Has anyone noticed a significant increase in medical insurance this year?

[Crimson Wife]

Premiums didn't change significantly, but the deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums went up quite a bit (as they have done pretty much every year since he started with the company in '06). There is a lot of blame to go around for the skyrocketing costs. Some due to government regulations (Federal and state) but others due to things like the aging of the population and the autism epidemic.

 

None of my other kids have ever come remotely close to the healthcare bills run up by my autistic child. Rates of autism went from 1 in 150 kids in 2002 to 1 in 88 in 2008 (and most likely even higher today). I pray that a cure is found soon because the cost of treatment is staggering and it's a huge drain on everyone who foots part of the bill.

[Joker]

Ours is now a high deductible plan and we have to pay 100% before they kick in any. Our monthly premiums are a bit less but the plan will cost us more than we've ever paid for health insurance. Our family deductible is $8400. :scared: Even after the deductible we have to pay 20%. This is the first year we've had one of these plans as before it was always just a PPO with co-pays and low deductibles. We're just hoping no one gets sick because older dd's specialist appointments will cost a pretty penny all by themselves.

[Mergath]

Yeah, a whopping ten bucks a month. Curse you, Obamacare!!! *shakes fist*

 

:rolleyes:

[Guest inoubliable]

"Has anyone noticed a significant increase in medical insurance this year?"

 

Nope. Prices went up nominally for movie tickets, petrol, kale, and Bandaids also. Maybe I just didn't notice it what with the....cost of living going up every year. Weird.

 

:001_rolleyes:

[QueenCat]

And don't ask at the beginning of the calendar year if they take your insurance in network. They don't know. Negotiations go down to the last minute. Make the appt and cancel if they turn out to be out of network.

 

 

I know :banghead: . When we changed insurance companies a few years ago, I asked at my Dec. appt if they took our new insurance. The response was something like this "We do now. Still don't know if we will in January". They had me make the appt. Thankfully, they ended up being on it, which they really expected but didn't have confirmed.

[KrissiK]

Not yet, but.... we've only been paid once this year and that was with the Social Security shock.

[Flowing Brook]

Cupcake anyone? What is your favorite kind?

[kalanamak]

Our policy went down a few bucks, but our contract has us paying a greater % of the policy, so MY bill went up.

[Mergath]

 

It's to cover the cost of those who previously did not have insurance, but now the insurance company is required to cover. That is part of Obamacare's ruling.

 

 

If the insurance companies can't operate unless they reject anyone and everyone who is sick and drop anyone who gets sick, they really shouldn't be operating in the first place, so the idea that they have to jack up everyone else's premiums to cover all those sick people they have to insure now is ridiculous.

 

And... um... Obamacare isn't a person. It can't make a ruling. ;)

[VeritasMama]

There is not a federal plan that one pays for..... is someone telling you that you are being charged $60/person to pay specifically for Obamacare? Since there is not an universal plan to pay into, I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean. Really not being snarky, it just doesn't make sense.

 

Insurance companies and employers who self insure now have additional costs and regulations they have to pay for, because of the regulations and mandates in Obamacare. Employers who self insure (as my husband's does, our insurance company only handles the billing, his employer actually pays the bills) now must insure anyone who works more than 30 hours a week, so they either have to cut back on employee's hours or charge more in premiums to cover that added costs. Same with insurance companies, they aren't going to pay the taxes and fees Obamacare creates while paying for more services that Obamacare mandates out of their own pockets. Just like every other business, they will pass their costs onto the customers.

 

Look, everyone who has been calling for the repeal of Obamacare has been talking about the consequences of the law for years. The increase in premiums and decrease in providers was completely anticipated by many, many people.

 

I come from a family with several people in the medical profession. My best friend is a nurse practitioner, and she had to increase her rates to help cover some of the added costs Obamacare has put on her.

 

BTW, the "medical device tax" in Obamacare also applies to braces, so you will see an increase in the cost of orthodontic care as well.

