
<p>If I had to pay tax on my health care benefit, and my husband did too (he is forced to have an individual policy, even though we work for the same company), after the tax and paying monthly premiums, I believe that we would be better off paying for private insurance ourselves, than even taking our company paid benefits. Definitely would not be better off going into the exchange, though.</p>
<p>I do believe that taxing people on benefits is next, which might make them refuse their company coverage. At least if you pay for it on your own, you still get a tax break. In my opinion, it would be better to get health insurance out of the tax benefit business, and let the chips fall where they may. Then again, I’m a flat (graduated) taxer, it’s not for everyone.</p>
<p>“BD, I meant, “Whether your new options are “worse” can’t be generalized to the rest of the folks out there.” Ie, it’s specific. And, no, it doesn’t “sound” right. But we don’t know how your company defended it.”</p>
<p>They defended it as if they had no option. They didn’t sound accusatory or defensive, just informational, and at least to me this wasn’t unexpected. Other people seem to be shocked, but it was obvious it was going to happen. I would generalize that this will happen to most companies that offer benefits that fall under the “cadillac tax” category. That term makes me think of companies that offer to pay for employees hot tubs, spa visits, and swimming pools, but I suspect that most of the time it is just low deductible, good coverage policies that are targeted.</p>
<p>When I think of it, I actually don’t know if they can change employees insurance that is negotiated under collective bargaining, so I don’t know if it will hit us. I know it will cream my sister (husband works for the same company). They have some serious health issues, and use their medical care greatly. They don’t have much disposable income, and now they will be on the hook for thousands more.</p>
<p>I gotta get out of this hotel room and get some exercise so I don’t have to use my benefits. Hey, I guess that’s a positive to this, gets you off your butt?</p>
<p>This article says the tax on Cadillac plans does not hit until 2018.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2009/september/22/cadillac-health-explainer-npr.aspx[/url]”>http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2009/september/22/cadillac-health-explainer-npr.aspx</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe everyone else knew this (I doubt it), but I did not know that the number of people in the country with pre-existing conditions who are unable to obtain insurance coverage is relatively miniscule.</p>
<p>It seemed to me that the ACA was always touted in the same breath as the idea that all of these gazillions of people who could never get coverage due to pre-existing conditions will now be covered! That really pulls on the heartstrings, and it did for me. Afterall, there are 45+million uninsured.</p>
<p>Now I see that there are only 110,000 people in the country who have signed up for the ACA high-risk pool over a 3-year period. I found that fascinating. I always assumed it was mainly these people who we were overhauling the entire system for. Now I am better informed.</p>
<p>Head smack. What is the point? You’re minimizing by picking off, one by one, the various intents of the new plan. You’re making the same point I though dstark or someone responded to. Are you the same one who previously said those with pre-existing SHOULD pay higher? Maybe you want to wade through this: <a href=“http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/pre-existing/#One[/url]”>http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/pre-existing/#One</a> It alludes to some of what you are saying, but puts it in context. “Nearly One in Five Americans with a Pre-Existing Condition Is Uninsured.”</p>
<p>“I always assumed it was mainly these people who we were overhauling the entire system for.”</p>
<p>You never heard how the millions of low wage workers who don’t have subsidized company health insurance couldn’t afford it? Did you think these people were already covered?</p>
<p>[Insurers</a> Denied Health Coverage to 1 in 7 People, Citing Pre-Existing Conditions - ProPublica](<a href=“http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/insurers-denied-health-coverage-to-1-in-7-people-citing-pre-existing-condit]Insurers”>Insurers Denied Health Coverage to 1 in 7 People, Citing Pre-Existing Conditions — ProPublica)</p>
<p>"A year-by-year analysis shows a significant increase in the number of coverage denials each year. The insurance companies denied coverage to 172,400 people in 2007 and 221,400 people in 2008. By 2009, the number of individuals denied coverage rose to 257,100.Between 2007 and 2009, the number of people denied coverage for pre-existing conditions increased 49%. During the same period, applications for insurance coverage at the four companies increased by only 16%.</p>
<p>Individuals were denied coverage based on “an extensive list of medical conditions,” the memo noted. One company had a list of more than 400 medical diagnoses used to decline coverage to those seeking it, and common conditions such as pregnancy, diabetes, and heart disease were included on the list."</p>
<p>Look, as calmom showed us through her diligent efforts, you don’t just spin and point. </p>
<p>Traditionally, there have been two- at least- manifestations to this problem: people denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition and those who were able to get insurance but were denied payments/reimbursements for treatments for a pre-existing condition.</p>
<p>LK,</p>
<p>First of all, don’t hurt yourself!</p>
<p>Your post #1160 is goobledy-gook to me. Your post 1163 doesn’t address the point I raised. If there are “millions” of people with pre-existing conditions who cannot get coverage, why did only 110,000 sign up for the federal high-risk pool? The feds themselves were predicting at least 375,000 would sign up. I don’t see where anything you have posted answers my questions.</p>
<p>emilybee,</p>
