The word audacious has a double meaning.
Depending on whom you talk to, either definition might apply to the way the Kansas Farm Bureau is proposing to rescue farmers and ranchers priced out of the health insurance marketplace set up under the federal Affordable Care Act.
Its either a bold and daring move. Or, its presumptuous, bordering on brazen.
The powerful ag lobbying organization is petitioning lawmakers for what amounts to carte blanche authority to develop and market health coverage free of state and federal oversight.
Opponents are warning of dire consequences for consumers if lawmakers okay the proposal.
But Terry Holdren, CEO of the Kansas Farm Bureau, said the failure of traditional insurers and government to address the plight of farm and ranch families left the organization with little choice but to step forward with a potential solution.
Had current providers in the marketplace taken the initiative to develop more affordable solutions, we wouldnt be here today, Holdren said Wednesday in testimony to the Kansas Senate committee considering the Farm Bureaus bill.
Most farmers and ranchers make too much to qualify for federal subsidies that help low-income people purchase individual coverage in the ACA marketplace, Holdren said. Still, many cant afford the rapidly rising cost of non-group coverage.
In his testimony, Holdren cited a national survey in which 65 percent of farmers identified the cost of health insurance as the most significant threat to their livelihood.
Its a big worry for Tim Franklin, who grows corn and wheat on a fourth-generation family farm near Goodland. Testifying in favor of the Farm Bureau bill, Franklin told lawmakers that hes paying nearly $24,000 in premiums this year to cover his family. Out-of-pocket expenses could amount to another $10,000.
To say that providing workable and affordable health coverage for our family is challenging is a bit of an understatement, Franklin said.
Insurance that isnt
The bill under consideration would allow the Farm Bureau, which already sells property and casualty insurance, to market health coverage that isnt technically insurance.
That technical distinction would exempt the organization from federal rules that, among other things, require insurers to offer coverage to anyone regardless of the health status.