 

ETA: I'm one of the lucky ones, our premiums did not increase. But, the other plan at my husband's company did, the premiums went up 50%. Our plan has slightly less coverage than the other plan offered, but we have an HSA so that helps.

[Jane in NC]

Not yet, but.... we've only been paid once this year and that was with the Social Security shock.

Were you really shocked by the expiration of the Social Security reduction (always meant to be temporary)? It seemed very clear throughout the fall that Congress would not renew this.

[Luckymama]

 

 

What company are you getting your insurance from?

 

BCBS-MN (the US subsidiary of dh's company is based in MN)

[VeritasMama]

Were you really shocked by the expiration of the Social Security reduction (always meant to be temporary)? It seemed very clear throughout the fall that Congress would not renew this.

 

 

When Obama ran his campaign promising he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class, and then the Senate let the SSI reduction expire, so taxes on the middle and the lower classes went up, I was a bit surprised. I thought this would be bad optics for the democrats, but I guess when noone in the media discusses it, that takes care of the optics.

 

The SSI reduction expiring hurts us, with food and fuel inflation our budget is pretty tight. But 2% is going to hurt hourly workers in low wage jobs a lot harder than us, they are the people I feel sorry for. The ones who work so hard, but still can't get ahead.

[VeritasMama]

We just let ours lapse. We were paying $900/month for a extremely high deductible/cover nothing plan since dh was self-employed. We don't use nearly that much in health care so we're just really hoping nothing big happens.

 

 

Out of curiosity, do you have to fill out a lot of paperwork in order to pay the tax for not having insurance? I'm just curious as to what the process entails...

[LucyStoner]

Out of curiosity, do you have to fill out a lot of paperwork in order to pay the tax for not having insurance? I'm just curious as to what the process entails...

 

 

No politics from me here, just information:

 

No one is paying the penalty tax yet. It starts for tax year 2014 and will scale up through 2016. No one will have to pay a penalty greater than the cost that it would be to insure them and those whose insurance costs would be greater than 8% of their income will be exempt from the tax, along with American Indian registered tribal members or if the time in the year uninsured is less than 3 months.

 

When the penalty tax becomes required, it will be incorporated into a person's federal tax return. The IRS estimates ~ 4 million people will opt to pay the tax rather than buy insurance. As the tax is much less in 2014 than in 2016, it can be assumed that lots of people will find insurance between 2014 and 2016, depending on the cost of new plans and how many people can buy through their state for a modest cost.

 

http://abcnews.go.co...how-much-is-it/

[Wheres Toto]

 

Out of curiosity, do you have to fill out a lot of paperwork in order to pay the tax for not having insurance? I'm just curious as to what the process entails...

 

 

I don't know. We haven't done anything yet except not pay our premiums the past few months. It was that or not pay our mortgage. I'm not positive we have actually been dropped yet but it can't be long if we haven't.

[LucyStoner]

When Obama ran his campaign promising he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class, and then the Senate let the SSI reduction expire, so taxes on the middle and the lower classes went up, I was a bit surprised. I thought this would be bad optics for the democrats, but I guess when noone in the media discusses it, that takes care of the optics.

 

The SSI reduction expiring hurts us, with food and fuel inflation our budget is pretty tight. But 2% is going to hurt hourly workers in low wage jobs a lot harder than us, they are the people I feel sorry for. The ones who work so hard, but still can't get ahead.

 

 

 

When I was following the election it was clear to me that Obama was talking about income taxes and not payroll taxes for SS and Medicare. Payroll taxes being made permanent would jeopardize the long term availability of the programs which are primarily utilized by the middle class. The payroll tax reduction was presented by lawmakers at the time it was passed as a method of short term, temporary stimulus that was available to people immediately during a very large recession rather than annually like the tax credit and stimulus checks most taxpayers got at different points between 2001 and 2008. I doubt most people think we can afford such stimulus in perpetuity.

[VeritasMama]

No politics from me here, just information:

 

No one is paying the penalty tax yet. It starts for tax year 2014 and will scale up through 2016. No one will have to pay a penalty greater than the cost that it would be to insure them and those whose insurance costs would be greater than 8% of their income will be exempt from the tax, along with American Indian registered tribal members or if the time in the year uninsured is less than 3 months.

 

When the penalty tax becomes required, it will be incorporated into a person's federal tax return. The IRS estimates ~ 4 million people will opt to pay the tax rather than buy insurance. As the tax is much less in 2014 than in 2016, it can be assumed that lots of people will find insurance between 2014 and 2016, depending on the cost of new plans and how many people can buy through their state for a modest cost.

 

http://abcnews.go.co...how-much-is-it/

 

Thanks! I had read that the 2016 penalty tax amount will be $695 per person, or $2085 per family when fully phased in in 2016. The family amount is a lot cheaper than our current insurance premiums every year. For those for whom insurance costs would be greater than 8% of their income, I'm guessing their income would hopefully be low enough to qualify for Medicaid, so maybe that's a moot point.

[VeritasMama]

When I was following the election it was clear to me that Obama was talking about income taxes and not payroll taxes for SS and Medicare. Payroll taxes being made permanent would jeopardize the long term availability of the programs which are primarily utilized by the middle class. The payroll tax reduction was presented by lawmakers at the time it was passed as a method of short term, temporary stimulus that was available to people immediately during a very large recession rather than annually like the tax credit and stimulus checks most taxpayers got at different points between 2001 and 2008. I doubt most people think we can afford such stimulus in perpetuity.

 

I understand what the payroll tax holiday was and the reasoning behind it, I just thought that the Democrats might avoid letting it expire because the current economic economic growth rate is still so sluggish, and unemployment is still so high. I also thought they might fear a backlash from their constituents. I never thought it would be made permanent, but I thought it might be extended for a couple more years. Obviously, they didn't extend it, and it seems not too many of their constituents are that upset about it.

[Wheres Toto]

No politics from me here, just information:

 

No one is paying the penalty tax yet. It starts for tax year 2014 and will scale up through 2016. No one will have to pay a penalty greater than the cost that it would be to insure them and those whose insurance costs would be greater than 8% of their income will be exempt from the tax, along with American Indian registered tribal members or if the time in the year uninsured is less than 3 months.

 

When the penalty tax becomes required, it will be incorporated into a person's federal tax return. The IRS estimates ~ 4 million people will opt to pay the tax rather than buy insurance. As the tax is much less in 2014 than in 2016, it can be assumed that lots of people will find insurance between 2014 and 2016, depending on the cost of new plans and how many people can buy through their state for a modest cost.

 

http://abcnews.go.co...how-much-is-it/

 

Thank you. I was trying to find this information but I was pretty sure it was a few years before we had to worry about it. We are hoping to not be without insurance for very long. It definitely shouldn't be longer than a few months since dh's company needs to start doing better or he will start working for someone else.

[mom2scouts]

We have been without health insurance for well over a year. My dh is unemployed for the second time in a year. The good news is that we aren't seeing decreased paychecks since we don't have one and we aren't seeing increased health premiums since we don't have that either.

[LucyStoner]

Obviously, they didn't extend it, and it seems not too many of their constituents are that upset about it.

 

 

A lot of the Democrats I know are furious that it was not extended for low and moderate incomes. I am not furious but I am disappointed for those who are genuinely pinched by it. One can argue, with totally true supporting facts to back themselves up, that the economy is in the toilet still or that the economy is perking up and gaining momentum. I figure most folks' opinions of the payroll tax holiday expiration depend on which side they personally take about how the economy is doing. I have an ambivalent view of the economy so I also have an ambivalent view about the holiday expiring. I do think long term it was be impossible and irresponsible to continue for all but the lowest wage households.

[VeritasMama]

A lot of the Democrats I know are furious that it was not extended for low and moderate incomes. I am not furious but I am disappointed for those who are genuinely pinched by it. One can argue, with totally true supporting facts to back themselves up, that the economy is in the toilet still or that the economy is perking up and gaining momentum. I figure most folks' opinions of the payroll tax holiday expiration depend on which side they personally take about how the economy is doing. I have an ambivalent view of the economy so I also have an ambivalent view about the holiday expiring. I do think long term it was be impossible and irresponsible to continue for all but the lowest wage households.

 

I agree, there was no way to continue the holiday long term. And I agree that the economic data can be used to support both sides on the debate over the economy. I think that a person's take on the economy really depends on which area of the country they live in. My extended family is scattered all over the country, and their experiences and opinions vary wildly. My family in ND has no real concerns about the economy or taxes, things are booming there. My family in California, who have lived there their whole lives, are really worried, their state taxes there just went up and they don't see any signs of growth in the economy. My husband comes from a more working class background, and some of his working class family members are doing great, some are really struggling. It varies so much from state to state, and even from county to county.

[LucyStoner]

 

Thanks! I had read that the 2016 penalty tax amount will be $695 per person, or $2085 per family when fully phased in in 2016. The family amount is a lot cheaper than our current insurance premiums every year. For those for whom insurance costs would be greater than 8% of their income, I'm guessing their income would hopefully be low enough to qualify for Medicaid, so maybe that's a moot point.

 

It really depends on how the states choose to participate in Obamacare or if the state someone lives in has already had state plans available for income qualified folks which the state plans to redo or increase with federal money that is part of Obamacare. In my state we have had an income limited basic health plan since the late 1980s. Presently in my state, on a space available basis, you can enroll in this plan with good coverage and pay premiums of anywhere from a few bucks a month to a couple hundred a month (sliding scale.) Some other states have similar models. With something like this type of insurance better funded, moderate income families may find insurance cheaper or comparable to the tax penalty. In my state, with Obamacare the plan is to fully fund this program in 2014 and be able to increase enrollment for the first time since recession induced budget cuts. The gross income limit for things like this tends to be 200% of the federal poverty line, presently around $46K for a family of 4, which is quite close to the national median (any size) household income of about $50K a year and quite far above the income limits for Medicaid. Some programs go to 250% (about $57K for a family of 4).

[Excelsior! Academy]

nm

[Jenny in Florida]

We saw no appreciable increase this year. In fact, because of a few carrots our provider offered, we managed a tiny cut in costs. For example, if the adults' cholesterol is measured under a certain level, we get a little rebate. Ditto for blood pressure, BMI, stuff like that. We weren't able to pass every cut off, but it helped.

[butterflymommy]

Yes, ours is going up, up, up. We had a 30% increase right after obamacare. I really hope the exchanges can offer a better rate. DH has no coverage through work so we're self insured.

[mommaduck]

Let's see: $2000 penalty for a family (ten of us) vs $5000 to $10000 for insurance...given that in a year we will not qualify for assistance. Penalty sounds like the logical choice.

[Lady Florida.]

I also thought they might fear a backlash from their constituents. I never thought it would be made permanent, but I thought it might be extended for a couple more years. Obviously, they didn't extend it, and it seems not too many of their constituents are that upset about it.

A lot of the Democrats I know are furious that it was not extended for low and moderate incomes.

 

I am a constituent. I am a left-of the-president (who is really quite centrist) liberal and did not wish to see it extended. After all, SS is "our baby". I want to see it preserved, not privatized, and not played with in the name of politics (ha, we all know both sides do that). As a lifelong Democrat (first voted in 1974) I am not afraid of tax increases. Not being afraid of tax increases isn't the same as liking them, though I know my side of the political fence gets painted with that brush all the time.

 

I'm not the first one to use the name of a political party or stance in this thread, but I hope us using these words doesn't shut the thread down. It's an interesting conversation and is civil. I don't see how we could possibly discuss this subject without involving the P word. VeritasMama wondered how Dems felt, and as a Dem I was answering (though I don't claim to speak for all of us).

[OH_Homeschooler]

Unfortunately for hubby's company, the person in charge of insurance assume business as usual and did not get quotations from other companies. So even the employer contribution went up because Aetna charged more for less coverage this year compared to last year. The person in charge would definately be getting more quotations this year before open enrolment since there has been plenty of complains. In fact every year his company's employer contribution for health and dental insurance has always gone up. We pay about $400 per month for family health insurance. His company's employer contribution is a lot more.

.

 

 

It depends on what you define as minor concerns. For fever and cough, it is much cheaper to buy tylenol and benadryl than to pay $20 co-pay to see the family practitioner. For well-baby checkups, it cost us $20 per visit too so we skip those unless there is something wrong we want check, The only time we went to the doctor was when my younger had HFMD (hand foot and mouth disease).

 

Strep throat? Not necessarily minor, but easily treated with a visit to the clinic or doctor. Certainly much cheaper to get care from there than the ER.

[Remudamom]

We had to switch recently from Blue Cross who had upped ours to $40,000 yearly. I mean really? Who can afford that? Unbelieveble. Even now with the company we switched to it's gone up $100 a month.

[Ewe Mama]

Yes, it has been much higher.

[8circles]

Yes. MUCH higher.

[QueenCat]

We had to switch recently from Blue Cross who had upped ours to $40,000 yearly. I mean really? Who can afford that? Unbelieveble. Even now with the company we switched to it's gone up $100 a month.

 

Is that for a private policy? I think that's where people will see the biggest changes with options in the exchanges for those that don't have group policies. From what I gather, the exchanges will bring group rates to those who didn't have group options before, at lower rates. We have Blue Cross but dh's company pays considerably less per employee than what you quoted for yourself. This is for plan with excellent coverage.

[TranquilMind]

 

Now, thanks to Obamacare, insurance companies are going to be forced to cover things they should have been covering all along. More people are going to have insurance, so they are going to go to a regular doctor or clinic for minor concerns instead of the ER, and that will save everyone money in the long run.

 

I don't know, I think Obamacare is a good thing. I think insurance companies have always been greedy and evil and will fight you every step of the way when you are entitled to coverage.

 

Well, you are right that the bane of civilization is insurance companies, the very definition of soul-sucking greed.

 

But you are incorrect that insurance companies will be covering anything at all without getting even more in return and that more people are going to have insurance. Anyone can HAVE insurance; the problem is paying for it. Costs are unaddressed entirely, but you will be fined if you cannot pay.

 

I'd much rather have kept lower rates and pay for my stupid well checks.

 

Now, the same doctor's office that used to charge me $25, charges about $100, thanks to this corrupt system that is drowning in paperwork. Not a benefit to me.

[TranquilMind]

Let's see: $2000 penalty for a family (ten of us) vs $5000 to $10000 for insurance...given that in a year we will not qualify for assistance. Penalty sounds like the logical choice.

 

 

This is exactly what is going to happen across America, while the bureaucrats pat themselves on the back for providing "affordable" health care. Yeah, $2000 is much more affordable.

[TranquilMind]

 

Thanks! I had read that the 2016 penalty tax amount will be $695 per person, or $2085 per family when fully phased in in 2016. The family amount is a lot cheaper than our current insurance premiums every year. For those for whom insurance costs would be greater than 8% of their income, I'm guessing their income would hopefully be low enough to qualify for Medicaid, so maybe that's a moot point.

 

 

Yes, the penalty is far cheaper. But it doesn't provide you anything at all - it is just money thrown away. Insurance coverage is poor for many people today, but the alternative is the $300,000 hospital bill for a minor operation.

