February 22, 2013

ObamaCare and the march towards single-payer [Darleen Click]

ObamaCare may allow you to carry your 25 year-old “child” on your insurance; your spouse? not so much.

Companies have a new solution to rising health-insurance costs: Break up their employees’ marriages.

By denying coverage to spouses, employers not only save the annual premiums, but also the new fees that went into effect as part of the Affordable Care Act. This year, companies have to pay $1 or $2 “per life” covered on their plans, a sum that jumps to $65 in 2014. And health law guidelines proposed recently mandate coverage of employees’ dependent children (up to age 26), but husbands and wives are optional. [...]

Such exclusions barely existed three years ago, but experts expect an increasing number of employers to adopt them: “That’s the next step,” Darling says. HMS, a company that audits plans for employers, estimates that nearly a third of companies might have such policies now. Holdouts say they feel under pressure to follow suit. “We’re the last domino,” says Duke Bennett, mayor of Terre Haute, Ind., which is instituting a spousal carve-out for the city’s health plan, effective July 2013, after nearly all major employers in the area dropped spouses.

Posted by Darleen @ 7:29am
11 comments | Trackback

Comments (11)

  1. Quit bitching, it’s the law of the land.

  2. If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance fuck you.

  3. Huh. If one wasn’t convinced of the beneficence of our betters in the Administration and Congress, one might get the impression that ObamaCare was expressly designed to destroy private healthcare insurance and drag the country kicking and screaming into a government-controlled single-payor healthcare system.

  4. rjacobse says February 22, 2013 at 8:59 am

    UNHELPFUL!

  5. Just like how one might be tempted to think Obama was out to destroy the free market and impose a centrally-planned redistributionist economy in the name of socialist equality

    —if we didn’t already know he was just trying to dig his way out of the hole Bush left him in, that is.

  6. McGehee: Yeah, I get that a lot.

  7. UNHELPFUL!

    That was probably said about the Allies sometime in the 1940s.

  8. The idea that parents can keep their kids on their health insurance until the kid is 26 is pretty much a myth. It only applies if the kid is a full time student, which is how it always was. I think the old cut off was 24? But close enough. Once a kid turns 19 you lose all tax deductions unless they are a full time student. In my case, I got laid off from the phone comapny but was pension eligible so I have retiree benefits and the age 26 rule doesn’t apply to my daughter at all even if she was a full time student. Which she’s not because she can’t get student loans without me co-signing and I won’t co-sign. But even if she was a full time student, my company’s plan will not cover her up to age 26. Retiree benefits were excluded from the law. And I’m not that old. I’m 53. My daugther is 20. I can’t guess who many other people are in my position.

  9. I was on my father’s insurance until I was 25, and I sure needed it at that time to the tune of a few hundred thousand bucks. I was also a full-time student. This is not new stuff.

  10. A lot of the things the left do are not designed to do what they say they’re designed to do.

    I think a few people have even begun to suspect there is a pattern.

  11. Pingback: From around the blogroll « THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

Leave a Reply