• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Health insurance costs for 2014 - didn't expect that

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
sixone said:
You can call me out on what I haven't said, to deflect from the falsehood that you posted.

You responded to a post about "health care premiums", and now you want to divert to "health care costs". People who don't know the difference might buy it, I suppose.

Rising premiums in the individual market
Click to expand...

If you actually read the WSJ article I posted, you know that it is addressing the cost of premiums in the employer based market. It may be using the expression "healthcare costs" somewhat imprecisely, but you can see quite well what the data cited in it is about. Do I need to go to the trouble of quoting it?

I already read your Forbes piece. Like I said, the HHS report is being criticized from the right. Now, let's test your objectivity here. Can you spot the disconnect between this headline and the data point which follows it later?

Double Down: Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual-Market Insurance Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women
Click to expand...

Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm fine with the article's libertarian author using a misleading headline, and citing a libertarian think tank who is cherry picking HHS data. It may even turn out that the HHS report is bunk. We should wait and see. What we shouldn't be doing is treating "rising healthcare costs under ACA" as an assumed premise just because we're ideologically opposed to it.
 
raildogg said:
I have the letter right in front of me. Not sure if your serious.
Click to expand...
Yes serious, and you've been called out by others as well.

Engineer said:
Well, get a spoon and start eating your shit as my wife's premiums have more than tripled and the deductible went from $600 to $1,750 per person. Now her premiums were very low to begin with so it's not a 'huge' amount of money but it more than tripled nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Claims of tripled premiums don't even pass the sniff test.
 
fstime said:
Health Insurance is the biggest liability to our federal budget (which is running deficits in the trillions).

The ACA does not fix this problem. A single player system is the only solution but that would have never passed our legislative system. We got the republican system instead which they ironically seem to be so against.
Click to expand...

Funny how that works...
 
Engineer said:
I tend to agree with those statements. I absolutely think that this is a way to 'force' people to want a single payer system. However, I think it may backfire. You're asking the same people, whose rates are skyrocketing from a government 'mandated' program (ACA), to now trust the government on a single payer system.

Regardless, if the middle class continues to decline in this country, it's just a matter of time before it occurs and the people will vote themselves a 'free' copy of it at the expense of those at the top.

My employer provides my insurance (100%) but he said his premium is going up 60%.

My wife's premium tripled and the deductible went from $600 per person to $1,750 per person. Also, prescriptions went from a set amount to deductible first and then 30% of cost after that.

Not sure where the idea came from that the ACA was going to lower anything.....because, from where I'm sitting, it has done 100% the opposite.
Click to expand...
If they completely break the existing system, what other choice than single-payer is left? And there are mitigating forces as well; working for a very small company I'm the collateral damage, the target demographic whose health care costs will be driven up to make private health insurance non-viable. I recognize that and also the inevitability of single-payer - we've already extended childhood to 26, with the target of death - and I'm ready for single-payer now. I am the World War II Parisian; I recognize the inevitability of the Nazi victory, and I'll happily capitulate if it means avoiding the otherwise inevitable bombardment.

Engineer said:
The guy who works and has insurance pays for them all. If you fall into that category, you have:

1. Paid for yours
2. Paid for those that can't pay (think the hospital simply throws away the bill and doesn't pass it on)?
3. Paid via taxes for those on Medicaid and Medicare.

Although I'm surprised since more people are being 'forced' to pay now, that the costs aren't at least steady as more now pay. Was wrong on that completely.
Click to expand...
This is true, and the reason costs aren't at least steady are at least two-fold. First, our health insurance rates have tended to rise for decades, and only a very small part of the ACA addresses that even marginally. Second, we are providing better access to health care (i.e. not only emergency and critical care) to a lot of people, plus mandating "free" goodies for everyone. Even with the federal government kicking in some borrowed billions, everyone has to pay more.

To a certain degree, that's a good thing. Every American deserves decent health care.
 
compuwiz1 said:
Here's one for ya. Illegals walk into the hospital with everything from a cold to a woman in labor. They treat them and pass the cost on to us legals. Around here, under my present, employer paid insurance plan, if I walk into an emergency room for any reason and get lab tests, proven twice, I'm getting a $1000 bill in the mail. That is after co-pay and deductible. In both instances the total bill has been about $5000, which, in itself, is ridiculous for a 2 hour visit.
The first time I got such a bill I called the billing department to protest how such a short visit could result in such a large bill. I was simply told that those who don't have insurance or means to pay are causing us to offset these costs onto those who do. I said, well, I guess that is the penalty I pay for being born white and not having a last name like Martinez, even though I was born here and didn't sneak into the country illegally. Population here is approaching 60% hispanic. We have a huge agriculture commerce here.

After running all this through my mental computer, I've shifted my view of Obamacare. Bring it on. It might just provide for these people without these expenses being offset on me. Let's redistribute some of this wealth. I can afford a bit, so can you.
Click to expand...

Nail employers who hire illegals for the costs of that medical care. Do it state by state or county by county. If an employer gets caught hiring illegals they get the bill for all the unpaid medical care provided to illegals in that state or county. I don't care if the nailed employer is a homeowner hiring day labor at Homeowner Hell or big agriculture hiring hundreds. If the employer wants to spread the love they can rat out other employers who hire illegals. Make the folks benefiting from illegal labor carry the costs of that labor. Strict, joint, and several liability gets people's attention like nothing else.
 
The company I work for (Fortune 500) offered $500 incentive to switch to HSA + high deductible plan (which I am already on). The alternative was to accept ~250% price increase combined with 50% reduced payouts for standard plans.

