If you have "no place to go," come here!

ObamaCare Clusterfuck: When small businesses throw employees onto the Exchanges, most are worse off

Yeah, an anecdote but all the numbers are soft (accidentally? Yeah right) until some point in 2014, so anecdotes are what we have. Here's a good one:

Workers at auto dealership come face to face with Obamacare trade-offs
The 41 employees of Extreme Dodge in Jackson, Mich., are very familiar with trade-ins, but this year they’re learning about trade-offs as they come face to face with the new realities of health care. A few workers say they’re getting a great deal, but most have a severe case of sticker shock.

Yep. Some will benefit, and their stories will be plastered all over the media by Obama's PR campaign. Especially the photogenic ones. Most will not:

“I feel like I’ve been taken to the cleaners,” said Neal Campbell, a salesman.

The news was presented at the company’s annual benefits meeting earlier this month, when employees were told that the health insurance plan that the auto dealership had provided its workers was canceled because it doesn’t comply with the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

Rather than officially sponsor a new policy, the company -- voted one of the 100 best car dealerships to work for in the country last year -- will instead provide its employees with $2,400 apiece to buy their own insurance, or to pocket and pay the new federal penalty if they elect to go without it.

It's the wave of the future! And soon, of course, the stipend will vanish.

That’s a little bit more than the company says it spent on health insurance this year. Dealership owner Wesley Lutz said his decision to go in a new direction was driven by the fact that health insurance is “incredibly expensive” and getting more so. He says he needs to be able to control his future costs.

“As a business owner, we have to be viable first and then provide services,” he said. Lutz is not required to provide health insurance to workers, but has done so for 35 years.

By not sponsoring a company plan, Lutz also enables workers to shop around and see if they do better buying insurance through the health insurance exchanges established by the new law, where some qualify for subsidies, or through buying a new group plan recommended by the company.

Because shopping is always good!

A handful of the Extreme Dodge workers came out winners -- mostly low-wage earners who qualify for subsidies and therefore pay very little for insurance. The biggest winner is Brandon Chisholm, a detailer with two daughters, who will get health insurance for the first time, and will have to pay virtually nothing for it because he qualifies for a big government subsidy. That means he can bank the $200 a month the company is giving workers to replace the health insurance it previously provided.

Twenty-six of the dealership's workers had been covered this year under the old company plan. Twenty-one have now decided to go with the new group plan recommended by the company for next year, though they realize that they face sharply higher out-of-pocket costs next year.

Their deductibles will go from $1,125 this year to $3,000 next year, and maximum out-of-pocket costs jump from $2,250 to $6,350. And for families, those numbers double: to a $6,000 deductible and $12,700 out-of-pocket maximum.

“How is this helping the average American that’s working 40 to 50 hours per week?” said Terry Hardcastle, a salesperson. “How are we supposed to live?”

You're not! Next question!

Cathy Smith, who’d hoped she’d qualify for a subsidy and made just a little too much money, had tears in her eyes. "You don't make that much money to begin with,” she said, “and the prescriptions are going to kill me."

Insurance broker Michael Harp said small businesses, part of what’s known in the industry as the “small group market,” are used to seeing health insurance premiums climb about 10 percent a year, but it’s never before been this dramatic. For Extreme Dodge to have kept deductibles and out-of-pocket costs at last year’s levels, he said, would have cost the dealership almost 50 percent more than last year.

Harp says what is happening at this dealership is representative of the other small businesses he deals with. Businesses with 50 or fewer employees currently provide health insurance to about 17 million U.S. workers, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

He said the biggest surprise to him in how the law impacts small business clients is “how many people are losers versus winners. … There are some people who do come out ahead, but I would say the overwhelming majority, they’re paying much higher rates and they have lower benefits.”

That's not a bug. It's a feature! ObamaCare is junk insurance!

