Skip to main content

We've all heard about the Koch Brothers and other corporations writing letters to their employees, coaxing them via various language that re-electing The President is going to cause great problems for their companies.

Today, that letter came to us, with a twist: Our new health insurance offerings for 2013.

It's a bit differently crafted, but in it's own sly way attempts to blur the lens for employees as to the cause of these changes - in their word - "ObamaCare".

More below the logo.......

My wife has worked for one of the restaurants now under the umbrella of American Blue Ribbon Holdings, which includes chains "O'Charley's", "Ninety-Nine", "Baker's Square", and "Village Inn" - full time for 17 years. Over that time she has built a customer base of steady, repeat customers, with service so consistently good she has a steady stream of returning customers that ask specifically for her. She has missed three scheduled days in 17 years. In other words, the hallmark of excellent service.

Over that time we have enjoyed good quality health insurance. Not perfect, but pretty good insurance.....sufficient to have paid $24K of a $26K bill for a hysterectomy. It has also paid a significant portion of dental benefits - 50% of several thousand in bills. 90% in network on health bills, and a 2K out of pocket maximum per person.

We pay about 5K annually for our portion of this benefit in premiums. Not cheap, but a good policy isn't cheap.

Enter "The Letter", delivered with this week's checks, three weeks before the election.

It explains how "we have looked to assess how we can take care of the most people possible, also knowing fully that we are no longer able to offer the best of everything to 33,000 employees. And overarching the entire health care landscape, our businesses face the uncertain future that ObamaCare will challenge our company with as we approach 2014."

Then the new policy is presented - what I would effectively call "junk insurance". Yes, it does cover checkup fees within limits, and assigns per day limits on hospital and services - up to a MAXIMUM of 50K PER YEAR. But the "per day" limits make it so only a certain amount of money can be paid out for hospitalization - which in no way makes sense when compared to the real world bills people get. More on this shortly.

The letter then goes on to explain that "we expect this policy will cover 98% of employees bills 100% during any given year. In a case where someone is ill and exceeds that limit, we will work closely to transition these people to the appropriate state and private agencies for continuing assistance."

Where have I seen this before.......hmmmmmmm........OHHHHHHH, a company called "Wal-Mart", who cheerfully refers their employees to public aid offices and local charities when their junk insurance (or no insurance at all) causes these employees to become economically destitute due to medical bills. That "public assistance office" that Paul Ryan wants to slash funding for.

We have "run the numbers" on this plan against two recent medical occurrences - my wife's recent surgery (26K), as well as a friend's abscessed ovary that has run up 70K in bills so far.

Using the guidelines in the policy, we would be covered AT BEST by half - leaving 15-45K in uncovered bills - from 6 months to a year of full income to satisfy the remaining bills. And that's in the BEST CASE scenario, when additional riders are purchased for specific illnesses, like heart attack, stroke, or bone breakage or dislocation - but only for a 20K LIFETIME MAXIMUM. Get hit by a car or have some other serious accident or injury and draw 100K in med bills - HELLOOOOOOO, BANKRUPTCY.

That remaining 2% not covered looks pretty damn risky, and looks bigger than just 2%.

The company is pitching this as some sort of real "godsend", offering this to anyone working 27.5 hours min per week and for six months, as opposed to 32 hours per week....telling people that they can now get insurance that they weren't eligible for before. That's a bit of an improvement for a 28 hour per week employee, but little do they know how weak this policy is.

Oh, it's offered by Allstate, if anyone is wondering.

Then there is another note:

"Your health plan has requested that the US Depaertment of Health and Human Services waive the requirement to provide coverage for certain key benefits of at least 1.25 million this year. Your health plan has stated that this requirement would result in an increase in premiums or a decrease in your access to benefits. HHS has waived this requirement until July 31, 2013."

Here's what I read into this: My wife's employer is biding their time in hopes Obamacare gets dismantled, so they can continue offering this "junk insurance" - assuming they intend to offer anything at all after Obamacare would potentially be dismantled.

This is the first delivery of economic vaseline that's coming down the pike if we don't get The President re-elected. The Koch brothers are looking to take away the bulwarks of what allows us a decent working-to-middle class living - a world where any illness leaves us with an impossible to pay set of bills, leading to poverty or bankruptcy - or both - while their shareholders keep the profits.

We are already at work informing employees as to what is really up with this insurance - to the extent we can without rocking the boat at work. THIS is the future of health insurance without Obamacare - junk insurance that will leave a myriad of economic destruction in it's wake, and increasing bankruptcy, bill collectors, and medically unmet needs to go along with it.

I have already seen the future - and it's not pretty.

GOTV.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (13+ / 0-)

    "Because only three percent of you read books - and only fifteen percent of you read newspapers - but right now there is a whole and entire generation that didn't know anything that didn't come out of this tube." - Howard Beale

    by Audible Nectar on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 06:45:38 AM PDT

  •  Corporate welfare (5+ / 0-)
    state and private agencies for continuing assistance."
    All the while the countries we are competing against do not have a workforce hobbled by this. Nor do our businesses that have to compensate for Republican fear mongering out of their pocketbook.

    "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 06:49:57 AM PDT

  •  Good Diary, hope it gets on the wreck list (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FloridaSNMOM, breakingranks

    This is a sleeping giant of an issue.  It's not for nothing that I took a substantial pay cut to change jobs from a small employer to an employer who has historically offered far better bennies and stable employment.  I truly liked my employer and knew they always tried to do the right thing but I don't think it's crazy to think market forces might force them to have to choose between those bennies and survival in a cutthroat market.

    I'm also hearing from others in my circle that employers are pushing junk insurance HSAs.  Great if you're a trust fund baby who can tie up those funds in the HSA (know someone in this category actually) but most folks cannot.

    What kills me is this blackmail was made legal by the Citizen's United decision SIGH.

  •  my state of Colorado, and I assume a lot of other (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FloridaSNMOM, breakingranks

    states are working on insurance regulating agencies to oversea and implement Obama care, and I've been reading about a lot of changes. I'd assume your state is doing the same or else they expect to have the feds regulate them.

    There are strict limits on max out of pocket expenses and so on. I'd think either your wife's employer is going to  have to start paying a lot more in premiums and will have to get a lot better insurance. I know it's going to cut into your employers profits, the price of eating out might well go up. Oh well.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 07:15:58 AM PDT

  •  Similar here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    breakingranks

    We got a letter regarding prescription coverage, basically saying we are going to give you even more crappy coverage, so if you are eligible for public assistance, go get it.

    Barn's burnt down -- now I can see the moon. Masahide

    by bws on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 07:22:39 AM PDT

  •  Keep Calling Out the Public Assistance Part (0+ / 0-)

    Distributing health insurance through employers has never made sense.

    It gives employers strange claims about "total compensation" whether you use that insurance or not, and it might not actually cover what you need when you need it.

    The one thing employer-managed health insurance has provided is a layer of professionals to "design" benefits packages that are often too complicated for people to sort out for themselves.

    The only solution is a single-payer, universal plan. Let there be a layer of Public Interest professionals to design and vet  the benefits instead of all those departments of corporate flunkies.

    And while releasing employers of the "burden" of managing health care, raise minimum wage and bump wages all the way up the scale to make sure the cost of health care is covered by the income of those single payers. (Re: charging $5000/year to someone who makes $9000/year doesn't make any sense).

    Le nirvane n'existe pas. - Etienne Lamotte

    by breakingranks on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 09:33:40 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site