From what I understand, this large increase is largely due to the ACA provision which requires companies that offer insurance pay a penalty fine if the company that an employee's spouse works for does not offer an equal or greater amount of coverage. Which makes no sense whatsoever but the law's the law (unless you're a Democrat campaign contributor and get a waiver anyways).
 
QuantumPion said:
The company I work for (Fortune 500) offered $500 incentive to switch to HSA + high deductible plan (which I am already on). The alternative was to accept ~250% price increase combined with 50% reduced payouts for standard plans.

From what I understand, this large increase is largely due to the ACA provision which requires companies that offer insurance pay a penalty fine if the company that an employee's spouse works for does not offer an equal or greater amount of coverage. Which makes no sense whatsoever but the law's the law (unless you're a Democrat campaign contributor and get a waiver anyways).
Click to expand...

Can you provide a link to this provision? I have never heard of it.
 
Costs have been rising for years.

There is an assumption in this thread that your premiums and deductibles would have remained stable with no changes in the law.

That is an incredibly flawed assumption.
 
MooseNSquirrel said:
Costs have been rising for years.

There is an assumption in this thread that your premiums and deductibles would have remained stable with no changes in the law.

That is an incredibly flawed assumption.
Click to expand...

Yes. During the 2000's health care premiums more than doubled, with many years seeing double digit increases.

There is in fact a lot of research into the effects of the ACA on premiums, all of which is very interesting reading. It is unlikely that many people here would actually be able to tell what portion of an increase would come from the ACA in their individual experience.
 
I was just listening to the Diane Reem show on NPR and there was a big discussion regarding the new healthcare law. Of course, being NPR, it was a lot of intellectual and theoretical stuff with a mixture of facts thrown in. The guests mentioned a lot of things but never once mentioned that fact that some people's premiums have skyrocketed due to this law.

Are they not aware that some people might actually pay more due to this law? Nothing even remotely close to this topic even came up for discussion. It was all about how it's going to lower premiums and how the people without healthcare can get it. This part might be true but everything has a cost to it; that part was not mentioned much.
 
Last edited:
dank69 said:
Yes serious, and you've been called out by others as well.

Claims of tripled premiums don't even pass the sniff test.
Click to expand...

Ok, sure. Don't care if you believe me or not. And who are these people calling me out, LOL? What reason do I have to post a lie about my premiums? Politics? I could care less about the Dems or the Repubs.

Some of us actually pay 100% of our own healthcare so we do get concerned when there is a huge increase in cost.
 
Last edited:
QuantumPion said:
The company I work for (Fortune 500) offered $500 incentive to switch to HSA + high deductible plan (which I am already on). The alternative was to accept ~250% price increase combined with 50% reduced payouts for standard plans.

From what I understand, this large increase is largely due to the ACA provision which requires companies that offer insurance pay a penalty fine if the company that an employee's spouse works for does not offer an equal or greater amount of coverage. Which makes no sense whatsoever but the law's the law (unless you're a Democrat campaign contributor and get a waiver anyways).
Click to expand...

I work for a big ole fortune company as well and they are pushing us to some HSA stuff, of which I have no familiarity. But it sounds similar. I won't know how my premium is impacted until next month but I am bracing for impact.
 
raildogg said:
Ok, sure. Don't care if you believe me or not. And who are these people calling me out, LOL? What reason do I have to post a lie about my premiums? Politics? I could care less about the Dems or the Repubs.

Some of us actually pay 100% of our own healthcare so we do get concerned when there is a huge increase in cost.
Click to expand...
If you are paying triple premiums you are not getting a "similar plan." Maybe you are getting the closest possible plan but that doesn't mean everything is pretty much the same.
 
Doppel said:
I work for a big ole fortune company as well and they are pushing us to some HSA stuff, of which I have no familiarity. But it sounds similar. I won't know how my premium is impacted until next month but I am bracing for impact.
Click to expand...

I switched to a HDHP w/ HSA a couple years ago as the total cost was lower than any other plan offered by my employer. If you have a choice of going to an HDHP or not you have to sit down and do the math. If you are on any type of long term maintenace drugs and are used to paying copayments you may have to call your pharmacy and ask for actual drug costs for the specific insurance company that is administering the HDHP plan. For people with few day to day medical needs, HDHPs can save big money but each person's situation is different so doing the math is essential.
 
dank69 said:
If you are paying triple premiums you are not getting a "similar plan." Maybe you are getting the closest possible plan but that doesn't mean everything is pretty much the same.
Click to expand...

Yes, closest possible plan since the plan I'm currently on won't be available in 2014 due to the new healthcare law. Since the new law requires more types of coverage I guess things are more expensive. But maybe I was too quick to criticize - I was just surprised and a bit angered when I got the letter. After the exchange opens and I can shop for better plans, maybe it won't be as costly. We will find out. Thanks.
 
I don't think I'll ever complain about insurance costs. With billings close to 200k over the last 3 years, I will alway be ahead.
 
raildogg said:
Yes, closest possible plan since the plan I'm currently on won't be available in 2014 due to the new healthcare law. Since the new law requires more types of coverage I guess things are more expensive. But maybe I was too quick to criticize - I was just surprised and a bit angered when I got the letter. After the exchange opens and I can shop for better plans, maybe it won't be as costly. We will find out. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Do you qualify for a subsidy?
 
I ran the calculator for my situation. With no subsidy, the silver plan costs 36% less than my current group plan (total premium including employer side). I have the cheapest plan my employer offers. I'll have to wait until tomorrow to compare benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top