So has Obamacare worked? Has it not? Is it helping or hurting?

[First]

Your entire position is centered on not caring if/when the premiums increase dramatically for middle class families and ignores the impact such increases would have in real family budgets.

I know the premium increases likely to occur at least initially, though for how long and how much is very much an open question, will negatively impact the finances of middle class Americans. I also know with as much certainty (that is to say, not "a lot") that larger amounts of other middle class and poor families will experience a net financial gain from 1) new-found access to insurance and 2) subsidies depending on their precise level of income. You'd rather focus on the minority that will be hit negatively. But make no mistake, you're making a substantively weak argument.

Example: My wife's employer and mine both offer the exact same plan from the exact same provider (Kaiser). However, the employer contributions for that plan are dramatically different. With her employer, the premiums would cost us $9,048 per year. With mine, our premiums currently cost us just $4,476 per year.

OK, but the ACA is trying to slowly move the country away from employer-centered plans in the first place (well, according to some), since it's a terrible idea to tie employment with healthcare coverage. But even in your case, the severity of a premium increase due to ACA entirely depends on what your plan covers (70% co-insurance? Mental health coverage? Out-of-network coverage?).

Those two very different costs cover the exact same plan with the exact same doctors, co-payments, coverages, and deductibles!

Yes, employer-based healthcare isn't a good idea, I already know that.

Now, what do you you think would happen if my employer drops coverage -- which they're seriously considering as we speak -- or simply adjusts their contributions to match my wife's employer?

That's a very real $4,500 -- a 100% premium increase -- that will tear a large gaping hole in our budget.

With competitive exchanges, the whole idea is that you won't be forced to choose Kaiser. FYI. So it's not a "real" $4,500.

Please explain to me how/where we'd recoup that loss in your ACA-based utopia...?

A different provider.

 

[palehorse]

I know the premium increases likely to occur at least initially, though for how long and how much is very much an open question, will negatively impact the finances of middle class Americans. I also know with as much certainty (that is to say, not "a lot") that larger amounts of other middle class and poor families will experience a net financial gain from 1) new-found access to insurance and 2) subsidies depending on their precise level of income. You'd rather focus on the minority that will be hit negatively. But make no mistake, you're making a substantively weak argument.

OK, but the ACA is trying to slowly move the country away from employer-centered plans in the first place (well, according to some), since it's a terrible idea to tie employment with healthcare coverage. But even in your case, the severity of a premium increase due to ACA entirely depends on what your plan covers (70% co-insurance? Mental health coverage? Out-of-network coverage?).

Yes, employer-based healthcare isn't a good idea, I already know that.

With competitive exchanges, the whole idea is that you won't be forced to choose Kaiser. FYI. So it's not a "real" $4,500.

A different provider.

So, you defend the ACA while simultaneously recognizing that it's a seriously flawed "solution"? Great...

Kaiser has actually been referenced as a model for many of the plan standards that will be available on the exchanges. I've examined the plans available on the upcoming California exchange, including Kaiser's, and have yet to find a comparable one that wouldn't be AT LEAST a 100% increase in premium costs for my family -- so, I honestly have no idea where you're getting the idea that such plans would somehow be cheaper, or how the $4k-$5k annual cost increase wouldn't be "real"?

There is simply no chance that the ACA will make my family's insurance choices cheaper OR better. Instead, the chances are damn high that it will do the polar opposite, and middle class families like mine will get totally and royally fucked without lube.

Again, though, folks like you and eskimospy honestly don't seem to care if my premiums double, or worse... after all, those of us who are successful must live to serve and provide for those who are not, right?

If/when my rates double, trust me, it's going to get ugly...

 

[First]

So, you defend the ACA while simultaneously recognizing that it's a seriously flawed "solution"? Great...

Um, yeah. Laws are flawed. So were (are) SS and Medicare. Both are raging successes popular with the American public by super majorities. Obamacare will have the same fate with tweaking.

Kaiser has actually been referenced as a model for many of the plan standards that will be available on the exchanges. I've examined the plans available on the upcoming California exchange, including Kaiser's, and have yet to find a comparable one that wouldn't be AT LEAST a 100% increase in premium costs for my family -- so, I honestly have no idea where you're getting the idea that such plans would somehow be cheaper, or how the $4k-$5k annual cost increase wouldn't be "real"?

Nonsense. You keep mentioning premiums and keep ignoring what your premiums cover; is it 70% co-insurance, what's the deductible, what's the out-of-network and mental health coverage like and how dependent on a severe diagnosis is it? etc. etc. etc. Until you reply or know the answers, your point about premiums is moot. Moot.

