Headline: “Prohibition Regarding Short-term Limited Duration Health Insurance Policies”. It’s another blow to Ca. premium payers!

Yep, that’s the headline and it makes single payer & ACA supporters happy, even though it hurts tens of thousands of California citizens who have enrolled in these plans.

Starting January 1st 2019 and at renewal after that point members will be forced off these lower cost plans. To maintain coverage, former STP members, will need to enroll in the much more expensive ACA compatible plans.

So, these honest hard-working, premium paying Ca citizens will be forced:

  • To buy plans with coverage they do not need or want or use.
  • Pay premiums 200% or more higher than the premiums on their STPs.

How can this possibly be good for California?
How can this possibly impact policy holders on IFPs regardless if they are Public Exchange or private?
How can the “subsidized” enrollees on Covered Ca (around 90%) be hurt by STPs?

The answer is the prohibition against STPs does nothing to help anyone, absolutely no one, and actually harms thousands who are willing to manage their own plans and pay for them.

So, why did the legislature pass the legislation required to implement this mistake?

Primarily it’s ignorance. Most of the Ca. Assembly and Senate representatives have no clue one way or the other about healthcare financing. But they followed their party and its effort to push toward single payer.
Again, they don’t know why or what but they voted to pass this legislation.

  • The politicians believe they are insolated from any blowback by those hurt by this prohibition.
  • The Liberal Left is manically driven and/or mislead into believing single payer is good.
  • Control! He who controls the purse-strings of healthcare controls the masses!

This won’t change soon unless someone stands up for those actually harmed by this action. Who should lead the charge against this prohibition?

  • Insurance agents and brokers for one. IFPs no longer represent income potential for agents but the agent associations should stand up to this prohibition on simple grounds that agents are supposed to look out for their clients.
  • The actual citizens impacted but most of them are unaware of this prohibition or how it will affect each of them at renewal time.
  • Class-action pushback would be good. Consumer groups and attorneys should push back with class-action response that sparks fear in a legislator’s mind.

Will anything change? Probably not and certainly not quickly. A good court ordered injunction would be nice and would help current policy holders have more time.

Now more than ever, we’re all in this together.

Until next week.

Mark Reynolds, RHU
It means “Walk the Faith”.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: