I would say this is an unintended consequence of ObamaCare, but I believe it is exactly the intended consequence.

****

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/business/la-fi-kids-health-insurance-20100921

Big health insurers to stop selling new child-only policies

Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna Inc. and others say they will make the move as soon as Thursday when parts of the new healthcare law take effect. They cite potentially huge and unexpected costs for insuring children.

September 21, 2010|By Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times

Major health insurance companies in California and other states have decided to stop selling policies for children rather than comply with a new federal healthcare law that bars them from rejecting youngsters with preexisting medical conditions.

Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna Inc. and others will halt new child-only policies in California, Illinois, Florida, Connecticut and elsewhere as early as Thursday when provisions of the nation's new healthcare law take effect, including a requirement that insurers cover children under age 19 regardless of their health histories.

The action will apply only to new coverage sought for children and not to existing child-only plans, family policies or insurance provided to youngsters through their parents' employers. An estimated 80,000 California children currently without insurance and as many as 500,000 nationwide would be affected, according to experts.

Insurers said they were acting because the new federal requirement could create huge and unexpected costs for covering children. They said the rule might prompt parents to buy policies only after their kids became sick, producing a glut of ill youngsters to insure. As a result, they said, many companies would flee the marketplace, leaving behind a handful to shoulder a huge financial burden.

The insurers said they now sell relatively few child-only policies, and thus the changes will have a small effect on families.

"Unfortunately, this has created an un-level competitive environment," Anthem Blue Cross, California's largest for-profit insurer, said in a statement declaring its intention to "suspend the sale of child-only policies" on Thursday, six months after the healthcare overhaul was signed.

The change has angered lawmakers, regulators and healthcare advocates, who say it will force more families to enroll in already strained public insurance programs such as Medi-Cal for the poor in California.

The White House weighed in Tuesday, condemning Anthem corporate parent WellPoint Inc. and others that plan to stop selling child-only policies.

"It's obviously very unfortunate that insurance companies continue to make decisions on the backs of children and families that need their help," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at a news briefing.

The Obama administration had told insurers they could solve the problem by issuing policies only during designated enrollment periods. Some White House officials, however, noted that families who can't find policies might be able to sign up for high-risk pools being set up around the country as part of the new healthcare law.

In California, the stakes may be particularly high for insurers who abandon child-only policies. A bill awaiting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature would bar such companies from selling insurance in the lucrative individual market for five years. A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman said the governor had not yet taken a position on the measure.

Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D- Los Angeles), the bill's author, voiced frustration over the insurers' plans and singled out Anthem Blue Cross, whose corporate parent notified brokers nationwide Friday of its decision to exit the child-only business in 10 states, including Colorado, Connecticut, Missouri, Nevada and Georgia as well as California.

"At a time when we are launching a national approach to ensure that all children have access to healthcare, Anthem's actions represent a step backwards," Feuer said. "By threatening to drop child-only policies in California, the company jeopardizes the health of families and children. I call on Anthem to reconsider its plan."

Other regional and national insurers also plan to stop selling insurance policies exclusively for children. Among the companies is UnitedHealth Group Inc., the nation's largest insurer by revenue. It did not say which states would be affected.

"We continue to believe that regulations can be structured that will enable child-only plans to be offered, and we are working toward that goal," spokesman Tyler Mason said.

Aetna said that effective Oct. 1 it would no longer offer policies in the 32 states where it conducts business, including California, Florida, Illinois, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Cigna Corp. will halt the policies in 10 states, including California, Arizona, Colorado, Tennessee and Texas.

"We made a decision to stop offering child-only policies to ensure that we can remain competitive in the 10 markets where we sell individual and family plans," Cigna spokeswoman Gwyn Dilday said. "We'll continue to evaluate this policy and could reconsider changing this position as market dynamics change."

The explanations left healthcare advocates fuming. They accused insurers of trying to skirt the law's new requirement to cover children with health problems.

"Insurers need to decide if they are in the business of providing care or denying coverage," said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a consumer group. "In California, we hope our insurers come to an equitable compromise that allows access for all children and affordability for those with preexisting conditions."

In Colorado, regulators and insurance carriers are trying to work out such a compromise. The state's insurance commissioner met Friday with several insurers, including Anthem, Cigna and Aetna. The two sides did not reach an agreement, but officials remain hopeful they can broker a deal before Thursday.

"Obviously this deadline looms large," said Jo Donlin, director of external affairs for the Colorado Division of Insurance. "The commissioner wants families to have access to the insurance they need. Both sides of this want to find a solution."

Meh, considering the healthcare lie is intended to bring about these consequences in order to bring about nationalizing health care you know (FOR THE CHILDRENS........) I'd say it's not really all that shocking. More expected and predictable really.

Im 99% sure broken was being ironic, but that's just me.

My favorite part.

Just for shits and giggles, I went to bcbsnc.com. This is currently at the top of the page.

You'll be taken care of. Period. But fuck your kid.

What about the sister?

Shit on her pillow.

Better to fuck your kid than to fuck everyone who's covered by the corporation.

You know, if that's how it works, that's how it works, but their bullshit advertising annoys me to no end. They should be allowed to print "You'll be taken care of. Period." when the truth is "We'll take care of who is profitable."

Well, it's not really a matter of taking care of who is profitable because they are being forced to take care of people who are clearly not profitable. And in the process they must find some manner of recouping that loss by increasing their premiums to everybody else. And when you start talking about group plans, it makes it much more difficult to compete for business. What would you rather have, your kid not get an insurance plan on his own (which is just stupid because of the unconstitutional mandate), or watch the number of health providers shrivel up and die leaving a couple monolithic corporations doling out all of the nations healthcare when implicit support from the federal government?

This legislation was a complete and total disaster and now that the effects are coming in to play, I really hope the rest of the populace understands that and repeals the bill.

This was a colossal failure. We should have gotten a single payer system out of this.

Be careful what you wish for. I wouldn't wish the VA upon Dev. And although that's more universal than single payer, it would still result in rigid government administered system, promote corruption, collusion, and gross cronyism. And no doubt the law of unintended consequences would reign supreme.

Hard to guess consequences that would be worse than dead babies.

Um, unprofitable dead babies?

This can't be a surprise to anyone. The government makes legislation that requires insurance companies o insure all pre-existing conditions. So insurance companies logical reaction is, we have to spread the risk out even further. One of those ways is to deny single child coverage. Preventing parents with multiple kids from only insuring the sick kid. The insurance companies are more than happy to insure the whole family. Makes sense to me. Seems like intended consequence. Why would anyone expect insurance companies to sell policies that seem designed to allow people to break the law and only insure some of their kids.

that makes it sound more palatable than I first thought.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703431604575522413101063070.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

McDonald's May Drop Health Plan

McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.

Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.

The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.

While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.

Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.

McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.

Democrats who drafted the health law wanted the requirement to prevent insurers from spending too much on executive salaries, marketing and other costs that they said don't directly help patients.

McDonald's move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul. Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees.

"Having to drop our current mini-med offering would represent a huge disruption to our 29,500 participants," said McDonald's memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. "It would deny our people this current benefit that positively impacts their lives and protects their health—and would leave many without an affordable, comparably designed alternative until 2014."

The health law expands Medicaid and offers large subsidies to lower-income people to buy coverage, but those provisions don't kick in until 2014.



.... click link for rest of article.

This government makes me sick...