And your point about Covered CA is odd; I'm able to price out a plan for a middle-aged couple making $100,000 annually on California's Covered CA exchange (in San Diego, region 19) for $760/month ($9120 annually) with 70% co-insurance and a $2000 deductible from HealthNet. It can be much less depending on the CA regions you're in and depending on what sort of coverage you want. Since you have still failed to list what your Kaiser plan covers, the comparison would be a pointless one. That HealthNet plan is identical to your wife's plan's premiums but double your current plan...which merely makes your current plan the better deal, so keep it.

There is simply no chance that the ACA will make my family's insurance choices cheaper OR better. Instead, the chances are damn high that it will do the polar opposite, and middle class families like mine will get totally and royally fucked without lube.

So, um, not sure how to put this to you, but you're not a middle class family. FYI. If you make a combined $100,000 in your household (as you have stated in previous posts I believe), you're already well into the upper middle class, and in the top 20% of earners in the country. If you make $150K as a household, you're already in the top 10%. Frankly, you can live a wealthy lifestyle in about 85%-90% of the real estate markets in the country with either of those incomes.

Again, though, folks like you and eskimospy honestly don't seem to care if my premiums double, or worse... after all, those of us who are successful must live to serve and provide for those who are not, right?

If/when my rates double, trust me, it's going to get ugly...

Nah, it really won't. Your claims are baseless and your comments are nonsense.

 

[palehorse]

Um, yeah. Laws are flawed. So were (are) SS and Medicare. Both are raging successes popular with the American public by super majorities. Obamacare will have the same fate with tweaking.

Nonsense. You keep mentioning premiums and keep ignoring what your premiums cover; is it 70% co-insurance, what's the deductible, what's the out-of-network and mental health coverage like and how dependent on a severe diagnosis is it? etc. etc. etc. Until you reply or know the answers, your point about premiums is moot. Moot.

And your point about Covered CA is odd; I'm able to price out a plan for a middle-aged couple making $100,000 annually on California's Covered CA exchange (in San Diego, region 19) for $760/month ($9120 annually) with 70% co-insurance and a $2000 deductible from HealthNet. It can be much less depending on the CA regions you're in and depending on what sort of coverage you want. Since you have still failed to list what your Kaiser plan covers, the comparison would be a pointless one. That HealthNet plan is identical to your wife's plan's premiums but double your current plan...which merely makes your current plan the better deal, so keep it.

So, um, not sure how to put this to you, but you're not a middle class family. FYI. If you make a combined $100,000 in your household (as you have stated in previous posts I believe), you're already well into the upper middle class, and in the top 20% of earners in the country. If you make $150K as a household, you're already in the top 10%. Frankly, you can live a wealthy lifestyle in about 85%-90% of the real estate markets in the country with either of those incomes.

Nah, it really won't. Your claims are baseless and your comments are nonsense.

You're not getting it. My entire f'n point is that my employer may drop coverage or severely lower their contribution as a result of ACA, thus forcing me onto the exchanges.

Then, once we're forced to select one of the exchange plans, the cheapest plans with coverage comparable to what we have now, would equal a 100% increase in premiums -- this includes the listed Kaiser plan that is IDENTICAL to the plan we have right now.

In other words, we gain absolutely NOTHING; but, at minimum, we stand to lose an additional $4k-$5k per year in premiums.

We live in just an old non-updated townhouse located in one of the highest COL areas of the country, so we're not "wealthy." At best, we're upper middle-class with two hard-working parents.

Seriously, which part confuses you?

Challenge: Please show me a plan on the California exchange that provides good HMO health coverage for just $373/mo. (Family of 3). Use their listed Kaiser plan as the standard/control for coverages, deductibles, co-pays, maximums, etc.

How close can you get?

Good f'n luck.

 

[fskimospy]

You're not getting it. My entire f'n point is that my employer may drop coverage or severely lower their contribution as a result of ACA, thus forcing me onto the exchanges.

Then, once we're forced to select one of the exchange plans, the cheapest plans with coverage comparable to what we have now, would equal a 100% increase in premiums -- this includes the listed Kaiser plan that is IDENTICAL to the plan we have right now.

In other words, we gain absolutely NOTHING; but, at minimum, we stand to lose an additional $4k-$5k per year in premiums.

We live in just an old non-updated townhouse located in one of the highest COL areas of the country, so we're not "wealthy." At best, we're upper middle-class with two hard-working parents.

Seriously, which part confuses you?

Challenge: Please show me a plan on the California exchange that provides good HMO health coverage for just $373/mo. (Family of 3). Use their listed Kaiser plan as the standard/control for coverages, deductibles, co-pays, maximums, etc.

How close can you get?

Good f'n luck.

So wait, you want to compare employer subsidized care to non-subsidized care? Why?

Studies show that the likely effect on ESI is small, and concentrated in low skill, low wage industries. It is certainly possible that your job is an exception to this, but it hardly makes sense to either A.) devise policies based on your uniquely crappy employer or B.) draw broad assumptions on what the 'middle class' will face based on this experience.

