About Obamacare

[Sleepy]

My mom's boss and his wife have been in a panic recently because, according to them, Obamacare is forcing the wife to sign on to his insurance plan. This is their claim: if you (or a family member) are currently on a private insurance plan, then starting in 2013, if your job offers insurance, you have no choice but to leave your private insurer and accept your job's insurance. The two are panicking because the wife has MS and the husband's insurance has a low prescription cap, so they wouldn't be able to afford her meds.

Question: Is this true? I've done research and haven't been able to find anything like that in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, though I haven't read through the entire document. Does anyone know if there's a provision even remotely similar to this in the act, or is my mom's boss full of shit? I know he's strongly anti-Obama, but my mom is worried about this now due to an upcoming job switch and her expensive cancer meds. Any info proving or disproving this would be great.

[QueenofHearts]

Well wikipedia has no mention of this. Not to mention it does sound like something the right wing fabricated to create a panic. In spite of such, I can't offer any thing comparable to a definitive no.

[Witchyjoshy]

I think there would've been a lot more panic about this before hand if this was remotely true.  As it stands, this is the first I've heard of it.

(Then again, I could be wrong)

I think it may be a(n intentional) misinterpretation of how offspring up to 26 years of age remain on their parents' insurance if they don't have any of their own.

[m52nickerson]

My mom's boss and his wife have been in a panic recently because, according to them, Obamacare is forcing the wife to sign on to his insurance plan. This is their claim: if you (or a family member) are currently on a private insurance plan, then starting in 2013, if your job offers insurance, you have no choice but to leave your private insurer and accept your job's insurance. The two are panicking because the wife has MS and the husband's insurance has a low prescription cap, so they wouldn't be able to afford her meds.

Question: Is this true? I've done research and haven't been able to find anything like that in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, though I haven't read through the entire document. Does anyone know if there's a provision even remotely similar to this in the act, or is my mom's boss full of shit? I know he's strongly anti-Obama, but my mom is worried about this now due to an upcoming job switch and her expensive cancer meds. Any info proving or disproving this would be great.

They need not worry.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/rights/grandfathered-plans/index.html

A person can keep what ever health insurance plan they have (established before March 23, 2010) and this plan will not have to meet the new requirements of "Obamacare."

Plans started after March 23, 2010 will have to meet the laws minimum requirements, but nothing in the law states that a person must go with employer provided insurance. 

[Sleepy]

Alright, that's fairly reassuring. I think it's suspicious to begin with because such a thing wouldn't make sense for a ton of citizens in terms of practicality. Lots of retail jobs offer shitty insurance, so that would screw over many young adults who're working full-time but want to remain on their parents' insurance plan. Still odd though, since the boss insists he's been fighting with his insurance companies over this.

[SCarpelan]

Alright, that's fairly reassuring. I think it's suspicious to begin with because such a thing wouldn't make sense for a ton of citizens in terms of practicality. Lots of retail jobs offer shitty insurance, so that would screw over many young adults who're working full-time but want to remain on their parents' insurance plan. Still odd though, since the boss insists he's been fighting with his insurance companies over this.

If the wife's insurance company is the one he is fighting with over this it's possible they are just trying to screw him over. I'm sure the company would love to pass an expensive client to another insurance company.

[Sleepy]

Alright, that's fairly reassuring. I think it's suspicious to begin with because such a thing wouldn't make sense for a ton of citizens in terms of practicality. Lots of retail jobs offer shitty insurance, so that would screw over many young adults who're working full-time but want to remain on their parents' insurance plan. Still odd though, since the boss insists he's been fighting with his insurance companies over this.

If the wife's insurance company is the one he is fighting with over this it's possible they are just trying to screw him over. I'm sure the company would love to pass an expensive client to another insurance company.

Good point. Her meds are several thousand each month.

[Bezron]

Sounds like a mix of the requirement to have insurance, and the requirement of employers over a certain size (50?) to offer insurance.  Both result in a tax if not complied with.

As has been mentioned, this misinformation is likely being pushed by an insurance company that wants to push off an expensive customer to another agency