<p>Yes, I had heard that there are “millions” of low income people who cannot afford coverage. Why do you ask? I didn’t say that there weren’t such people.</p>
<p>Tom,
You mentioned that your life insurance proceeds are taxable. I was under impression that life insurance is not taxable in a lump sum, but if paid out over time than only interest and dividends are taxable. Curious what you </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
@SamuraiLandshark, no. After-tax dollars.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never assumed that. I understood that many people with pre-existing conditions had trouble getting health insurance or, if insured, could be denied coverage for treatment of their pre-existing conditions. But while an important and sometimes heart-wrenching problem, that was just a sideshow. The much bigger problem was the millions of uninsured who were unemployed but not Medicaid-eligible or whose employers provided no coverage and who simply could not afford individual policies. That’s why I always thought the simplest solution was single-payer. But that didn’t have enough political support, so instead we ended up with the crazy-complicated ACA. I hope it works as intended. I’m not entirely optimistic, but the jury is still out.</p>
<p>It’s probably impossible to have such a massive restructuring of the health insurance market without some people being made worse off, but if the trade-off is that more people are made better off, I absolutely can live with that. It doesn’t need to be, and probably won’t be, a zero-sum game; there could very well be net social benefits, i.e., more winners than losers, even if there are some losers. That’s usually the case with almost any social or economic program or policy. That’s why I don’t put much stock in the anecdotal tales claiming “I am made worse off by ACA.” Even if true, that’s only part of the overall picture. Truth is, every time my local property taxes go up, I am made worse off; but it helps a lot of other people’s kids get a decent K-12 education and with it a greater likelihood of being productive participants in the economy, so there’s arguably a net social benefit even if I as an individual would be better off without the taxes.</p>
<p>Mostly, though, I think it’s just far too early to tell who will be made better off and who will be made worse off under ACA. There’s a lot of confusion, a lot of misinformation (some of it deliberate), and unproven claims on both sides. It will eventually sort itself out. </p>
<p>In the meantime, though, I wouldn’t be surprised if some employers are exploiting the confusion and using the ACA as a smokescreen to cut back on health benefits, the costs of which the employers have long believed to be unacceptably high and out of control. What better time to cut back than now, when you can blame it on the ACA? For that matter, if you’re a health insurer, what better time to try to ram through a rate increase and blame that on the ACA–especially if you’re in a state where the political establishment opposes the ACA and is ready to believe the worst about it? If either of those things occurs, we could see widely divergent results, with some of the negative results perhaps not caused by the ACA directy, but rather by economic actors’ willingness to exploit confusion and political controversy.</p>
<p>We receive 1.5 times our salary in life insurance. The cost of the premium for this benefit if the amount is over $50,000 is taxable. They take your age and 1.5 times your salary and determine how much the insurance costs. You pay tax on that benefit.</p>
<p>“If there are “millions” of people with pre-existing conditions who cannot get coverage, why did only 110,000 sign up for the federal high-risk pool? The feds themselves were predicting at least 375,000 would sign up. I don’t see where anything you have posted answers my questions.”</p>
<p>They couldn’t afford it. </p>
<p>“Yes, I had heard that there are “millions” of low income people who cannot afford coverage. Why do you ask? I didn’t say that there weren’t such people.”</p>
<p>I asked because from what you said you thought the reason for ACA was - that being people with pre-existing conditions.</p>
<p>Regarding the New York Times article referenced in post 1114 by EmilyBee:</p>
<p>Several people have asked why a 67-year-old man went to Belgium instead of using Medicare. At the time of his surgery, he was 60; the surgery was done in 2007.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, go back and read what I said.</p>
<p>dmd- thank you for pointing that out.</p>
<p>“No, go back and read what I said.”</p>
<p>Ok, I did and this is what you said: </p>
<p>"It seemed to me that the ACA was always touted in the same breath as the idea that all of these gazillions of people who could never get coverage due to pre-existing conditions will now be covered! That really pulls on the heartstrings, and it did for me. Afterall, there are 45+million uninsured.</p>
<p>Now I see that there are only 110,000 people in the country who have signed up for the ACA high-risk pool over a 3-year period. I found that fascinating. I always assumed it was mainly these people who we were overhauling the entire system for. Now I am better informed."</p>
<p>I don’t know how else to interpret what you wrote other than it wasn’t being done to help the millions of low wage workers afford insurance.</p>
<p>Busdriver’s company pays over 1 billion a year in health costs for their employees. </p>
<p>I just read that they are instituting this change to avoid paying the fees for self insured companies. If they kept their plan as it is now, they will get zapped with an excise tax in 2018. </p>
<p>They are doing this now so employees can continue to get coverage and can avoid the exchanges, in the future.</p>
<p>Does busdrivers company compete globally and if so do their competitors pay over 1 billion a year in extra taxes to fund the national system healthcare system?</p>
<p>If not it would seem to me busdrivers company would want national healthcare.</p>
<p>I forgot the 1 billion offsets their US income so other taxpayers help them pick up some of the cost.</p>