 

[palehorse]

So wait, you want to compare employer subsidized care to non-subsidized care? Why?

Studies show that the likely effect on ESI is small, and concentrated in low skill, low wage industries. It is certainly possible that your job is an exception to this, but it hardly makes sense to either A.) devise policies based on your uniquely crappy employer or B.) draw broad assumptions on what the 'middle class' will face based on this experience.

Perhaps you missed the part wherein my wife's employer -- which is by no other measure a "crappy employer" -- has ALREADY adjusted their contributions to match the legal parameters of the ACA. As a result, our identical plan's premiums would rise 100% if we were forced to use hers, or if/when my employer does the same (which they're seriously considering as we speak).

My wife and I both work for otherwise outstanding and very large companies that have a combined workforce of over 300k in the US alone.

If/when every employer adjusts their contributions to match the ACA's "recommended" maximum employee contribution of 9.5% of salary, that would mean a 100-200% premium increase for nearly every family in the country that already has good coverage today.

This isn't a hypothetical. This is real, and I'm witnessing it first-hand.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps you missed the part wherein my wife's employer -- which is by no other measure a "crappy employer" -- has ALREADY adjusted their contributions to match the legal parameters of the ACA. As a result, our identical plan's premiums would rise 100% if we were forced to use hers, or if/when my employer does the same (which they're seriously considering as we speak).

My wife and I both work for otherwise outstanding and very large companies that have a combined workforce of over 300k in the US alone.

This isn't a hypothetical, this is real.

What companies are these?

 

[palehorse]

What companies are these?

That I won't say -- too personal; so let's not go there, please.

If/when every employer adjusts their contributions to match the ACA's "recommended" maximum employee contribution of 9.5% of salary, that would mean a 100-200% premium increase for nearly every family in the country that already has good coverage today.

This isn't a hypothetical. This is real, and I'm witnessing it first-hand.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I just received a letter from my insurance company wanting to know if my wife can be covered by a different insurance company (ie employer) as well as do either of my children have any school or sports insurance coverage.

No doubt this is going to get far worse and may never get better.

 

[palehorse]

I just received a letter from my insurance company wanting to know if my wife can be covered by a different insurance company (ie employer) as well as do either of my children have any school or sports insurance coverage.

No doubt this is going to get far worse and may never get better.

Did the letter imply any repercussions if the answer to all of those questions is "no"? If so, what are those repercussions?

 

[fskimospy]

That I won't say -- too personal; so let's not go there, please.

How is membership in a company with more than 300,000 employees too personal?

Regardless, you are still attempting to use anecdotal evidence vs actual research into the topic. While you may have one experience, it is hardly generalizeable to the larger population. In fact, studies show the effect is likely to be quite small. With that in mind it seems strange that you keep trying to portray your experience as that of the average middle class person.

 

[fskimospy]

I just received a letter from my insurance company wanting to know if my wife can be covered by a different insurance company (ie employer) as well as do either of my children have any school or sports insurance coverage.

No doubt this is going to get far worse and may never get better.

That's a standard question that everyone gets and has gotten for decades now. It's called the coordination of benefits provision.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Did the letter imply any repercussions if the answer to all of those questions is "no"? If so, what are those repercussions?

There was nothing mentioned if the answers were "no".

My contribution rate for insurance (Health, Dental, Vision) has gone up 4% to 5% the past two years. I'm not looking forward to this upcoming November when the new selections/rates come out.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That's a standard question that everyone gets and has gotten for decades now. It's called the coordination of benefits provision.

Funny this is the first time I've received a letter such as this in 23 years of working for the company.

 

[fskimospy]

There was nothing mentioned if the answers were "no".

My contribution rate for insurance (Health, Dental, Vision) has gone up 4% to 5% the past two years. I'm not looking forward to this upcoming November when the new selections/rates come out.

The reason insurance companies ask that is if you or members of your family are covered by multiple insurance plans a single company doesn't want to get stuck with the entire medical bill. Thus, they ensure that all medical plans will pay something of the bill.

I see no reason as to why this would be related to the ACA.

 

[fskimospy]

Funny this is the first time I've received a letter such as this in 23 years of working for the company.

That is funny, but still not really sure why a CoB provision would be related to the ACA. There could be some reason but I'm not aware of one. That's almost certainly why they are asking though.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That is funny, but still not really sure why a CoB provision would be related to the ACA. There could be some reason but I'm not aware of one. That's almost certainly why they are asking though.

I just spoke with HR, the company is looking to lower the number of people they will have to provide insurance starting in January. If a spouse can get insurance through their employer then they will be forced to do so. If there's any coverage that can reduce their payout they must be aware of such prior to January.

