Anyone else seeing their healthcare premiums skyrocket?

[fskimospy]

There is a phase out. You get less the more you make. The people under the 400% mark don't all get the same credit.

http://healthedeals.com/health-care-reform-calculator?_ga=1.250527813.294873064.1411500982

While it is a gradiated scale, the subsidies abruptly end altogether at 400%, meaning if you make 401% of the FPA you go from a subsidy to zero instantly. That's not a good way to design things.

 

[OverVolt]

Oh look its eskimospy trying to explain that rates went down overall and it doesn't matter that yours personally went up. I figure eskimospy is willing to make up the difference? :awe:

 

[shortylickens]

Oh look its eskimospy trying to explain that rates went down overall and it doesn't matter that yours personally went up. I figure eskimospy is willing to make up the difference? :awe:

The whole point of Obamacare is to take from the have's and give to the have-not's.

Thats great for one group of people, not so great for another group.

 

[ivwshane]

The whole point of Obamacare is to take from the have's and give to the have-not's.

Thats great for one group of people, not so great for another group.

Actually it's great for everyone. More people get covered, costs go down and profits, productivity, and an increase in a healthy lives all go up.

Keep whinning though, I'm sure your mouth was shut while prices increased exponentially for the last 50 years.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh look its eskimospy trying to explain that rates went down overall and it doesn't matter that yours personally went up. I figure eskimospy is willing to make up the difference? :awe:

Not exactly. What he is saying is that if your rates went up it's likely not because of the ACA but more likely your employer.

The OP's contention is so vague & non-specific as to merely be raver bait, anyway.

Hate-Um Obama! Hate-Um!

 

[Jhhnn]

While it is a gradiated scale, the subsidies abruptly end altogether at 400%, meaning if you make 401% of the FPA you go from a subsidy to zero instantly. That's not a good way to design things.

It tapers down to nearly nothing at the high end, anyway. Our family receives a credit of $14/mo. Whoop-ti-freaking-do.

 

[shira]

Today NPR had a story about how health insurance brokers, many of whom assume their careers would be over with the advent of the ACA, can actually do pretty well. The story focused on one particular broker in Kentucky, and a side-point of the story was that many low-income workers who pre-ACA were unable to afford any health care at all are now covered.

Combs' key insight was that many of his small-business clients could do better dropping their small group coverage and helping their workers sign up for individual insurance on the exchange. The law allows companies with fewer than 50 full-time workers not to offer insurance.
Cedric Anthony and Alysia Greer are two of the navigators working in Houston neighborhoods for United Labor Unions Local 100.

Frisch's Big Boy, a bustling franchise diner off the highway in London, is the kind of small business where Combs always sold insurance. The restaurant's policy was available only to full-time workers, and, in the past, it was expensive — costing the company and the workers each $150 a month per person. On top of that, they were facing an 86 percent rate increase in 2014.

Before the federal health law offered new options, few of the restaurant's workers who were eligible to buy insurance policies through Frisch's actually did so. Given the new options of Obamacare, "it didn't make sense for [the restaurant] to continue to offer health insurance," explains Combs. "It was actually a detriment to their employees."

Here's why: Because most of the restaurant's employees were low-income, they would qualify for free or low-cost coverage on Kynect — Kentucky's state health insurance exchange. Switching everybody over to the exchange was win-win-win: cheaper for the restaurant, cheaper for the employees; plus, more people got coverage, including some part-time workers.

"I thought to some degree it was too good to be true, what people were paying," says the franchise diner's co-owner Herman Hatfield. "But it worked out to where a lot of people got better care for less money."
Mary Gray bought health insurance through Combs. Gray qualified for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act and is paying a lot less than she did for last year's policy.

Mary Gray bought health insurance through Combs. Gray qualified for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act and is paying a lot less than she did for last year's policy.


Combs earns a commission of $20 per month for each person he enrolls, including spouses and children. That commission is paid by the insurer and is already built into premiums. Combs enrolled all the employees at Hatfield's London, Ky., diner in just two days.