The Obama administration disputes the notion that the ACA puts small businesses at a disadvantage or forces them to shed health insurance. It cites a program created by the law – the Small Business Health Options Program or SHOP -- that enables businesses with fewer than 50 full-time equivalent employees to shop for group health plans and notes that many small businesses can qualify for tax credits to help pay for employee premiums.

Beyond higher out-of-pocket costs, some workers at the dealership face higher premiums. Premiums vary because of age and family size. Some end up paying slightly less or about the same for premiums. But older workers with families pay significantly more.

Among the hardest hit is Campbell, a salesman with a wife and three young children, all of whom are active in athletics. The premium payments currently deducted weekly from his paycheck will increase $77, to a total of $221 per week. “That’s a huge part of the budget,” he said. “We feel betrayed, lied to, and we're pissed off.”

Four younger workers opted not to sign up for any health insurance at all, according to a company official. ....

Lutz, the dealership owner, said he believes that his company is maintaining its commitment to provide health care to its workers through the $2,400 stipend. ....

But Steve Williams, a service adviser with a daughter who’s active in sports, said the switch feels like the end of an era to him.

“The days of low deductibles and all that stuff are gone,” he said. “It’s not going to get any better. It ‘s just going to get worse.”

Well played, "progressives"!

No votes yet


danps's picture
Submitted by danps on

"enables businesses with fewer than 50 full-time equivalent employees to shop for group health plans." This particular business might be a useful case study:

Existing offerings no longer qualify. You can either A) try to navigate SHOP and figure out which group plans to offer or B) say "fuck it, give 'em a stipend" and be done with it. Seems like an easy answer to me.

Doing that might put them at a disadvantage with other employers in the area, but I tend to think that dynamic will only slow the race to the bottom. Extreme Dodge is just the leading edge. Entities that (famously) exist to create profits will inevitably choose B over time. Maybe even en masse if a tipping point is reached. No reason it has to happen in an orderly and gradual way.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

to "take down" employer-sponsored group plans.

Even my ol' friend Governor Dean (Boy, was I ever duped) says this quite often on the "Business Channels." And he applauds it.

He has begun to epitomize what I detest about most corporatist/centrist Democrats--they lie!

And it appears that many of them will say ANYTHING to get elected.

Then they "make a beeline" to do just the opposite of what they were elected to do.

Jeeezzz! No wonder so many people have quit voting . . .

McDee's picture
Submitted by McDee on

The Dems keep saying "Anything to get elected." They keep saying it because the Base keeps believing it. It astonishes me but they do. To me the most important political question right now is: How long will they keep believing it?

I haven't stopped voting. Obama '08 was the last time I voted for a Democrat. I vote for school bonds, library bonds, etc and whatever Green/Socialist/Independent is running.

I live in a very liberal town. Obama won over 70% of the vote here in '08 and '12. Yet I have witnessed a local market being picketed by the Carpenter's Union while the parking lot is full of hybrids with Obama/Biden bumper stickers. Likewise another market, a national chain run by a viscious right-wing, anti-labor billionaire, with a parking lot full of the same cars and the same bumper stickers.

I spent almost 40 years as a union member/official and it sickens me to see the labor movement so corrupted as to keep supporting the very people who keep stabbing them in the back.
One of the reasons I voted the straight Dem ticket in '08 was the Employee Free Choice Act which Obama campaigned on. That was one of the first things he threw under the bus AFTER he got elected.
Liberals make me sick. I remember the words of the old IWW leader Big Bill Haywood: "A liberal is the guy that leaves the room when the fighting starts." Screw 'em.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on


It's not (true) liberals that make me sick--it is "what passes as a liberal" now that the DLC has taken over the Democratic Party!

They are not "liberals"--they and their base of followers are corporatist "neoliberals"--there is a MAJOR difference, no?

Would love to hear more of your days as an union official in the private sector.

I am still working on a post that I started when I first started blogging two years ago: "Baptism By Fire."

One day I'll finish it. Hopefully it will be an eye-opener (as the experience was to me) as to what unions are all about.