 

So, the obvious outcome is that millions will be paying this penalty while getting nothing at all because they can't afford it.

[peachskittles]

No, it hasn't increased much for us. Every year it goes up a bit, but not enough to panic about.

[VeritasMama]

 

Yes, the penalty is far cheaper. But it doesn't provide you anything at all - it is just money thrown away. Insurance coverage is poor for many people today, but the alternative is the $300,000 hospital bill for a minor operation.

 

So, the obvious outcome is that millions will be paying this penalty while getting nothing at all because they can't afford it.

 

 

We've racked up over a million dollars in medical bills, thankfully while we had insurance. My husband's employers have all been self insured, that is they hire an insurance company to manage their plans and the billing, but the company pays the actual medical billls. We've had two children who needed to spend extended time in the NICU, one had to be airlifted, various surgeries, etc. Because they were born in two different states, and they needed to be transferred to higher level NICU's, we've had to deal with 5 different hospitals. We've probably spent over $75,000 out of our own pockets, but that is a small fraction of what the care cost . Luckily, every hospital we've ever dealt with has been willing to set up an affordable payment plan with us, and were willing to stretch the payments over a long period of time.

[LucyStoner]

 

 

I am a constituent. I am a left-of the-president (who is really quite centrist) liberal and did not wish to see it extended. After all, SS is "our baby". I want to see it preserved, not privatized, and not played with in the name of politics (ha, we all know both sides do that). As a lifelong Democrat (first voted in 1974) I am not afraid of tax increases. Not being afraid of tax increases isn't the same as liking them, though I know my side of the political fence gets painted with that brush all the time.

 

I'm not the first one to use the name of a political party or stance in this thread, but I hope us using these words doesn't shut the thread down. It's an interesting conversation and is civil. I don't see how we could possibly discuss this subject without involving the P word. VeritasMama wondered how Dems felt, and as a Dem I was answering (though I don't claim to speak for all of us).

 

I agree with you (I am also a strong and lifetime Democrat who also sees the President as quite middle of the road), I just know that low wage earners can benefit from a longer stimulus as food and gas price inflation have reduced their standard of living considerably and that does drag on the economy. Payroll taxes are most, and in some cases all, of their federal tax burden.

[QueenCat]

I agree with you (I am also a strong and lifetime Democrat who also sees the President as quite middle of the road), I just know that low wage earners can benefit from a longer stimulus as food and gas price inflation have reduced their standard of living considerably and that does drag on the economy. Payroll taxes are most, and in some cases all, of their federal tax burden.

 

The question is how long do you go until people view them as being permanent, and thus a tax hike when they come back. I did not view the 2% coming back out as a tax hike but rather as a temporary reduction but if you go too long, it is harder to look at it that way. I know some here viewed as a tax hike, even though it has always been billed as short term and temporary.

[Lady Florida.]

The question is how long do you go until people view them as being permanent, and thus a tax hike when they come back. I did not view the 2% coming back out as a tax hike but rather as a temporary reduction but if you go too long, it is harder to look at it that way. I know some here viewed as a tax hike, even though it has always been billed as short term and temporary.

 

 

Bingo. There's a reason the Bush tax cuts had an expiration date. Even President Bush and his party, longtime promoters of lower taxes, realized that it would be bad for the country financially if those cuts were permanent. They kept getting extended and extended, and now we are in the exact situation you describe. Most people now view ending those tax cuts as tax increases.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I agree with you (I am also a strong and lifetime Democrat who also sees the President as quite middle of the road), I just know that low wage earners can benefit from a longer stimulus as food and gas price inflation have reduced their standard of living considerably and that does drag on the economy. Payroll taxes are most, and in some cases all, of their federal tax burden.

 

 

With wages still a bit stagnant and the economy fragile, a better idea would have been to ladder the full 2% back into effect over 4 years at .5%/year. Unfortunately there simply was no desire by either side to address this or create a plan that would sting lower wage earners less.