Before the advent of Obamacare, waitress Mary Gray was one of only 12 people at the restaurant who bought her health insurance — the old, expensive policy – through Frisch's. This year, she enrolled in a silver plan through Kynect that was completely subsidized, so she pays nothing toward her premium. She is one of the 28 employees at Frisch's whom Combs helped enroll in a private Kynect plan; most of the rest of the 60 full- and part-time employees at the London restaurant qualified for Medicaid, while a few had employer-sponsored coverage through a spouse or parent.

Of course, it's very easy to focus on those who are dissatisfied with the changes that were forced on them by the ACA. But pretty much EVERY significant change in the law has both winners and losers. My opinion is that the ACA - as flawed as it still is - has accomplished some of its more important objectives. Can it be improved? Of course. But reverting to the pre-ACA health care system would be a huge step backward.

 

[Jhhnn]

Today NPR had a story about how health insurance brokers, many of whom assume their careers would be over with the advent of the ACA, can actually do pretty well. The story focused on one particular broker in Kentucky, and a side-point of the story was that many low-income workers who pre-ACA were unable to afford any health care at all are now covered.



Of course, it's very easy to focus on those who are dissatisfied with the changes that were forced on them by the ACA. But pretty much EVERY significant change in the law has both winners and losers. My opinion is that the ACA - as flawed as it still is - has accomplished some of its more important objectives. Can it be improved? Of course. But reverting to the pre-ACA health care system would be a huge step backward.

Agreed. It's also remarkable that most of the raving comes from people who are barely affected, positively affected or almost entirely unaffected, people who have good jobs with employer sponsored plans.

A great deal of it is just astroturfed ideological bull-headedness of Freedumb! anyway.

Obviously, if private enterprise can't get the job done on its own, the job shouldn't be done, right?

 

[brianmanahan]

$310,000+ for 3 hours of surgery.

was it worth 310$k to him though? if so, thats what the market will bear.

 

[lopri]

I have to agree. While I was skeptical about it from policy point of view (not legality or constitutionality) but for the most part it has so far not caused chaos many predicted. The biggest controversies have been messy website launch and contraceptive coverage by some religious groups.

 

[feralkid]

What makes you think this increase was because of the ACA? You mention you have an employer sponsored group plan. These plans were left largely untouched by the ACA.

More likely is that you have a shitty employer and you're complaining about the government instead of complaining about them.

This.

 

[squarecut1]

The whole point of Obamacare is to take from the have's and give to the have-not's.

Thats great for one group of people, not so great for another group.

That is an essential function of any kind of government in a civilization.

Unless one lives in the jungle...

 

[feralkid]

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/...-obamacare-implementing-the-employer-mandate/


Companies will be saving bank paying the fine for not providing insurance and dropping their employer covered health care.

Right, because before Obamacare they were required by law to provide insurance to every employee.

Obama is in cahoots with these "companies". It all makes sense now.

 

[himkhan]

Right, because before Obamacare they were required by law to provide insurance to every employee.

Obama is in cahoots with these "companies". It all makes sense now.

IGBT's light gets dimmer and dimmer each day. Reducing hours and holding back on hiring? Wow, that's new. Just like the 30 hour work week and not offering benefits. Thanks Obama!

 

[fskimospy]

was it worth 310$k to him though? if so, thats what the market will bear.

Market economics don't work well when it comes to health care.

When you're in a car wreck and on the brink of death is that ambulance worth everything you own? Probably. So I guess that the market supports the financial ruin of all people in a medical emergency?

There are extreme motivation and information asymmetries in health care that make statements about what the market will accept dubious at best.

 

[Engineer]

was it worth 310$k to him though? if so, thats what the market will bear.

No, the market won't bear it as the insurance companies will start cutting down on shit like this. And if the average person doesn't have insurance, they won't pay it (leaving the hospital just to pass it on to those of us who do - i.e. why your bandaids cost $300 each at a hospital).

 

[SlickSnake]

I mentioned somewhere around here almost a year ago that my deductable with the same insurance company tripled, to $1500, and my rates doubled, too, FOR THE SAME LEVEL OF COVERAGE under the socialist welfare healthcare scam called the ACA.

This was by design and no accident, because this entire healthcare scam act was nothing more than a stealth bailout of the greedy and mismanaged healthcare insurance companies by the working taxpayers, and is carried primarily on the backs of the working middle class who already paid too much money for shitty healthcare plans in the first place.

