Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[HSKR]

We should remove employers from healthcare entirely anyway. It's absurd to put this burden on employers. Why don't we require employers to provide group food plans for their employees? Or group housing? Group transportation?

 

I guess the rest of us all need to be so lucky to have your life's work experience and actually believe employers provide healthcare as if it's some kind of requirement. What the hell?

[HSKR]

Well my company received health insurance renewal information today. Our renewal date is January 1st. However, we have the option of renewing sooner, Dec 1 or Nov 1, which would buy us another year before being subjected to ACA changes. The real meat & potatoes;

 

If we renew Nov 1, premiums increase 13%

If we renew Dec 1, premiums increase 14%

If we renew Jan 1 (when the ACA aka Obamacare is in effect) premiums increase 38.8%

 

Boy, things are really looking up. Now to decide if we renew in December and drop health insurance next December or just get it out of the way and drop it now. This Obamacare deal is just great. Actually, I really don't care. Dropping it will save me a ton of time worrying about it and comparing plans.

 

The reality is this is going exactly as they planned.

[carlfense]

Well my company received health insurance renewal information today. Our renewal date is January 1st. However, we have the option of renewing sooner, Dec 1 or Nov 1, which would buy us another year before being subjected to ACA changes. The real meat & potatoes;

 

If we renew Nov 1, premiums increase 13%

If we renew Dec 1, premiums increase 14%

If we renew Jan 1 (when the ACA aka Obamacare is in effect) premiums increase 38.8%

 

Boy, things are really looking up. Now to decide if we renew in December and drop health insurance next December or just get it out of the way and drop it now. This Obamacare deal is just great. Actually, I really don't care. Dropping it will save me a ton of time worrying about it and comparing plans.

How long had your premium costs been declining prior to this?

[carlfense]

The news comes to us from the Kaiser Family Foundation which recently completed the most comprehensive survey yet of what Obamacare plans will actually cost. Answering this basic question is frustratingly difficult. Premiums will vary based on your age and the size of your family. Premiums will also vary from place to place. And then subsidy levels will vary based on your income, the size of your family, and the local premiums. With all those variables in place, it's impossible to give a quick summary answer to the question "what will it cost." Instead you need to go step-by-step through each state and run a series of calculations. That's what Kaiser did, creating the highest-quality survey we've seen yet. Unfortunately, there are still tons of places where premium data isn't available so these preliminary conclusions might end up being off-base. But the news from what we do know is good.

 

Here's their bottom line:

 

 

While premiums will vary significantly across the country, they are generally lower than expected. For example, we estimate that the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office imply that the premium for a 40-year-old in the second lowest cost silver plan would average $320 per month nationally. Fifteen of the eighteen rating areas we examined have premiums below this level, suggesting that the cost of coverage for consumers and the federal budgetary cost for tax credits will be lower than anticipated.

 

The big question, of course, is will this hold up as more data from more states becomes available.

http://www.slate.com...eaper_than.html

[Junior]

"The benefits of reform can't be fully realized and the problem certainly can't be solved unless both the supporters and the opponents of the original legislation work together to implement it and address the issues that arise whenever you change a system that's this complex," he said during a speech at the Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock, Ark. "We all get paid to show up for work, and we need all hands on deck here. The health of our people, the security and stability of our families and the strength of our economy are all riding on getting health care reform right and doing it well. That means we have to do it together."

 

Clinton urged Obamacare's supporters to recognize the need to adapt and change as implementation reveals problems with the law - "And there are some," he said.

 

At the same time, however, he challenged opponents of the law to recognize that the "direst predictions" about the law's adverse consequences "have not materialized," and that the law has "already done a lot of good."

 

Clinton's bottom line: "Do the best you can to implement this law. Be up front and open about the problems that develop, and deal with them."

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57601351/bill-clinton-tells-congress-to-stop-fighting-over-obamacare/

[HuskerLuke]

I stumbled across this a few days ago, it seems relevant:

 

The Nebraska Department of Insurance on Thursday released proposed premium rates of all health plans submitted under the federal Affordable Care Act in Nebraska for 2014...............

 

....Nebraska Insurance Commissioner Bruce Ramge pointed out that a comparison of rates between Coventry and Blue Cross Blue Shield, the only companies of the four that offered rates in past years, showed that health insurance costs are going up for most Nebraskans.

 

Tom Gilsdorf, director of product development at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska countered: "An apples-to-apples comparison of 2013 health insurance costs to 2014 costs is virtually impossible," he said. "Health insurance that will be sold to individuals, families and small businesses for 2014 is new and must cover a range of Essential Health Benefits that were not covered in the past."

 

Lower-cost options are available to Nebraskans that are not shown in a one page 2013-to-2014 comparison sample posted by the department.