It took a near earth-shattering experience for me to even consider getting involved in the union movement--which speaks to my ignorance at the time.

I'd particularly be interested in how arbitration hearings or proceedings occur in the private sector. My union affiliation is with a primarily professional (also pink and blue collar members--"Wage Grade" employees were probably only 10-15% of our union local) workers.

Don't know how it works in any or all private unions, but at some federal government unions must represent all employees (obviously, is they have a valid grievance), whether or not they pay union dues.

I'll be posting a handful of very short video clips of a couple of our illustrous union leaders (Henry and Trumka) closer to the midterms. "Sellouts" is an understatement!

I've been thinking about writing a tribute a wonderful and dedicated union shop steward and very excellent union (national) representative and attorney,--two of the people that I most admire in the world. Just don't seem to be able to find the right words--maybe they will come to me, eventually.

Regarding "card check"--that went out the window with the takeover of corporatist Dems, IMO. Got to give them credit for driving a wedge between white and blue collar workers, with their anti-union policies.

They are the "reason" for what was once called "Reagan Democrats."

But as Charlie Cook opined recently:

"There are no Reagan Democrats, today. They're called Republicans."


jo6pac's picture
Submitted by jo6pac on

"There are no Reagan Democrats, today. They're called Republicans."

So true and not decent ones at that.

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

Jack Rasmus is very pro-union, and has a show on Progressive Radio Network. Thankfully, he is looking for better srategic thinking on the part of pro-working people activists

Oh, yeah. He has anlalyzed Obama care from a progressive POV, and expects it to collapse within about a couple of years.

IMO, correct framing for healthcare advocates should include the expected early demise of Obamacare.


Slightly off topic, but I'd like to know why the Republican Party is not running ads featuring Obamacare losers on TV. I speculate that that doing so would
a) raise questions about their own healthcare agenda, which is basically non-existent, AFAIK (unless you consider obstruct/damage Obamacare to be this agenda)
b) put pressure on Republicans to fix parts of Obamacare, as well as roll it back
c) embarrass their Big Pharma, Big Health Insurance industry donors

IOW, they will use it as an issue to wrest power from Democrats, but won't do anything more about it. Well, I suppose they could bargain away some fixes to Obamacare in return for more tax cutting for the wealthy.

Submitted by Dromaius on

Demise of Obamacare is almost as scary as Obamacare, because that whole toothpaste out of the tube analogy.

I do not regularly defend Republicans but I will say some actually DO have valid alternatives to Obamacare, at least in part. One of their ideas is to give EVERYONE on the individual market a subsidy to buy insurance. No sliding schedule, no subsidy cliffs. If you need insurance, you get a subsidy. The recent talk was ~$2500/person, but I've seen all the way up to $8000. That is a valid option. Of course, the devil is always in the details. I would prefer this as an ADDITION to Obamacare, especially if the coverage requirements remain. Give EVERYONE a minimum subsidy and people who need it get more. Of course, that's a voucher system, but so is Obamacare. But the idea the Republicans haven't put forth any ideas on the subject is actually a "progressive" meme, not necessarily based on fact.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

at this point. (Mostly due to the fact that the Democrats and the insurance industry very cleverly intertwined ALL of our public programs into this law.)

I "wish" that they would do the right thing, but I don't believe that they will.

Remember, Repubs, whose base vehemently opposed this, kept their hands clean.

So why would they have any real incentive to stick their necks out and try and make changes? They'll just blame the fiasco on the Dems. (And the Dems would do the same thing, if events were reversed, IMO.)

And as usual, Democrats duped enough of their base (literally had some of them cheering this debacle on), so that they aren't "afraid of blow back." And sadly, some of the base is more vested in saving face than seeing results that would actually be beneficial.

So, in the end, even though I'd love to see it repeal (and replaced with a very much improved Medicare program), truthfully, I suspect that it will "limp along" for decades to come.