[PachiSusan]

Unfortunately there simply was no desire by either side to address this or create a plan that would sting lower wage earners less.

 

 

Yep. I'm very disillusioned with the whole LOT Of them. Our interests are not top of mind.

[LucyStoner]

The question is how long do you go until people view them as being permanent, and thus a tax hike when they come back. I did not view the 2% coming back out as a tax hike but rather as a temporary reduction but if you go too long, it is harder to look at it that way. I know some here viewed as a tax hike, even though it has always been billed as short term and temporary.

 

 

Honestly, I think some folks never really noticed that it went down and are now upset it is "going up." A number of people tend to downplay what benefits them and highlight what does not. I totally agree that it needed to be temporary. The idea/misconception that middle class taxes have gone up because of the expiration is widespread. That said, most of those same folks will very much need and want their SS benefits to exist down the line.

[LucyStoner]

 

Unfortunately there simply was no desire by either side to address this or create a plan that would sting lower wage earners less.

 

 

I would not say that there was no desire, but that there was no majority. My lawmakers certainly have the desire.

[MooCow]

Our rates have gone up a little, but we notice that the coverage is going down considerably; we will have to pay much more out of pocket with much larger deductables.

 

 

 

:iagree: this. and I don't know how they managed to do it, but our insurance co

put in an exclusion for all foot care for me. (I'm diabetic and have

been having minor toe issues)

[Anne in CA]

Here's what I don't get. So many people are blaming Obamacare for the cost of insurance going up and the general "socialization" of medicine. But healthcare in the US has long been socialized. When someone does not have insurance but receives medical treatment they cannot pay for, we all pay. Insurance rates go up to cover increasing medical costs, which are in part increasing because more people who cannot afford medical care are still receiving medical care.

 

Now, thanks to Obamacare, insurance companies are going to be forced to cover things they should have been covering all along. More people are going to have insurance, so they are going to go to a regular doctor or clinic for minor concerns instead of the ER, and that will save everyone money in the long run.

 

I don't know, I think Obamacare is a good thing. I think insurance companies have always been greedy and evil and will fight you every step of the way when you are entitled to coverage.

 

 

 

I so, so want to believe this. I am too jaded to think that real reform will come from the congress and senate who have been along for the ride to get us into this mess. Our insurance is crazy, but we make do because we are healthy. My real insurance plan is to stay as healthy as possible, and be very proactive with anything I think might get bad for our family. I don't see this conversation as beating a dead horse, because we as Americans need to be thinking and talking about this issue and not skating along thinking the government is doing the best it can. The previous administration reformed Medicare and now Obamacare is here. As a society we need to keep this issue at the forefront of our policy and hold the government accountable, no matter if they are Republican or Democrat. Our lives depend on it.

[Lady Florida.]

I don't see this conversation as beating a dead horse, because we as Americans need to be thinking and talking about this issue and not skating along thinking the government is doing the best it can. The previous administration reformed Medicare and now Obamacare is here. As a society we need to keep this issue at the forefront of our policy and hold the government accountable, no matter if they are Republican or Democrat. Our lives depend on it.

 

 

I agree, and I don't think those of us still participating are still thinking "dead horse". The way this thread started out, the OP used Obamacare in a derogatory tone and said God help us. Some of us were reacting to that early on.

 

I now think the tone of the discussion has changed for the better. I'm guessing I'm not alone in feeling that way.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I can not believe this dead horse is still being beaten. Our health insurance costs have gone up every year with less coverage for more years then Obama has been in office.

 

:iagree:The hospitals I worked for explained how the premiums for health insurance were raised by 20 to 50% every year by the insurance companies which resulted in the employees' share of the premiums rising every year and the coverage decreasing every single year. This was back in the 1990's and 2000's long before President Obama took office.

 

For the record out insurance only rose 5% this year! I am all for the Affordable Health Care Act and in fact want to see medicare for all!!