In the example, the cost of a Blue Cross Blue Shield "silver" plan covering 70 percent of health costs was $245 a month for a 30-year-old single man living in Lincoln, up 82 percent from a year ago, and for Coventry, $271.65, up 143 percent. Family coverage in Hastings on a silver plan for a 50-year-old single mother with three children was almost $1,000, up 21 percent for Blue Cross Blue Shield and down 5 percent for Coventry, at $975.

 

So basically, if I'm reading this right, the healthcare law forces insurers to cover a broad range of things that people apparently didn't want before (or else they would have purchased that coverage on their own), and it's causing massive price increases, particularly on young and single people, who are seeing their premiums double.

 

http://fremonttribune.com/news/local/state-posts-proposed-rates-for-uninsured/article_c98046a2-fc9d-549c-b72f-bbdfbdd79f67.html

[carlfense]

So basically, if I'm reading this right, the healthcare law forces insurers to cover a broad range of things that people apparently didn't want before (or else they would have purchased that coverage on their own), and it's causing massive price increases, particularly on young and single people, who are seeing their premiums double.

You failed to mention this part. (Again.)

 

Many, depending on their income, can get tax credits and cost-sharing options to help pay for it.

[HuskerLuke]

So basically, if I'm reading this right, the healthcare law forces insurers to cover a broad range of things that people apparently didn't want before (or else they would have purchased that coverage on their own), and it's causing massive price increases, particularly on young and single people, who are seeing their premiums double.

You failed to mention this part. (Again.)

 

Many, depending on their income, can get tax credits and cost-sharing options to help pay for it.

 

But young, single people do not. Right now, on eHealthinsurance, I can get an insurance policy with a $3,000 deductible and a $7,000 annual out of pocket limit for $28 a month, or about $350 a year. According to the Kaiser Foundation, I could get Obamacare's Bronze plan for around $2500 a year, and I do not qualify for any subsidies. Fortunately I'm (for the moment) insured by my employer, but can you give me any reason why I should hypothetically be excited about a 700% jump in my health insurance premium?

[carlfense]

But young, single people do not. Right now, on eHealthinsurance, I can get an insurance policy with a $3,000 deductible and a $7,000 annual out of pocket limit for $28 a month, or about $350 a year. According to the Kaiser Foundation, I could get Obamacare's Bronze plan for around $2500 a year, and I do not qualify for any subsidies. Fortunately I'm (for the moment) insured by my employer, but can you give me any reason why I should hypothetically be excited about a 700% jump in my health insurance premium?

It sounds like it won't really change your situation at all.

 

Also, it looks like apples to oranges. You're comparing the cheapest teaser rate (if it's the basic version on eHealthinsurance) to a "bronze plan." Is it the same plan? Are the benefits different? If so, I bet that we could come up with a hypothetical reason why you should be excited about a 700% jump in your premium (that you admit that you don't pay anyways).

 

Further, my guess is that you are a younger male . . . and it's expected younger males are going to see the greatest change in premium costs. So it's a (hypothetical) worst case scenario where you're comparing a teaser rate to a different insurance plan as a (I think) younger man.

 

It doesn't have to be better for your exact situation to be better than the status quo for the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

(You claim that you don't qualify for any subsidies but your plan was to fall into poverty/medicaid if something goes wrong? Could you explain that a little further?)

[HuskerLuke]

It sounds like it won't really change your situation at all.

 

For the moment, do you deny that there are a lot of people who's situation looks like what I've outlined above?

 

Also, it looks like apples to oranges. You're comparing the cheapest teaser rate (if it's the basic version on eHealthinsurance) to a "bronze plan." Is it the same plan? Are the benefits different? If so, I bet that we could come up with a hypothetical reason why you should be excited about a 700% jump in your premium (that you admit that you don't pay anyways).

 

Of course it's apples to oranges. If I had to pay out of my own pocket for health insurance, I would choose minimal coverage because I have no health problems and don't get sick much. My goal would be to avoid bankruptcy in the event of some serious illness. Why would I voluntarily pay out a ton of money for health insurance that covers a bunch of things that I would never use? I go to the doctor for a check up once a year, and that is literally the extent of my involvement with the health care system. My health insurance reduces the cost of that doctor's visit from $100 to $20, which is nice....but not so nice that I'd pay an extra $2,000 a year to get that benefit.

 

 

 

Further, my guess is that you are a younger male . . . and it's expected younger males are going to see the greatest change in premium costs. So it's a (hypothetical) worst case scenario where you're comparing a teaser rate to a different insurance plan as a (I think) younger man.

 

You're correct, but again I'm not sure what your point is. My problem with ObamaCare is that it forces young, healthy people, into buying way more coverage than they need. If a person is single and employed full time, chances are they are not going to qualify for any of the tax credits provided under the law. It's essentially a massive tax increase that gets us little in return. If you'll concede that ObamaCare screws young people, we can move on, that's all I'm really complaining about here.

 

It doesn't have to be better for your exact situation to be better than the status quo for the United States.

 

The problem is that it's not just my exact situation (like you said earlier, my specific situation for the moment is not affected) but the law completely screws over anyone who's single or in a DINK situation and not covered by an employer.

