Shocking: Employers Can Satisfy ObamaCare Rules with Bare-Bones Health Plans

They cover minimal requirements such as preventive services, but often little more. Some of the plans wouldn’t cover surgery, X-rays or prenatal care at all. Others will be paired with limited packages to cover additional services, for instance, $100 a day for a hospital visit. Federal officials say this type of plan, in concept, would appear to qualify as acceptable minimum coverage under the law, and let most employers avoid an across-the-workforce $2,000-per-worker penalty for firms that offer nothing.

Larger employers, generally with more than 50 workers, need cover only preventive services, without a lifetime or annual dollar-value limit, in order to avoid the across-the-workforce penalty…Such policies would generally cost far less to provide than paying the penalty or providing more comprehensive benefits, say benefit-services firms. Some low-benefit plans would cost employers between $40 and $100 monthly per employee, according to benefit firms’ estimates.

Source: The Wall Street Journal.

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Lloyd says:

    It looks like larger firms will be covering their employees with just minimal health insurance.

  2. Wasif says:

    I really do think just going with the health savings account would be the best way to overcome so many of the complexities surrounding health care!

  3. Kerrigan says:

    I agree with Wasif, indeed, given that everyone has different health care needs, it is impossible to provide plans that can effectively meet the diverse needs of patients.

  4. Zeres says:

    HSA introduces more responsibility to the individual patient, moreover, it frees up the businesses from worrying about rising health care cost that could easily eat up their resources.

  5. Studebaker says:

    This is good news! Firms who employ moderate-income workers who — absent the mandate — would not willingly pay for catastrophic medical coverage will not be forced to do so. Firms that employer higher-income workers who want comprehensive coverage will continue to be able to do so. Forcing expensive policies on employers doesn’t provide a free ride to workers. It only forces workers to pay for something they may not want.

  6. Overmind says:

    This example reflects the power of the free market, some how someone will find a better solution and accordingly, with the free flow of information, we can adopt it at a massive scale!

  7. Fan says:

    Just another piece of information corroborating how the new law is going to make the already dysfunctional health care system worse.

  8. Ken says:

    This is amazing.

  9. Johnny says:

    “Such policies would generally cost far less to provide than paying the penalty or providing more comprehensive benefits, say benefit-services firms.”

    -Whatever the cheaper option, businesses will implement.

  10. Desai says:

    I pretty sure now certain insurance companies for make more policy that function like fixed indemnity.

  11. Fan says:

    Not surprised here that employers would make this choice.