8 ms·

Under the ACA, health care is no longer tied to employment. It's practically the whole point of the individual mandate that is being villianized -- when everyon

• glesica 13y ago
  That doesn't help people who get coverage through an employer though. Sure, maybe they can go buy coverage once they leave their employment, but then they have to get rid of it again once they get another job. What would be nice is if employers would give you the cash in lieu of your benefits, but I've never heard of that being an option.
  • nknighthb 13y ago
    Employer premiums are pre-tax. Individual premiums are not (unless you happen to be self-employed). Until that stupidity is fixed, "cash in lieu of benefits" ends up costing a lot more, because the employees have to pay taxes on that cash.
    • seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      In Switzerland, you buy your health insurance yourself using post tax money (employers can't provide it); like ACA, they can't discriminate for pre existing conditions and it's mandatory to have insurance. Everyone is pretty much on the same footing.
      • eru 13y ago
        Among developed countries, it's mostly just the US that is so crazy.
• lazerwalker 13y ago
  In theory, yes. In practice: I'm on an ACA plan, was formerly on COBRA coverage from my previous employer. Dollar for dollar, an ACA plan with the same monthly premium as my former insurance gets me both a significantly lower level of coverage AND a network that's at most 20% the size of my old PPO plan. On the NY state exchange (I can't speak for other states), there's no way to pay more money for a larger network: every ACA provider in NY offers only an ultra-limited "EPO" network . I believe that 3 out of the 8 providers are even literally the same network, as two of them are licensing their network from the third.
  • runako 13y ago
    Did you buy on the exchange? In GA, the exchange has different options than e.g. eHealthInsurance.com.
    • lazerwalker 13y ago
      Yeah, the only place I looked was the official NY state exchange.
      • nknighthb 13y ago
        You should have been looking elsewhere. We have a similar situation in Washington with our Blue Cross provider, who is on the exchange, but our Blue Shield provider is not on the exchange and has a much more complete network. The only compelling reason to use the exchanges is if you qualify for subsidies.
        • lazerwalker 13y ago
          Do you have any recommendations of good places to look? I tried to look up plans on my former insurer, but they just referred me to eHealthInsurance; after entering my zip code, eHealthInsurance came up with a handful of plans from a single insurer that were all on the exchange.
          • 13y ago
• Iftheshoefits 13y ago
  In the sense you mean, health care is most certainly still tied to employment. The individual mandate will not accomplish having everyone in the same risk pool--not even close. It's a tiny, trivial, and nearly insignificant step toward making people less dependent on their boss for their health.
  • cma 13y ago
    They did away with pre-existing condition exclusions. That alone makes way more people "less dependent on their boss for their health"; the only way to avoid those exclusions in the past was through getting group insurance from an employer.
• dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Under the ACA, health care is no longer tied to employment. Under the ACA, health care is very much tied to employment, and (except that the new employer mandates have been delayed in implementation) even more employers are required to provide insurance. It's true that there is a new additional individual mandate that falls on people who both have a certain minimum income level and do not have employer-provide health insurance, but the existing incentives that tie health insurance to employers remain and new mandates that encourage employer-tied health insurance exist. > It's not as sensible a system as single payer, but it's a big step toward making people less dependent on their boss for their health. This is true insofar that the exchanges by existing, the larger risk pools for individual insurance purchases, and the subsidies for low-to-moderate income workers (and the Medicaid expansion for lower incomes) make it less likely that you will end up with no insurance that you can afford if you lose your job, it doesn't do much to make it any less likely that you won't be financially able to retain your existing insurance (and access to the particular provider network it has) if you lose your job.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]