“Skinny” healthcare coverage

An excellent op-ed by Michael Barone in the New York Post. The point he makes is that those who voted for the law don’t understand the concept of insurance: to protect you from expensive and unlikely causes. It’s why auto insurance doesn’t cover routine oil changes, but does cover bodily injury and collision. It’s why people buy healthcare policies for ER visits but not routine checkups.
The other point he makes is that businesses who employ lower-skill workers, especially those who are unlikely to work someplace for a long time, are the least likely to pay for a huge premium for employee health care.

From the article:

“Wonder what a “skinny” or “low-benefit” insurance plan is? The terms may vary, but the basic idea is that policies would cover preventive care, a limited number of doctor visits and perhaps generic drugs. They wouldn’t cover things such as surgery, hospital stays or prenatal care.

That sounds similar to an auto-insurance policy that reimburses you when you change the oil but not when your car gets totaled.”

For some high-paying jobs in demand, it may make sense to offer a full healthcare package. But for these jobs it does not. Now that health insurance will be required to cover pretty much anything and everything, including routine checkups, expect more part-time workers without employer-sponsored healthcare, which will eventually drive up everyone’s taxes in order to pay for the subsidies the workers will need to buy healthcare on the exchanges. The question is, is this a deliberate intention of the law, or did the people who wrote the law simply not foresee these issues?

Read the full article:http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/another_enormous_obamacare_oops_vY4KousCRUXPprm4FgGc2I


Read the full article: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/another_enormous_obamacare_oops_vY4KousCRUXPprm4FgGc2I

Powered By WizardRSS.com | RFID Wallet Blocking Cards
Go to Source