Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, whj469 said:

I am a member and it was understanding that it is for pre Medicare medical?

It's a hospital indemnity plan, not major medical.  It is pre-Medicare, but it does not cover the vast majority of things you would need medical insurance for and the amount of coverage would barely cover real expenses.

Edited by mkc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just getting to this old post and really want to echo the comments of MKC and Zulu regarding the wording of the Escapees plans being offered. I had to read everything a few times and I am both an attorney and a nurse.  In a horribly complex situation, these plans make matters exponentially worse and do a great disservice to the members. I have no problems with the plans themselves but the way they are being marketed and explained seems deceptive. DO NOT BUY THESE THINKING YOU HAVE  ACA COVERAGE. While someone may want to use these plans to fill in some gaps they should not be used without fully understanding what you are signing up for. This is very limited coverage and I think the page should be significantly modified.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Daveh said:

I have no problems with the plans themselves but the way they are being marketed and explained seems deceptive. DO NOT BUY THESE THINKING YOU HAVE  ACA COVERAGE. While someone may want to use these plans to fill in some gaps they should not be used without fully understanding what you are signing up for. This is very limited coverage and I think the page should be significantly modified.

I noticed you said not to buy them thinking you have ACA coverage.  But now that the individual mandate at the federal level is gone and there's no longer a penalty on the federal level for not having health insurance, it's even more confusing.

Some states have, and and some are considering, a mandate on the state level, but none are states that fulltimers generally use, but check here to see if yours might be one:

https://obamacarefacts.com/2018/09/16/some-states-are-implementing-their-own-individual-mandate/

As explained upthread by the Escapees Marketing Director, the plan they offer is something people can buy in order to avoid the penalty.  It does that by including "minimum essential coverage" for things like preventive care and immunizations--the only requirement for avoiding the penalty.  It is not health insurance and doesn't provide coverage for the things people buy health insurance (or "major medical" coverage) for, like hospitalization and emergency care.

Here's what she said:

Quote

What that refers to is that MEC plans are enough coverage that you do not need to worry about the tax penalty that comes with not having health insurance. MEC plans meet the minimum essential coverage rules set out in the Affordable Care Act, so their members/patients are exempted from the penalty.

I bristle at the mention of the ACA in that explanation because the ACA requirements for coverage that avoided the penalty are very different from the ACA requirements for an ACA-complaint plan, and most people won't know the difference.  All ACA-compliant plans avoided the penalty, but there were other plans that would avoid the penalty without being ACA-compliant (or without even being major medical (health) insurance)--the Escapees plan is one of these.

But the bottom line is that what Escapees offers no longer provides an advantage by avoiding a penalty, and IT IS NOT HEALTH INSURANCE, whether the definition of "health insurance" is ACA-compliant health insurance or just health insurance as it is generally understood--providing coverage for sickness and emergencies.  It is neither, and if someone reads the description of the product and doesn't realize that, then the description of the product is not accurate or helpful, and in fact could be considered deceptive if repeated readings and parsing the language is required in order to understand what the product is. 

And in my opinion, just saying "this is not major medical insurance" doesn't cut it.  Not for just any old company marketing this product, but especially not for a company that purports to represent a certain portion of the population and provide products specifically tailored for them.

Edited by Blues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blues said:

But the bottom line is that what Escapees offers no longer provides an advantage by avoiding a penalty, and IT IS NOT HEALTH INSURANCE, whether the definition of "health insurance" is ACA-compliant health insurance or just health insurance as it is generally understood--providing coverage for sickness and emergencies.  It is neither, and if someone reads the description of the product and doesn't realize that, then the description of the product is not accurate or helpful, and in fact could be considered deceptive if repeated readings and parsing the language is required in order to understand what the product is. 

And in my opinion, just saying "this is not major medical insurance" doesn't cut it.  Not for just any old company marketing this product, but especially not for a company that purports to represent a certain portion of the population and provide products specifically tailored for them.