Yep, the good ole ACA won't change anything.

 

[Texashiker]

I just spoke with HR, the company is looking to lower the number of people they will have to provide insurance starting in January. If a spouse can get insurance through their employer then they will be forced to do so. If there's any coverage that can reduce their payout they must be aware of such prior to January.

Yep, the good ole ACA won't change anything.

I wonder if dual coverage is going to disappear.

My wife is covered through her work for free, plus I pay extra to have her on my insurance.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I just spoke with HR, the company is looking to lower the number of people they will have to provide insurance starting in January. If a spouse can get insurance through their employer then they will be forced to do so. If there's any coverage that can reduce their payout they must be aware of such prior to January.

Yep, the good ole ACA won't change anything.

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." - Obama 8/11/09

 

[bshole]

Again, though, folks like you and eskimospy honestly don't seem to care if my premiums double, or worse... after all, those of us who are successful must live to serve and provide for those who are not, right?

If/when my rates double, trust me, it's going to get ugly...

What the hell are you blathering on about? When I started by current job in 1998, I had NO health care premium at all... it was provided free of charge. In 10 years, the premium went from nothing to $400/month. Its about $430/month now. Don't dump this on Obama. Blame it on old and sick people. If we didn't have to take care of them, your insurance would be cheap, dirt cheap.

 

[fskimospy]

I just spoke with HR, the company is looking to lower the number of people they will have to provide insurance starting in January. If a spouse can get insurance through their employer then they will be forced to do so. If there's any coverage that can reduce their payout they must be aware of such prior to January.

Yep, the good ole ACA won't change anything.

What provision of the ACA do you think is motivating this change?

 

[Texashiker]

Don't dump this on Obama. Blame it on old and sick people. If we didn't have to take care of them, your insurance would be cheap, dirt cheap.

Blame the lust for profits on wall street.

Lets see a chart on how much profit insurance companies are making today as compared to the 1990s.

EDIT

In the past 5 years allstate stock has doubled - http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=ALL

Maybe there is correlation between stock prices doubling and your rates going up?

 

[werepossum]

So, you defend the ACA while simultaneously recognizing that it's a seriously flawed "solution"? Great...

Kaiser has actually been referenced as a model for many of the plan standards that will be available on the exchanges. I've examined the plans available on the upcoming California exchange, including Kaiser's, and have yet to find a comparable one that wouldn't be AT LEAST a 100% increase in premium costs for my family -- so, I honestly have no idea where you're getting the idea that such plans would somehow be cheaper, or how the $4k-$5k annual cost increase wouldn't be "real"?

There is simply no chance that the ACA will make my family's insurance choices cheaper OR better. Instead, the chances are damn high that it will do the polar opposite, and middle class families like mine will get totally and royally fucked without lube.

Again, though, folks like you and eskimospy honestly don't seem to care if my premiums double, or worse... after all, those of us who are successful must live to serve and provide for those who are not, right?

If/when my rates double, trust me, it's going to get ugly...

Upper middle class is the demographic targeted to pay for the lower class and those who are currently uninsurable. There aren't enough wealthy to do it via health insurance cost transfers and the Republicans have enough Senators to prevent the Democrats from simply enacting a sizable wealth transfer via taxes, so tag, you're it. Be thankful you at least have one benefits-generous employer between you, although losing dual coverage (which is inevitable - it's not fair that you have dual coverage) is going to hurt. But remember the proggie mantra - good financial planning on your part includes setting aside some money for him too.

The trade-off is that the poor and the uninsurable will have health insurance, or likely better health insurance if they have it now.

I just received a letter from my insurance company wanting to know if my wife can be covered by a different insurance company (ie employer) as well as do either of my children have any school or sports insurance coverage.

No doubt this is going to get far worse and may never get better.

First time I've ever gotten one too. Besides the push to cut costs to minimize the impact of the ACA, this becomes necessary because of the mandated "free" stuff.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What provision of the ACA do you think is motivating this change?

Who cares what provision is causing companies to make changes? The fact of the matter changes are coming starting January 2014 and companies are looking to save where they can no matter is if costs the person being insured more in premiums (ie two separate plans vs one family plan).

 

[palehorse]

What the hell are you blathering on about? When I started by current job in 1998, I had NO health care premium at all... it was provided free of charge. In 10 years, the premium went from nothing to $400/month. Its about $430/month now. Don't dump this on Obama. Blame it on old and sick people. If we didn't have to take care of them, your insurance would be cheap, dirt cheap.

I already consider my current family coverage dirt cheap @ $373 dollars per month... it's the potential for 100+ percent premium increases, with no added benefits, that I'm worried about.

Whatever, though... eskimospy claims that my case is unique, or "anecdotal," so I shouldn't care, right?