After they stuck taxpayers with the bills for the scammy bank and auto bailouts, the shady healthcare insurers just couldnt wait to get their cut of the capital pork, with the blessings of the Hill stamped on it. Corporate lobbies are destroying our economy and democracy one failed bailout and pork barrel taxpayer handout at a time, while what's left of the working middle class gets screwed every single time.

 

[Jhhnn]

Market economics don't work well when it comes to health care.

When you're in a car wreck and on the brink of death is that ambulance worth everything you own? Probably. So I guess that the market supports the financial ruin of all people in a medical emergency?

There are extreme motivation and information asymmetries in health care that make statements about what the market will accept dubious at best.

True. Some other markets are similar. What would you pay to keep from freezing to death in the Winter?

 

[Jhhnn]

I mentioned somewhere around here almost a year ago that my deductable with the same insurance company tripled, to $1500, and my rates doubled, too, FOR THE SAME LEVEL OF COVERAGE under the socialist welfare healthcare scam called the ACA.

This was by design and no accident, because this entire healthcare scam act was nothing more than a stealth bailout of the greedy and mismanaged healthcare insurance companies by the working taxpayers, and is carried primarily on the backs of the working middle class who already paid too much money for shitty healthcare plans in the first place.

After they stuck taxpayers with the bills for the scammy bank and auto bailouts, the shady healthcare insurers just couldnt wait to get their cut of the capital pork, with the blessings of the Hill stamped on it. Corporate lobbies are destroying our economy and democracy one failed bailout and pork barrel taxpayer handout at a time, while what's left of the working middle class gets screwed every single time.

You're not telling the whole story. Did the total cost of coverage double, or did your share of the employer/employee split double? What was the % increase in terms of total cost?

What were you & your employer paying before & after in real numbers?

 

[TheSlamma]

I mentioned somewhere around here almost a year ago that my deductable with the same insurance company tripled, to $1500, and my rates doubled, too, FOR THE SAME LEVEL OF COVERAGE under the socialist welfare healthcare scam called the ACA.

This was by design and no accident, because this entire healthcare scam act was nothing more than a stealth bailout of the greedy and mismanaged healthcare insurance companies by the working taxpayers, and is carried primarily on the backs of the working middle class who already paid too much money for shitty healthcare plans in the first place.

After they stuck taxpayers with the bills for the scammy bank and auto bailouts, the shady healthcare insurers just couldnt wait to get their cut of the capital pork, with the blessings of the Hill stamped on it. Corporate lobbies are destroying our economy and democracy one failed bailout and pork barrel taxpayer handout at a time, while what's left of the working middle class gets screwed every single time.

This is what happened to me, my deductible for regular visits is really really good, but boy if I ever have to have a surgery I'll have to sell a kidney first and maybe get them to just do the other procedure at the same time to save on the visit and anesthesiologist costs. $500 + 10% of total procedure, before Obamacare it was $300 flat for the 14 years I've been with my plan. The plan just all of a sudden got way too expensive for me to maintain it at the $300 deductible so I had to opt for new deductibles and I just have to hope I never get hurt worse than what my primary can fix.

Democrooks love to turn that argument around and say the repukelican plan is "don't get sick", but they are just as bad as repukelicans.

But I don't think nothing should have been done about previous problems with our system, but this plan was forced through way too fast and without any thought put into it. I blame both parties, mainly the repubs for not being willing to do anything about the previous problems and mainly because that in turn made the Dems take advantage of the situation and force the bill through before making it any good. Now we just have providers serving crushing blows and the rich are fine, the poor are better off and as usual the middle class took it all head first.

 

[OverVolt]

This is what happened to me, my deductible for regular visits is really really good, but boy if I ever have to have a surgery I'll have to sell a kidney first and maybe get them to just do the other procedure at the same time to save on the visit and anesthesiologist costs. $500 + 10% of total procedure, before Obamacare it was $300 flat for the 14 years I've been with my plan. The plan just all of a sudden got way too expensive for me to maintain it at the $300 deductible so I had to opt for new deductibles and I just have to hope I never get hurt worse than what my primary can fix.

Democrooks love to turn that argument around and say the repukelican plan is "don't get sick", but they are just as bad as repukelicans.

