Correction to Previous post regarding Hospital Subsidies . .

The article referenced in the previous post was from the New York Times (not the Wall Street Journal) - I apologize for the error.

Some Little Known Subsidy Cuts to "Safety-Net" Hospitals, May Leave Some Without Care . . . . .

As various subsidies to hospitals that provide care to the uninsured, especially those that do not qualify for Medicaid, are implemented - some could be left with nowhere to go for much needed medical care.

The Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act would have provided coverage to many of these people.  But - since Supreme Court ruled that the states would have to be given the ability to "opt out" of the Medicaid expansion, many did.  That leaves a gaping hole in the body of people who would have been covered by the expansion.  Without the expansion, many of these individuals will not qualify for Medicaid - AND - they may not qualify for a federal subsidy to purchase health insurance through the new health insurance marketplaces.  An individual must have a Modified Adjusted Gross income of $11,490 to qualify for a subsidy.  If you make less, but do not qualify for Medicaid coverage, you will have no options other than to pay full price for a health insurance policy - which many cannot possibly afford.

Hospitals that previously might have cared for these patients because they were subsidized for doing so, will now have those subsidies cut and may need to begin to refuse care or turn people away.

The Wall Street Journal published a good article that explains the predicament very well.  Read more here . . . .

Obviously, some adjustments will need to be made to the health care law to compensate for these unexpected situations arising out of modifications in the law to date.  A lot of delivery of care and coverage issues were hoped to be solved with the Medicaid expansion.  Since that was limited significantly, large groups of people who had counted on it as a mechanism for health care coverage will be left behind once again and will remain uncovered, unless something is done to correct that.

"Bad Apples?" - Really?

Although there were some policies sold in the individual insurance market in the past that were not what I'd term "real major medical insurance", I know that those of us in the agent community did our best to educate our consumers and make sure they understood the differences and what to look for in a legitimate policy. 

My clients all had policies that offered them a good amount of financial protection for the money.  Yes - there were trade offs - if you wanted a lower premium, you could raise the deductible, or forgo other benefits.  But my clients made  those choices after discussing the ramifications of those decisions, so that they would buy a policy that would protect them in the ways that they thought were important to them.

The President made it sound as if the individual market was the wild, wild west and this total overhaul was the only way to protect the public.

Also, in the hearings on Capital Hill, they never once advised that people could get advice, or help from independent agents (like myself), while they try to fix their broken system and can't handle the phone traffic coming into their call centers with questions.

As Bob Laszewski sites in his post that follows, you begin to wonder if they understood anything about our insurance system at all.  I never would have dreamed that to be the case, considering that Kathleen Sebelius ran the Dept. of Insurance in Kansas before she was Governor.  I guess memories are short . . . . .

Health Policy and Marketplace Review

Personally, if my policy loses its "grandfathered" status, I have no idea how I'd ever afford an ACA compliant plan that would be comparable.  Hopefully, I won't have to ponder that decision (or "non-choice")  for awhile . . . . .