2

I absolutely agree with you. I assume Escapees is marketing this to their members as a service and not to make money. Regardless of their intentions, however,  this does Escapee members a great disservice and diminishes the credibility and goodwill of the entire Escapees name (which otherwise has a lot going for it IMO). The page is deceptive advertising. There is no other way to describe it and it could easily subject an unaware Escapees member to devastating financial loss.  The page needs to be taken down or seriously reworked. As Zulu said above what is most depressing is that Escapees does not seem to really understand the health care issues for the under 65 crowd much less offer a product to resolve them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Daveh said:

 As Zulu said above what is most depressing is that Escapees does not seem to really understand the health care issues for the under 65 crowd much less offer a product to resolve them.

After several years of trying to get Escapees to investigate under 65 health insurance options for RVers in states other than TX, SD, and FL, I pretty much consider it a lost cause now.

Escapees and their popular supporters like Technomadia and Wheeling It still steer under 65 RVers towards TX, SD, and FL for domicile and health insurance. Despite the fact that the ACA uses residency, not domicile, as the acid test for qualifying health plans, and despite the fact that other states offer nationwide PPO plans.

Edited by Zulu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Daveh said:

I absolutely agree with you. I assume Escapees is marketing this to their members as a service and not to make money. Regardless of their intentions, however,  this does Escapee members a great disservice and diminishes the credibility and goodwill of the entire Escapees name (which otherwise has a lot going for it IMO). The page is deceptive advertising. There is no other way to describe it and it could easily subject an unaware Escapees member to devastating financial loss.  The page needs to be taken down or seriously reworked. As Zulu said above what is most depressing is that Escapees does not seem to really understand the health care issues for the under 65 crowd much less offer a product to resolve them.

 

 

Absolutely agree with  @Blues and @Daveh

Escapees/Xscapers continues to promote "Healthcare Solutions" on their Facebook page as well and these are NOT solutions by any stretch of the imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Daveh said:

I assume Escapees is marketing this to their members as a service and not to make money.

Why would you assume that?

 

9 hours ago, Zulu said:

Escapees and their popular supporters like Technomadia and Wheeling It still steer under 65 RVers towards TX, AZ, and FL for domicile and health insurance. Despite the fact that the ACA uses residency, not domicile, as the acid test for qualifying health plans, and despite the fact that other states offer nationwide PPO plans.

Did you really mean Arizona?  Usually South Dakota is one of the big three, and nobody steers under 65 RVers there for health insurance.  Or to Texas, either.

Regardless, it is impossible for RVers who travel around to change their insurance every time they change their residence, and in fact couldn't change it based on the documents that are required to confirm a move (utility bill, mail from a financial institution).  So where would you suggest they "base" their health insurance?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning, all!

I want to take a moment to let you know I have read your comments. Thank you for your input, it is genuinely appreciated. 
Before I post a full response, I want to do some research and make sure I have my facts in order so I don't mislead or create confusion. I'm also looking into some of your suggestions to see how we can clarify language on our website without creating other false impressions. Topics like insurance and finance are tricky, as there are legal repercussions for even accidental misinformation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Georgianne. Thanks for your response. The problem mostly stems from the description of the WellMEC portion of the plan. On the opening page the description of the WellMec says:  "WellMEC is an affordable, innovative healthcare plan that provides preventive care, vaccinations, and wellness services. Additionally, WellMEC is compliant with the minimum essential coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act."      Virtually everyone who reads this would believe this was an ACA or Obamacare plan. However, to actually be an Obamacare plan you would need to have a major medical plan that meets the requirements of the ACA.  WellMEC only provides coverage for preventative and wellness provisions like paying for your annual checkup and immunizations. That may or may not appeal to some Escapees but it is a VERY far cry from a true ACA and/or Obamacare compliant plan. What WellMEC seems to be saying is that their plan is compliant with the wellness and prevention provisions of the ACA Act requirements. However, that again is very different from being an actual ACA plan. They only meet a relatively small segment of the ACA requirements and this would not be sufficient to avoid the tax penalty to the extent that is stillenforced.   If you press the "Learn More" button then after an asterisk at the very end and in smaller non-bolded letters you see:

"*The MEC plan provides 100% coverage for preventive and wellness only.
THIS IS NOT COMPREHENSIVE MAJOR MEDICAL INSURANCE and therefore is not intended to replace ACA compliant major medical plans."

