An Unfunded Federal Health Insurance Mandate?

[SHRED]

I work for a city here in California.
Currently our bargaining unit is in negotiations with the city for the upcoming 2010/2011 contract.

We went off topic a bit and health insurance costs came into the conversation.
The projection is for a 17-20% increase in cost. We have a choice of either Kaiser or Anthem.

What concerns me, and others, is the new law which allows children up to 26 yrs old to be included in their parents coverage (even if the child is married).
This, coupled with the rate increase, could have far reaching affects on the already strapped city budget.

I am 100% in favor of everyone covered (Single-Payer) yet this allowing of these private insurance vultures to suck the lifeblood from us and then to throw unfunded mandates on top of it (as the 26 year old law) strikes me as insane.

While this widening of who can be under ones plan appears good on the surface there are costs when we continue to play ball with these corporate thieves.
These costs will be born out in unforeseen ways.
My hope is that this will not get too ugly.


---

[dflprincess]

1. The biggest problem is that there is nothing in insurance bail out that guarantees access to care

All the bill does is require "coverage" and some will only be able to afford policies that have big out of pockets expenses that will still keep them from seeing a provider.

[SHRED]

3. Yes and...

...when you factor in our employer's costs going through the roof it will leave nothing for us to negotiate for except trying to protect what we already have gained via wages concessions and the like, over the years.


---

[cbayer]

2. Isn't this mandate only on insurance companies? Is their a mandate that employers

include this coverage.

Many companies offer insurance for the employee only and hold the employee responsible for the insurance costs of family, if the employee chooses that option.

One more question - Aren't most policies either for single, couple or family, without regard to the number of children? It used to be like that, but I don't know if it still is. Children and young adults are the safest risk pool, so insurance companies tend to not be adverse to having them on a policy.

[SHRED]

4. We have three levels:

Employee
Employee + 1
Employee + Family

Employee is covered (except copays, deductibles, prescriptions, etc..) and the +1 the employee pays partial, and the Family plan the employee pays more.

How long this will continue we don't know.
Placing more Dependants on ultimately costs not only us but the city also in a big way.

I am paying about $300 per month for my wife to be on my plan (Medical only...no dental or vision).

Our dental and vision plans SUCK.

---

[cbayer]

6. If those are your choices, do you anticipate that the insurance companies will charge

more for the Employee + Family option because they are mandated to cover dependents longer? I am not sure that they will, but they certainly might.

Don't get me wrong. I am not at all in favor of the insurance companies holding the reins here and can't wait until they are gone (and they will be, in my lifetime I believe). I am currently uninsured and, while glad that I will have the opportunity to get some kind of coverage, loathe the thought of having to sign up with one of these companies.

[SHRED]

8. That is the fear...at least for the employer portion...

...but that affects us also for sure at the table.

[JanMichael]

5. Thanks for the update. The bill sucked and rewards leaches.

Leaches...they'll probably make a comeback based on the private market and the new healthcare bill.

Single Payer was the best option period.

[midnight]

7. This insane bill was written by an insurance lobbyist, and was only to make

sense for those who are feeding off the sick.....

[jody]

9. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, "There's no such thing as free health care". n/t