 

 

 

(You claim that you don't qualify for any subsidies but your plan was to fall into poverty/medicaid if something goes wrong? Could you explain that a little further?)

 

Sure. I was laying out a scenario where someone is seriously debilitated by either an injury or illness and was no longer able to work and did not have health insurance. People who go on disability are also eligible for Medicaid.

[carlfense]

For the moment, do you deny that there are a lot of people who's situation looks like what I've outlined above?

Define "a lot." If you're talking about percentage of the population I'd venture a guess that it's a relatively small minority.

 

Of course it's apples to oranges.

In that case your numbers and claims of 700%(!!!) increases sure don't mean much.

 

You're correct, but again I'm not sure what your point is. My problem with ObamaCare is that it forces young, healthy people, into buying way more coverage than they need. If a person is single and employed full time, chances are they are not going to qualify for any of the tax credits provided under the law. It's essentially a massive tax increase that gets us little in return. If you'll concede that ObamaCare screws young people, we can move on, that's all I'm really complaining about here.

Unless . . . of course . . . you get old or sick.

 

I wouldn't say "screws young people" because in theory (even in our inferior health system) young people will age over time.

The problem is that it's not just my exact situation (like you said earlier, my specific situation for the moment is not affected) but the law completely screws over anyone who's single or in a DINK situation and not covered by an employer.

The problem is that all of your specific numbers are your exact situation. If you want to show a big picture with Obamacare . . . get to it . . . but don't act like your young, single, male, ineligible for subsidies, willing to fall into poverty, personal example demonstrate problems with the legislation as a whole.

[Junior]

I wouldn't say "screws young people" because in theory (even in our inferior health system) young people will age over time.

 

And occasionally young people do get sick or pregnant...

[HuskerLuke]

Define "a lot." If you're talking about percentage of the population I'd venture a guess that it's a relatively small minority.

Millions.

 

In that case your numbers and claims of 700%(!!!) increases sure don't mean much.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can put this. I like my Toyota Camry. It won't win any sexy car competitions, but it gets me from A to B. It works for me. Now ObamaCare is telling me that I need to buy a Camaro. I don't want or need a Camaro, it's much more expensive. Sure it has a sunroof, an ash tray, a self changing CD deck, and is much faster, but these are not things that I would pay extra money for if it was up to me. That's why I term it a tax. It is the government telling me I have to pay for something that I don't want and don't need.

 

Unless . . . of course . . . you get old or sick.

As I get older, I'll do what most people have done since WWII: gradually pay more for more comprehensive health insurance plans as I get older and my health deteriorates.

 

I wouldn't say "screws young people" because in theory (even in our inferior health system) young people will age over time.

 

So I should go out and buy a walker now because I'll probably need one in 60 years? Come on man, purchasing preferences are dictated by our needs, and those needs change as we get older. Right now, my need for comprehensive coverage is pretty much zero. It makes much more sense to shell out $500 a year in premiums and pay $500 out of pocket for a couple of doctors visits and prescriptions than pay $3000 a year in premiums and $200 out of pocket for the same thing. Should something really bad happen, the deductible kicks in and I wind up on the hook for $7000 + the $500 premium. That's far from the end of the world, especially considering the odds of that actually happening.

 

 

 

The problem is that all of your specific numbers are your exact situation. If you want to show a big picture with Obamacare . . . get to it . . . but don't act like your young, single, male, ineligible for subsidies, willing to fall into poverty, personal example demonstrate problems with the legislation as a whole.

 

The government is forcing young people to buy way more insurance than they need and in most cases want at inflated prices to subsidize the entire scheme. This is not a big secret and I only used my (partial) personal example because I have all of the relevant numbers to make these calculations. It applies to anyone who even somewhat resembles my demographic situation.

[carlfense]

That's why I term it a tax.

You're not exactly alone in that.

 

As I get older, I'll do what most people have done since WWII: gradually pay more for more comprehensive health insurance plans as I get older and my health deteriorates.

Uh huh.

 

So I should go out and buy a walker now because I'll probably need one in 60 years?

What?

[carlfense]

The government is forcing young people to buy way more insurance than they need and in most cases want at inflated prices to subsidize the entire scheme.

Who, exactly, are you speaking for?

 

This is not a big secret and I only used my (partial) personal example because I have all of the relevant numbers to make these calculations.

But in reality you don't actually have the relevant numbers. You have a teaser rate that you're comparing to some random bronze level plan. (I bet that I could guess why the amount that your employer currently pays for your premium isn't being compared to that same bronze level plan . . . )

 

It applies to anyone who even somewhat resembles my demographic situation.

Which, again, as a younger male is the worst case scenario. You're arguing that the law could be bad for you right now (if you lose your job and insurance) and have to pay out of pocket. That's fine and you might even be correct.

 

Where your argument falls apart is when/if you try to extrapolate that to the bigger picture and say that it's bad legislation or worse than the status quo.