bloginsurance

Apparently not considered an "emergency-emergency:" https://t.co/iDMsfODxQL � Surgery Center of OK (@SurgeryCenterOK) August 30, 2018  From the article: " A patient waited 62 hours for an ambulance, while four trusts took more than 24 hours to respond to 999 calls, new figures have shown " Care worth dying for? 

So, lots of pixels being spilled over the newest "shiny thing," Association Health Plans (AHPs). These are a subset of MEWAs ( Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements ) with a twist: by creating a new method of forming an AHP, some businesses (and self-employed individuals) may find obtaining coverage easier. But I want to focus on two pieces that I think are currently flying below the radar: First, under the new rules, an AHP may form with the express purp ose of purcha sing insurance.  Previously, groups such as this had to have a pr imary business purpose. This flies in the face of Insurance 101 tha t it's against public policy (and hence, the law) to form an association for the sole purpose of obtaining insurance (well, maybe not all "associations" ) . One wonders how the states (which have ultimate authority on these plans) will handle this. The National Association of Health Underwriters , provided a helpful presentation on these new rules, includ...

'Nuff said: Average Canadian family paying more than $12K to fund public health care: study | CTV News https://t.co/NBPwfSI3AJ pic.twitter.com/XhNZ7MnOLn � Sally Pipes (@sallypipes) August 19, 2018

We've long maintained that the true, over-arching goal of ObamaCare was to usher in single payer; after all, we've heard that directly from its creator's mouth . But it has, as we've come to learn, another even more obvious purpose. I'll let our friend Rich Weinstein explain: Thanks, Rich!

In case you missed it, five states that had sued the previous administration over an illicit tax have finally been vindicated, to the tune of almost a billion dollars: " Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton [led] a five-state coalition that on Thursday won an $839 million judgment against the federal government ... joined by Indiana, Nebraska, Kansas, and Louisiana " The states had sued because even though ObamaCare explicitly exempted states from this tax, his administration capriciously imposed it. The suit itself took several years to wend its way through the judiciary, and the plaintiffs were duly re warded for their patience: " Judge Reed O�Connor ... agreed on the statutory issue (the APA claim), striking down the Obama HHS rule because it violates the plain language of the ACA law. " It's interesting to me because this doesn't seem to have anything to do with the whole Medicaid expansion kerfluffle, which has also been a problem from the outset. In a re...

Amazing: "A bill being considered in New York would make it illegal for pet insurers to deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions." Surely a mandate, subsidies, and ban on cheaper alternative sources of care for relatively-healthy pets would be needed to make this work? https://t.co/vJbZh3ORFd � Chris Pope (@CPopeHC) August 24, 2018 These are, to be sure , excellent points: After all, fair is fair. And it's worked so well with people insurance. Actually , let's take this to its logical conclusion: since pet insurance falls under the category of P&C, not life and health, this same logic would dictate that auto insurers could no longer deny coverage to folks who've just totaled t he ir uninsured car s , or home insurance to those whose houses are currently on fire . What could possibly go wrong?