I am very concerned many people will be confused by this language. I see no need to refer to the ACA whatsoever except to say in bold. "This is not an ACA plan. This is not a major medical plan. This is not a catastrophic care plan. This plan covers services for wellness and prevention only. Please read all plan details."

Georgianne. You should be aware that even if someone purchased every portion of the insurance available on that page the purchaser would not have anywhere close to an ACA major medical plan. I know from experience how people simply don't understand their insurance until it is too late  and I am very concerned they will see "ACA compliant" and be misled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Blues said:

Why would you assume that?

 

Did you really mean Arizona?  Usually South Dakota is one of the big three, and nobody steers under 65 RVers there for health insurance.  Or to Texas, either.

Regardless, it is impossible for RVers who travel around to change their insurance every time they change their residence, and in fact couldn't change it based on the documents that are required to confirm a move (utility bill, mail from a financial institution).  So where would you suggest they "base" their health insurance?

 

Blues, Zulu is not suggesting people repeatedly change their residency. He is suggesting people under 65 establish residency in states that offer nationwide PPO plans. Arizona does offer such coverage as does my home state of Michigan. Zulu has been attempting to keep track of where those policies are available as they are being eliminated in many states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of the confusion may be caused by the phrases Minimium Essential Coverage and Essential Health benefits.  The essential health benefits  are listed here https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/what-marketplace-plans-cover/. Perhaps because this is an association plan they no longer need to cover these essential benefits? If that is the case then the ACA is gutted. I do not know the answer but I do know this is massively confusing and people are not getting what most would consider to be an ACA plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Daveh said:

Blues, Zulu is not suggesting people repeatedly change their residency. He is suggesting people under 65 establish residency in states that offer nationwide PPO plans. Arizona does offer such coverage as does my home state of Michigan. Zulu has been attempting to keep track of where those policies are available as they are being eliminated in many states.

Most full-timers want to get a mail forwarding service and domicile in that state.  They don't want to set up residency.  Since the plans seem to change all the time you'd be setting up residency all the time in a different state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2018 at 8:03 AM, Georgianne said:

What that refers to is that MEC plans are enough coverage that you do not need to worry about the tax penalty that comes with not having health insurance. MEC plans meet the minimum essential coverage rules set out in the Affordable Care Act, so their members/patients are exempted from the penalty.

voided. Again, the big issue here in my mind is not the penalty but that people actually have adequate coverage. 

 
 

 

Edited by Daveh
mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well changing would be a possibility Gypsies but a few of these states offer PPO plans in the marketplace and those offer the best coverage for those under 65. So those states should be the residency for those under 65.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Daveh said:

Blues, Zulu is not suggesting people repeatedly change their residency. He is suggesting people under 65 establish residency in states that offer nationwide PPO plans.

Maybe Zulu can clarify what he's suggesting, because it appears you and I have different takes on it.  He has said repeatedly that the ACA is concerned only with where a person actually resides, and not where he is domiciled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Blues said:

Maybe Zulu can clarify what he's suggesting, because it appears you and I have different takes on it.  He has said repeatedly that the ACA is concerned only with where a person actually resides, and not where he is domiciled.

Yes, that is true. Where the person is a resident. But not necessarily where they are physically throughout the year. I will let Zulu but I think he is just referring to the fact the ACA uses a different definition than domicile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 10:53 AM, Zulu said:

After several years of trying to get Escapees to investigate under 65 health insurance options for RVers in states other than TX, SD, and FL, I pretty much consider it a lost cause now.