Again, many so-called progressives will continue to defend the ACA, for the reason you stated in another comment--they are more into being "team players" than seeing the implementation of effective and/or equitable health care policy.

But time will tell . . .

Submitted by Dromaius on

It doesn't scare you because you aren't smack dab in the middle of it like I am. The PTB have destroyed health care on the individual market for the sake of Obamacare. If they were to take away Obamacare the destruction would, I'm certain, remain and be worse.

Yes, it will limp along. Maybe the subsidies will go away. Maybe insurance will become unaffordble even with subsidies. It will simply become a huge tax increase for many people, 2.5% of their income to the government and straight into the hands of profiteers. And of course, this makes people less able to buy health care (and I don't mean insurance).

Gawd, I hate this country now.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

intend to "make light" of your very real concerns, believe me.

We, too, have very major concerns about the ACA--and all its aspects.

[Believe me, since we have huge ongoing medical bills--it's not some theoretical exercise for us. The debacle that the ACA has created is very real and very concerning!]

The ACA has also destroyed many health care plans in the Group Health Insurance Market. Mr A's multi-national corporation is leading the way--but we are by no means the only beneficiaries who are suffering.

You see, after a decade of double-digit premium increases, as high as 14-18% some years, our benefits--since the passage of the ACA--are being hollowed out.

It may be true that not everyone in this market has fully felt the ill effects at this time--but they will.

The so-called Cadillac Plan tax (40% surcharge) is the main reason that benefits are being slashed by employers in all group health plans.

And ALL group health plans will be affected--not just union or top-notch benefit plans--because from what I've read from a CBO analysis, the old accounting trick of not "indexing for inflation" the criteria (employer contribution to the plans) means that in time ALL the plans will have their benefits slashed--or costs shifted to the employees (as in our case).

Again, we've gone from a combined $250 annual deductible for our employee/spouse group health plan to a just under $8,000 deductible, since the last year or so of Bush's second term!

There is a list as long as my arm of huge increases in deductibles, co-pays (ER that we never paid before), a bifurcated or two-tier OOP Maximums.

If anything, it has affected our health insurance plan so vastly that a few tweaks here and there, would certainly do us, and I assume others like us, next to no good.

So anyway, Dromaius, I'm not against giving subsidies to your cohort, or any of them--including our own!

If anything, I'd love to see it!-

I just don't think that it will happen, because politicians in both parties are so corrupt and cynical.

It's quite clear that this law was created (partly) to destroy the Group Health Plan Market. So, hopefully, it is understandable that we are not particularly fond of this law.

Between what it has done to the Private Individual Market and the Group Health Market, I'd say allow the enrollees in Medicaid to remain (if they want to), and repeal the rest and write a "decent bill." But, that's just my take.

After all, IIRC, only 1.1 to about 1.3 million people have enrolled in the Exchange (never can remember that figure).

And look at how many were thrown out of your market.

And Mr A saw figures a couple of weeks ago--barely one-half of the employees in his company are enrolling. Presumably,one-half of them will be paying the tax penalty.

Bottom line--I believe we'll be seeing a "net loss" of Americans who are insured.

To me--this entire bill is ludicrous!

Submitted by Dromaius on

Our premium + deductible rose $7000 in 2014. We would pay $20,000 as a household before we'd see a dime of payout from insurance. That's why we went ahead and dropped insurance. It's clearly unaffordable. Oh last year, we had some up-front pre-deductible care. Now all we have in that arena is "screening" (what they mis-name as preventive care).

As bad as things are in the small group arena, you can probably triple that for individuals. And if Obamacare individual market BENEFITS went away as of next year, say, I think the detriments would remain because we on the individual market have NO VOICE. We are not a multi-national corporation or a union. That's why it's been so easy this far to screw us so-so badly and why it's going to be very difficult for us to go back to even the 2013 level of insurance if the law goes away.