But I don't think nothing should have been done about previous problems with our system, but this plan was forced through way too fast and without any thought put into it. I blame both parties, mainly the repubs for not being willing to do anything about the previous problems and mainly because that in turn made the Dems take advantage of the situation and force the bill through before making it any good. Now we just have providers serving crushing blows and the rich are fine, the poor are better off and as usual the middle class took it all head first.

Yea I have the "Don't get sick" feeling as well after the ACA. It did horrible things to my deductible and I actually feel less covered against anything catastrophic. Its like... I'll be in bankruptcy either way if i got really sick so whats the difference? I feel like the people championing the ACA don't actually know how health insurance works nor really bothered to read their policy nor have had to use it yet.

Pretty sure hospital volumes are screaming everyone decided to "don't get sick."

All this stuff on the ACA being a huge success... I don't get it. My trust of dentists is also at an all time low. They advertise teeth whitening like a pop up add on netscape they are so hard pressed for money.


My current dentist I think is an older guy and has shakey hands and just gives everyone clear checkups because he can't drill anymore. Co-worker of mine thought that was hilarious for some reason. I can't find a new dentist who isn't trying to sell teeth whitening 3 times per visit though.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is what happened to me, my deductible for regular visits is really really good, but boy if I ever have to have a surgery I'll have to sell a kidney first and maybe get them to just do the other procedure at the same time to save on the visit and anesthesiologist costs. $500 + 10% of total procedure, before Obamacare it was $300 flat for the 14 years I've been with my plan. The plan just all of a sudden got way too expensive for me to maintain it at the $300 deductible so I had to opt for new deductibles and I just have to hope I never get hurt worse than what my primary can fix.

Democrooks love to turn that argument around and say the repukelican plan is "don't get sick", but they are just as bad as repukelicans.

But I don't think nothing should have been done about previous problems with our system, but this plan was forced through way too fast and without any thought put into it. I blame both parties, mainly the repubs for not being willing to do anything about the previous problems and mainly because that in turn made the Dems take advantage of the situation and force the bill through before making it any good. Now we just have providers serving crushing blows and the rich are fine, the poor are better off and as usual the middle class took it all head first.

You're not accounting for the out of pocket maximums of ACA plans-

http://www.medicoverage.com/health-...ng-exchange-plans-bronze-silver-gold-platinum

"They're just as bad!" isn't an argument but rather an excuse to maintain denial.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I sure am glad the company I work for is self insured, my max out of pocket is $2,000 individual and $4,000 family.

 

[OverVolt]

You're not accounting for the out of pocket maximums of ACA plans-

http://www.medicoverage.com/health-...ng-exchange-plans-bronze-silver-gold-platinum

"They're just as bad!" isn't an argument but rather an excuse to maintain denial.

Cause of all those families already shelling out like $800/mo for health insurance (family gold plan) surely they have $12,700 laying around for the out of pocket maximum?

Cause I'm sure thats totally do-able on $49,000/year. Just above the subsidy cut off.

Its not like making $49,000/year is uncommon, more like the norm.

To the list of things I think about the pro ACA people (didn't read their policy, haven't had to use it yet, don't understand how health insurance works if you got sick) I suppose I can add "Can't do a monthly budget to save their lives" as well.

 

[werepossum]

Today NPR had a story about how health insurance brokers, many of whom assume their careers would be over with the advent of the ACA, can actually do pretty well. The story focused on one particular broker in Kentucky, and a side-point of the story was that many low-income workers who pre-ACA were unable to afford any health care at all are now covered.

Of course, it's very easy to focus on those who are dissatisfied with the changes that were forced on them by the ACA. But pretty much EVERY significant change in the law has both winners and losers. My opinion is that the ACA - as flawed as it still is - has accomplished some of its more important objectives. Can it be improved? Of course. But reverting to the pre-ACA health care system would be a huge step backward.

Well said. I'm not an ACA fan, but now that it's here, any replacement needs to be vetted in one or a few states first. Otherwise we'll just get another huge societal upheaval with no guarantee that things will actually be better.

We've evolved to an extent into a nation of pansies who don't want to do things for ourselves, but there are some benefits to moving health insurance from an employer-provided benefit to an individual-provided benefit, now that health insurance companies are not free to deny coverage to those individuals who are high cost. Without that change, no market based solution for individuals would work.