<p>dstark, that’s not the point. The fact that an employer may provide comprehensive coverage but decide not to comply with every free preventative care service has to pay a penalty 18 times greater than one who provides NO coverage is absurd. It is even worse than this given that the employer who provides no coverage has received waiver extensions from paying any penalty.</p>
<p>It is an argument that affects almost nobody. </p>
<p>This rule has been around a lomg time. How many people or firms have been affected?</p>
<p>Been around since Obamacare.</p>
<p>No… </p>
<p>“Is that a Freudian slip?”</p>
<p>No, just auto correct. </p>
<p>And it has been around since before ACA. </p>
<p>I see it that the employer has a choice. Either choose to offer no insurance to anyone and pay the $2000 per person fine, pay the excise tax if they choose to offer a plan that doesn’t include all essential benefits, or offer a plan that includes all essential benefits. No one is forcing them to choose a plan that doesn’t offer all the essential benefits. </p>
<p>comprehensive coverage but decide not to comply with every
It may seem like comprehensive to some, but won;t meet the conditions of the law. Sorta like filing taxes but forgetting to add in all income.</p>
<p>Why not offer the appropriate solution, rather than fretting over the maximum annual penalty for non-compliance? </p>
<p>Or sue on First Amendment grounds, which is the option chosen.</p>
<p>Flossy, that is obviously also an option but with no guarantee they will win. </p>
<p>I dunno. I’m still confused how abstinence isn’t against a few religious principles.</p>
<p>Seriously, there is so much interesting stuff on google about this suit. Whether a business entity can claim religious protections. And more. I’d think anyone who really wants to make a prominent point about how the law is sunk based on one case…would read up. </p>
<p>This contraceptive case won’t have much impact on the ACA. It’s much more interesting on the First Amendment grounds or the Religious Freedom Act grounds. Does the government have a ‘compelling interest’ (which is the legal test) in forcing an employer to pay for IUDs and morning after pills? Does a for-profit corporation have some First Amendment rights (free speech) but not others (freedom of religion)? </p>
<p>It is just another case about forcing specific benefits which will only determine if companies are allowed to opt out of the benefit and still offer insurance.</p>
<p>“50,000 households started #CoveredCA health insurance applications yesterday - our highest number yet.”</p>
<p>Incredible number…</p>
<p>Beyond incredible.</p>
<p>These 50,000 are not people.
These are households. :)</p>
<p>I know these arent finished applications. But still…</p>
<p>After all, nobody was going to sign up. I read it here. Many times. :)</p>
<p>“It is just another case about forcing specific benefits which will only determine if companies are allowed to opt out of the benefit and still offer insurance.”</p>
<p>Correct. Unless this law is amended to allow insurers to tailor the benefits to the needs of the consumer and for it to be affordable for people who would like to purchase the insurance, the law will crumble under its own weight.</p>
<p>California receives an “F” for health care price transparency. In the immortal words of dstark, “beyond incredible”.</p>
<p><a href=“http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2014/03/25/california-gets-an-f-for-health-care-price-transparency/”>http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2014/03/25/california-gets-an-f-for-health-care-price-transparency/</a></p>
<p><a href=“Report: California Receives ‘F’ for Health Care Pricing Transparency | California Healthline”>http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2014/3/26/report-calif-receives-f-for-health-care-pricing-transparency</a></p>
<p>I agree about the lack of transparency. </p>
<p>I have written about that many times on CC. :)</p>
<p>The other post was ludicrous. </p>
<p>“A number of insurers sell their plans under names like Select, Preferred, Premier, Exclusive, Enhanced, Essential, Essential Plus, Prime, Ultimate and Deluxe. Multiple offerings from one company may have the same benefits and cover the same share of a consumer’s costs, but go by different names.”</p>
<p>“Sometimes the names are downright deceptive,” said Betsy M. Imholz, a lawyer at Consumers Union. “Calling a plan ‘exclusive’ makes it sound super-duper, but it may mean that you have a very limited choice of doctors or hospitals.” </p>
<p>The exchanges are no better than used car shops. I would say there is more honesty among used car salesman than the folks running the exchanges.</p>
<p><a href=“Names of Health Plans Sow Customer Confusion - The New York Times”>Names of Health Plans Sow Customer Confusion - The New York Times;
<p>It’s our way. How we are. We do it all the time.</p>
<p>“ludicrous”</p>
<p>Interesting choice of words. Many would say this is the perfect adjective to describe the debacle called Obamacare.</p>
<p>Slam ACA. And slam it again. And again. Where’s it get you? You aren’t in a position to vote on anything; you dismiss the notion people can rally and complain to those who could have some impact. So all we get is a few here, griping. </p>
<p>Find some flaws, predict doom. Same old song. But, time will tell.</p>
<p>Hey, guess what hasn’t been built yet— yes, the back end of the healthcare.gov website. The govt has no way of figuring out or paying the insurance companies the subsidies they will be owed. A small glitch. LOL</p>