Wyden's Free Choice Amendment

[Frodo]

The amendment, basically, allows workers to seek health insurance on an insurance exchange outside of the one offered by their employer.

Here is a brief description as offered by Sen. Wyden's press release:

1) Employers that offer group health coverage must offer the equivalent of a minimum benefit plan, contribute at least 70% of the premium, and offer at least one other health plan of greater actuarial value;
or
2) Employers that do not offer the choice of a low cost option must offer workers a voucher worth at least 70% of the average of the three lowest cost plans in the exchange;
or
3) With an adequate transition, employers can take their entire group to the exchange where they would receive a group discount so long as they provide at least 70% of the cost of average of the three lowest cost plans in the exchange;
or
4) Employers that do not offer health insurance choices, a voucher, or go to the exchange, would have to pay a “fair share” fee which would be a percent of the national average of the three lowest cost plans in each state.

Fair Share Amount: The Fair Share amount is .25% for the first fulltime equivalent employee and increases by .25% for each additional employee up to 280 employees. The fair share amount for employers with 280 employees or more would be 70%.

In order to take into account the burden to small employers, this percentage could be varied downward to account for revenue per employee or other measure of ability to pay.

In order to protect against adverse risk selection both in the exchange and employers who offer the voucher, the Secretary will set up a national reinsurance pool to protect employers and insurers who have higher than expected costs because of adverse risk selection.

[Lief 🗽]

Yes. It's a good (if small) step towards getting rid of the employer-based health insurance system.

[Lunar]

I'd probably vote for anything wonkish that Wyden proposed, honestly.  I think he has a better understanding of policy than at least 97% of Senators.  He's definitely one of the few senators actually interested in crafting good healthcare reform policy instead of prescribing ideologically predetermined solutions.

[Franzl]

Yes. It's a good (if small) step towards getting rid of the employer-based health insurance system.

[Lunar]

With union interests even opposing the taxation of so-called "Cadillac" health plans in exchange for expanding coverage, any change in the employer-based system has to be gradual.

Wyden's initial healthcare proposal was backed by Landrieu and Hatch and others, I wonder if that wouldn't have been a better bill than whatever Reid, Baucus, Lincoln, Collins, Nelson, and Lieberman will make even if it was also more incremental. 

[muon2]

With union interests even opposing the taxation of so-called "Cadillac" health plans in exchange for expanding coverage, any change in the employer-based system has to be gradual.

Wyden's initial healthcare proposal was backed by Landrieu and Hatch and others, I wonder if that wouldn't have been a better bill than whatever Reid, Baucus, Lincoln, Collins, Nelson, and Lieberman will make even if it was also more incremental. 

It amazed me that when Baucus and Reid were seeking a bipartisan bill in the summer, and knowing that Wyden already had demonstrated bipartisan support for his proposal, that Wyden's model wasn't immediately touted as the direction to proceed at that time. It seems that Reid also missed a chance as he created his bill to borrow heavily from Wyden, then challenge those Republicans who had supported Wyden to support his bill as well.

[Lunar]

While their route is fairly amazing, I think you also have to admit that the Wyden bill, which had been endorsed by moderates, would have been subject to a lot of the same national clusterfuck that is our current public discourse.

Did you know that the Club for Growth is funding a primary (and Convention-based) challenge to Bennett in Utah because he supported the original Wyden bill that's not even on the table?  I think the Wyden bill would have lost 90% of its bipartisan support and would have been a mostly Democratic bill...but, it would have been a lot easier to push through still and could easily have saved more money than the current legislation drafted by twenty different competing special interests.

[Lief 🗽]

With union interests even opposing the taxation of so-called "Cadillac" health plans in exchange for expanding coverage, any change in the employer-based system has to be gradual.

Which pisses me off because the excise tax would be a great policy, actually controlling health insurance costs, generating substantial government revenue, and increasing real wages.

[Vepres]

I like it but it could be better.