That is why the thought of repeal is just as scary as keeping Obamacare. And right now, because we've dropped insurance because of the ballooned premiums, if they were to rescind Obamacare, insurers may not let us sign up again (because of pre-existing conditions). But the reality was we would go bankrupt paying the ballooned premiums so we had no choice.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

but look forward to replying soon.

Mr A's company is rabidly "anti-union." So unions do us no good, either.

Multi-national corporations actually benefit hugely at the expense of their employees, when they set up the type of group health plan that we are enrolled in.

IIRC, it was the "private individual market" that PBO recently addressed in a press conference. And, there were a slew of articles at the time, including several posted here, which addressed the issues of the sticker shock for the private individual health insurance beneficiaries.

Yet, group health plan beneficiaries enrolled in CDHPs have equal and greater OOP expenses--imposed on them by their employer.

And for the most part, this is "nary a peep."

Of course, this is understandable.

It is that "power relationship" between employer and employee that forbids me to give out a lot of extremely close details when discussing our situation (other than the actual figures).

I feel certain that this is the only reason that more folks in the same boat as us, aren't screaming about this to the top of their lungs--to do so, obviously puts one at odds with their employers!

But you guys can at least have your voice heard without fear of the loss of your livelihood (that is, self-employed people).

IOW, I wasn't belittling your "being scared"--we are too!

Only one-half of the employees enrolled in the group health plan this year--down from enrollment of approximately 55-60% (the figures were confusing) last year.

Only three years ago--before the ACA was passed and benefits slashed--enrollment was over 70%.

But it is understandable--how many employees are going to continue to pay thousands of dollars for premiums each year, for less than catastrophic coverage?

We are non-smokers.

But couples who both smoke--pay and "additional $400.00 per month in premiums!"

So, since it's a $200 per person smoking penalty, I suppose if a policy covers adult children age 25 and under, an additional $200 per month is tacked on for each of them--and that's not even the actual premium!!!

Ironically, it appears that the best solution for beneficiaries whose benefits have been destroyed in the "group health market"--repeal of the ACA--appear to be diametrically opposed to what would probably be best for beneficiaries in the individual private market (if I understand you correctly).

Which is another reason that this law is so perverse.

More later on our actual plan benefits. I believe this information will make clear my contention that our group insurance plan has been eviscerated.

But I'm certainly not meaning to imply that it is "only us" who have been egregiously hurt by this law.


Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

on "The Press Pool," Repubs are attempting to NOT overplay their hands (as usual).

And running ads (when there will surely be nightmarish stories out there), etc., would probably be a bit much.

IOW, they believe that it will implode under its own weight. And I'm inclined to think that they may be correct.

OTOH, the corporatist media loves and greatly supports the Administration's corporatist (on steroids) agenda--Grand Bargain, the ACA--anything that kills "The New Deal" and stops federal transfer programs dead-in-their-tracks.

SO, I expect that the overall media will tend to be favorable to Dems--it has been for the past five years. The Tea Party, and destroying any and all Repub populist movements, just as the DLC did for the Democratic Party, is the target of the corporatist, mainstream media. I hear MSM propaganda almost every day. Most of the top national political reporters are reading from the same massively "neoliberal" playbook. (C-Span and XM POTUS Channel reflect this on a daily basis.)

And on tax cuts--Democrats are also supporting cutting the top marginal tax rates--it was included in the President's recommendations to the 2011 Super Committee, and is in his 2014 Budget. And I presume will be in his next budget. At one time, I've linked to the Financial Times piece from last March 17th that reports that PBO has assured Repubs that he will support drastically cutting corporate taxes.

Naturally, there will be some "Kabuki" for public consumption on cutting individual tax rates, but as the Administration's Budget reflects, they are on board with dropping marginal tax rates for "the wealthy," and raising taxes on low and middle income Americans.

You know, "flattening the tax and broadening the base."

That might not have been an awful idea in 1950, but know that neoliberal ideology has near destroyed the middle class

‘Dismal’ prospects: 1 in 2 Americans are now poor or low income

not a good idea, IMO.

