As The ObamaTax continues to auger in, the Rocket Surgeons in DC© have the perfect solution: Less choice!
"The government's move would limit short-term health coverage for an individual to less than three months each year and bar renewal."
There is so much wrong with this that it's difficult to know where to begin (not that that's going to stop me, of course).
First, Short Term plans (STM's) are never "renewable." The term has a specific meaning, and it doesn't apply to STM's. They are often re-writable (that is, one can buy another plan after the current one expires), but this is very different.
And no, I'm not splitting hairs:
Short Term plans don't cover pre-existing conditions (one of the reasons they're inexpensive, plus non-O'Care compliant). If they were "renewable," then anything I was treated for under one plan would be covered when I re-upped. But this is not the case, nor has it ever been. Rather, when the initial coverage period is up, one buys a new plan, and anything that was covered under the previous one is now pre-ex, and excluded.
Second, how in the world would the gummint enforce the "3 month rule?" It's not like there's some secret Washington database of STM clients. The most they could do is prohibit carriers from issuing plans that last more than 3 months. Okay, rocket surgeons, but what's to stop me from then going to another carrier for another 3 month stint, and on and on? Nothing, that's what: as noted above, there's zero reason not to, since there's no inherent value in sticking with the same carrier (no continuity of coverage).
Perhaps the Powers That Be should instead look at the reason this has become a problem: ObamaPlans have become unaffordable, and we have as many - perhaps more - uninsured as we did before this train wreck.
But that's just me.
"The government's move would limit short-term health coverage for an individual to less than three months each year and bar renewal."
There is so much wrong with this that it's difficult to know where to begin (not that that's going to stop me, of course).
First, Short Term plans (STM's) are never "renewable." The term has a specific meaning, and it doesn't apply to STM's. They are often re-writable (that is, one can buy another plan after the current one expires), but this is very different.
And no, I'm not splitting hairs:
Short Term plans don't cover pre-existing conditions (one of the reasons they're inexpensive, plus non-O'Care compliant). If they were "renewable," then anything I was treated for under one plan would be covered when I re-upped. But this is not the case, nor has it ever been. Rather, when the initial coverage period is up, one buys a new plan, and anything that was covered under the previous one is now pre-ex, and excluded.
Second, how in the world would the gummint enforce the "3 month rule?" It's not like there's some secret Washington database of STM clients. The most they could do is prohibit carriers from issuing plans that last more than 3 months. Okay, rocket surgeons, but what's to stop me from then going to another carrier for another 3 month stint, and on and on? Nothing, that's what: as noted above, there's zero reason not to, since there's no inherent value in sticking with the same carrier (no continuity of coverage).
Perhaps the Powers That Be should instead look at the reason this has become a problem: ObamaPlans have become unaffordable, and we have as many - perhaps more - uninsured as we did before this train wreck.
But that's just me.
Posts