Escapees and their popular supporters like Technomadia and Wheeling It still steer under 65 RVers towards TX, SD, and FL for domicile and health insurance. Despite the fact that the ACA uses residency, not domicile, as the acid test for qualifying health plans, and despite the fact that other states offer nationwide PPO plans.

I have also wondered why RV organizations look at those 3 states all the time.  The under 65 group that this is targeted to may less likely pick the no income tax states especially if they are working and have to pay taxes where they earn their income no matter what state they claim. Mail forwarding services may be less important than obtaining the best useable insurance coverage at least until Medicare age.

I appreciate the citation you shared a couple of years ago about residency.   North Dakota has been a great state for me for PPO health coverage.  My domicile is WA but I also spend time that I can document in North Dakota and the Blues plan there will cover me out of state.  I was only in WA 2 weeks last year and insurance there would not have covered me out of state.

Edited by trostberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trostbert,  RV organizations look at SD, FL and TX so often because all three states have NO state income tax,  welcome RVers to become residents, and have lower insurance/registration requirements PLUS mail services that focus on RVers.    All three things that appeal to retirees - who until recently were the bulk of fulltimers.   New technology now makes it possible for people to work remotely and still RV.   We do know people who fulltime with Washington as their residence and they have ACA compliant insurance  - so it can be done.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope that people don't expect more health care then they pay for? No one will sell health insurance to lose money! For the most part you will get what you pay for! I have looked into the Christian Health schemes, several, and as stated above " they get back more then they pay in" I wonder how that works? Someone must have deep pockets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, trostberg said:

I have also wondered why RV organizations look at those 3 states all the time. 

That all started before the ACA was passed, causing health care to change so dramatically. In addition to the things Barbra mentions, there are only a few states that will allow you to use a mail forwarding service as your legal address without any time required to be physically in that state. Oregon has that provision with their traveler status but you have to actually live in the state for at least 6 months. Any state requiring a physical residence is not practical for a fulltimer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Zulu said:

You've posted that link many times, and emphasized that the ACA looks at residency and not domicile.  But for all practical purposes, domicile is the only place a traveling fulltimer can get health insurance.  Even if he stayed in a place long enough to apply for and get insurance (which most traveling fulltimers wouldn't do), he wouldn't be able to satisfy the documentation requirements to support that move and get insurance in that location.

Given that, where else BUT his domicile should a fulltimer use for his health insurance?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blues said:

Given that, where else BUT his domicile should a fulltimer use for his health insurance?

It is common that the term residency is used as interchangeable with domicile. There is a fine difference but the fact is that CMS is not defining residency but they do use "the place where you intend to return" which is taken directly from the definition of domicile. In practical terms, for most fulltimers your domicile is the only reasonable choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, whj469 said:

" they get back more then they pay in" I wonder how that works? Someone must have deep pockets?

Only a government program can pay out more than they take in for long periods and even they eventually must pay the price. Whether you subscribe to one of the  "health care sharing" plans or to some commercial insurance, the total of the premiums paid in by all members/customers has to exceed the total paid out in combined benefits. The sharing plans do have some cost advantages since they are all non-profit and so don't have dividends to pay out and most of them also use a lot of volunteer labor to keep costs down, but either way, the healthy people must pay in enough to cover the expenses paid for the unhealthy. The other advantage that sharing plans have is that they are less regulated so don't spend nearly as much on compliance and they can choose to exclude things which regulation does not allow an insurance company to exclude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Escapees Hangouts

RVers Online University

campgroundviews.com

Our program provides accurate individual wheel weights for your RV, toad, and tow vehicle, and will help you trim the pounds if you need to.

Rv Share

Dish For My RV.

Find out more or sign up for Escapees RV'ers Bootcamp.

Advertise your product or service here.

Shade My RV



×
×
  • Create New...