Here's a link to Rep Jan Schakowsky's piece on "tax reform":

The sham of Simpson-Bowles

In one of its few specific points, for example, Simpson-Bowles mandates a top individual tax rate of 29 percent “or less.” Much like the vague Romney proposals, the Simpson-Bowles plan would make up the shortfall by eliminating tax loopholes, suggesting options such as having employees pay taxes on their health benefits. Not only is this likely to increase costs to middle-income families, it could threaten coverage altogether. The proposal for corporate tax reform would eliminate taxes on profits earned overseas, rewarding companies that move jobs offshore.

Somehow, being willing to cut “entitlement” benefits has been called a “badge of courage” for those who purport to be serious about deficit reduction– despite the fact that Social Security has not contributed one thin dime to the deficit.

Under Simpson-Bowles, long-term solvency for Social Security is achieved mostly by cutting benefits. Seventy-five years out, the ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases is 4 to 1.

They propose raising the age of full Social Security benefits to 69 – claiming that everyone is living longer. But a sizable percentage of Americans, mostly lower-income workers, especially women, are actually living shorter lives, and a large chunk of other Americans just can’t work that long – even if they can find a job. Their plan cuts benefits for current and future retirees by reducing the cost-of-living adjustment.

For future retirees, all these changes taken together would reduce the average annual benefit for middle-income workers – those with annual earnings of $43,000 to $69,000 – by up to 35 percent.

Simpson-Bowles also targets Medicare and Medicaid – though the real problem is rising healthcare costs across the board. Yet it would cap them at arbitrary rates and simply shift the growing costs to patients, providers and employers. To start, they would ask Medicare beneficiaries – seniors and disabled people – to pay $110 billion more out of pocket.

Bottom line, the so-called "tax loopholes" that they are most intent on closing--are middle class tax expenditures--not the one that mostly apply to "the wealthy" or small and/or large business.

Submitted by lambert on

since the IRS can't enforce non-payment of the penalty with liens. But not a peep, and they're supposed to hate taxes.

* * *

Ergo, they aren't serious. I think they could let the bleeding go on for years.

Submitted by Dromaius on

It's the team sports. The divide and conquer strategy is still working.

FB is a bastion for feeding stupidity ala team sports. I was ecstatic that FB now allows you to hide posts that people share from other pages, such as BeingLiberal, one of the most disgusting propaganda feeds on the planet. "Those rat bastard Republicans who want to kill Social Security (as if the Democrats don't also want to kill it), etc". I don't have to see those posts anymore no matter who shares them. However, it doesn't keep the analytically inept from sharing them, and the divide and conquer strategy from continuing on. Sad.

Rangoon78's picture
Submitted by Rangoon78 on

"Yep. Some will benefit, and their stories will be plastered all over the media by Obama's PR campaign. Especially the photogenic ones. Most will not." -Lambert Strether

Michael Moore, in Izvestia (NYT 12-31) tells us that for his staff blogger and SICKO star Donna Smith:
"Obamacare is a godsend"

All I can say is WTF? Does this sound like a godsend:

Cancer Patient Donna Smith, Stuck in ACA Purgatory...Again | ISPC

"Donna Smith, long time Single Payer activist and cancer patient, featured in Michael Moore's film Sicko has been trying to buy health insurance through Colorado’s exchange since opening day on Oct. 1. She's still trying.
She worries now that she might not have her new health insurance on Jan. 1 as she had hoped. Smith, 58, is a two-time cancer survivor now facing a relapse.
“It’s frightening. It’s maddening,” said Smith. “I can’t go without insurance.”
Read More:

Submitted by Dromaius on

I'm not sure they have any way of assessing if healthy people are signing up. People don't have to do a health questionnaire.

Yes, I'm healthy enough that the only way I benefit from Obamacare is if I wait until I'm sick to sign up, which is what I'm doing. The individual market has become the high risk pool. The govt had to shut down the high risk pool early because it was too expensive. So do I.....

Submitted by Dromaius on

I'm not sure they have any way of assessing if healthy people are signing up. People don't have to do a health questionnaire.

Yes, I'm healthy enough that the only way I benefit from Obamacare is if I wait until I'm sick to sign up, which is what I'm doing. The individual market has become the high risk pool. The govt had to shut down the high risk pool early because it was too expensive. So do I.....

Submitted by Dromaius on

I'm not sure they have any way of assessing if healthy people are signing up. People don't have to do a health questionnaire.

Yes, I'm healthy enough that the only way I benefit from Obamacare is if I wait until I'm sick to sign up, which is what I'm doing. The individual market has become the high risk pool. The govt had to shut down the high risk pool early because it was too expensive. So do I.....

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

that is being pushed by right-wingers that young people will be hit so harshly by the ACA.

There have been hikes in premiums across the board (in our case--"skyrocketed") in order to spread the costs to insure young adults through age 25. This is one of the "key" provisions of the ACA that our company cites for our "exploding premiums."

And remember the young woman in Memphis, TN--who was going to pay only $29 for her "subsidized" monthly premium--silver plan--a PPO with very low Deductible and OOP?

When I checked for two adult relatives over age 55, bronze plans with huge annual OOP cost $360, and silver plans ran up to $512 a month. And some of the bronze plans had OOP maximums up to $38,000. (I posted three policy stats about 4-6 weeks ago, demonstrating this.)

Seems to me that "how deep your ox is gored" depends upon whether or not one receives a subsidy--which the 29-year-old did, and on age rating--with its 3:1 ratio, making premiums much higher (understandably) for older people.

Also another reason for skyrocketing group health plans are the new maternity care/reproductive care mandates--according to Mr A's company.

I've got a C-Span video to post (but no time to do so, LOL!) about how maternity care is getting ready to surpass "end of life care."

This is partly due to the tremendous increase in Caesarean Sections. IIRC, the doctor in the video states that approximately 1/3 of childbirths are Caesareans.

And this is the reason that starting this year, beneficiaries participating in federal public health care plans will be be seeing "midwives," instead of OB/GYNs!

So much for blaming seniors!

(Trust me, if this cohort were at fault, Mr A's company would be bitterly complaining about them.)

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

IOW, this right-wing meme is meant to discourage young people from enrolling in the Exchanges so that the Exchanges and/or ObamaCare will fail--due to the escalation of the premiums, if few younger and healthier people participate in them.

This is the same tactic that they've used to attempt to turn young people against Social Security, as it exists today.

You have the Ex-US Comptoller David M Walker, speaking at college campuses for more than a decade, telling students that THEY are being scr*wed, which of course, is absurd.

This has become a cottage industry!!!!!

Submitted by Dromaius on

Via my niece's pregnancy, I learned that inducing pregnancy, which leads to longer labor times, increases the autism risk. Thus, her doctors in Germany leaned toward C-section rather than inducing....thankfully she needed neither.

But I suspect this may be one reason why C-sections are increasing.

Also, the Republicans have the luxury of saying the truth, but if a young person isn't subsidy eligible, their rates have gone up considerably this year, just like mine have. I don't have an old rate sheet handy, but it can be anywhere from 20-50% depending on the plan. And remember the subsidized plans also have narrow networks, so you really can't compare them directly to older plans that have relatively good networks.

Of course, the caveat is that most young people would be eligible for at least some subsidy. Remember, people who make 250% or less of the poverty line get premium subsidy AND copay-deductible subsidy aka cost sharing subsidy. That is why the co-pays/deductibles can be so low. But the 250% mark is about $28,500, so it's easy to exceed the cost-sharing subsidy level.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

I agree.

The only people I know who haven't experienced premiums hikes (steep ones) are the ones of government health care plans (local, state and federal).

And even some of them are finally beginning to 'feel the pinch.'

And the subsidy threshold--way too low--for the premium levels!