How will Obamacare affect those who already have good coverage?

[Mom0012]

 

 

 

This is what we expect from dh's employer, which is a Fortune 100 company. They have already increased the premiums and raised our deductibles. Last year our family max out of pocket was $5000. This year we have to pay $6000 before the insurance company pays anything. And premiums went up more than 25%. And this is probably just the beginning...it would be WAY cheaper for his employer to just stop providing coverage and pay the penalties.

 

Some people benefit from the reform. Some come out about even. And some will be hurt. That's just how it is.

 

Yes, our premiums are skyrocketing and so is our deductible. The corporation my husband works for is projecting we will be paying 60% of our salary toward insurance premiums in the not so distant future. That is hard to imagine and quite scary.

[Mom0012]

 

 

It's been pointed on here before that this approach is totally illogical.

 

Pre-AFA, a company paid no fine for not providing health insurance. Nothing, nada, totally voluntary to offer insurance benefits. Of course most companies did provide insurance coverage in order to attract the best employees. But if they chose not to, they were not penalized by a fine.

 

Now under the AFA the same company will choose to pay a fine rather than providing that same insurance that they were voluntarily providing before? And lose the "benefit" of attracting quality employees. Why? The phrase "cutting your nose off to spite your face" comes to mind.

 

I don't know what the reality is, but it would be logical if the company's costs skyrocket to the point that it is no longer affordable for them to provide healthcare. What am I missing?

[butterflymommy]

If you are curious, you can check here http://www.familiesu...guidelines.html to see if subsidies are even an option for you. If you make more than 400% of the federal poverty level, there aren't subsidies available.

 

Vermont is one of the first states to list the cost of coverage in their marketplace, and if you don't qualify for subsidies, IMO it isn't all that affordable. I suspect that will be the case for many states.

 

We aren't wealthy, but without subsidies, we're looking at paying 2-3x what we currently pay for a higher deductible plan paired with an HSA. That plan won't be affordable (most likely, IMO) once they have to cover mental health, pregnancy, no pre-existing condition exclusion, etc.

 

 

Do you have a link to the VT costs... because that is one thing that has remained ephemeral in all this, how much these policies will actually cost.

 

The so-called upper middle class will be hit hard because they won't qualify for subsidies but aren't rich enough not to feel the pain (and many employers probably will simply start paying the fine in lieu of offering coverage). At a certain it seems like it's not worth it to make over X amount, because at that point taxes and health insurance cost more than whatever increase of salary you might get.

[Lady Florida.]

 

Technically, you're correct. But, most people's reality has been that the ACA is a federally regulated national health insurance takeover. What's the difference? It's not health insurance, but it dictates how every health insurance policy in the country is managed.

 

 

It's still disingenuous at worst, and uninformed at best, to call it government health care.

[justamouse]

We're not hiring as many people, we make a lot of use of temps, our healthcare rates are skyrocketing (we just dropped Blue Cross Blue Shield yesterday, they jacked our rates up 200 per month which would put us at 17,000 for my family) and we're taking it year by year. People don't get raises because we have to pay more of their healthcare. All in a recession. And, because we're a small business, we aren't even allowed into the higher quality care pools, even if we could pay.

 

Nothing but good times ahead.

[Momof3littles]

 

Do you have a link to the VT costs... because that is one thing that has remained ephemeral in all this, how much these policies will actually cost.

 

The so-called upper middle class will be hit hard because they won't qualify for subsidies but aren't rich enough not to feel the pain (and many employers probably will simply start paying the fine in lieu of offering coverage). At a certain it seems like it's not worth it to make over X amount, because at that point taxes and health insurance cost more than whatever increase of salary you might get.

 

I agree. The increase my family will likely see is going to be like having our mortgage jump 50% per month, you know? THat's a lot to absorb.

 

This link has a link that will open up a PDF of the VT rates.

http://www.healthreformgps.org/resources/vt-first-state-to-release-marketplace-rates/

[dtsmamtj]

Full disclosure: there is much more I *don't* know about this law than what I *do* know. That said, from what I've heard, the government will offer a low-cost (taxpayer-subsidized) insurance choice. Many employers will cease providing group health insurance because the fine for non-coverage is lower than the cost of coverage. Hence even if you have good insurance through your employer now, you might lose it and have to buy into what everyone else gets. The ultimate goal is to essentially end up as a single-payer system, and this is how the trend will start.

 

This is what will happen to us by fall this year. :cursing:

[Georgiana Daniels]

We're not hiring as many people, we make a lot of use of temps, our healthcare rates are skyrocketing (we just dropped Blue Cross Blue Shield yesterday, they jacked our rates up 200 per month which would put us at 17,000 for my family) and we're taking it year by year. People don't get raises because we have to pay more of their healthcare. All in a recession. And, because we're a small business, we aren't even allowed into the higher quality care pools, even if we could pay.

 

Nothing but good times ahead.

 

 

Not hiring as many people so that your company can stay solvent? Oh, the greed!!!!

 

:glare:

[StephanieZ]

Here is one calculator to estimate how much you will pay for insurance once the exchanges are up and running. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/

[justamouse]

 

Not hiring as many people so that your company can stay solvent? Oh, the greed!!!!

 

:glare:

 

Funny, that, eh?

[Myeightkiddies]

For 20 plus years, we only paid a co-pay when visiting the doctor. This was in the range of $10-15 per person per visit. Specialist visits were approximately $30. Now, as of January, we pay full price for all visits. Eventually we will meet the deductible, I think. However, it is a huge financial hit for us. This is a large household, and illness can affect all of us at once. To go from paying a co-pay to the full amount is, to me, a huge pay cut in my DH's salary.

 

I have a few auto-immune diseases, which require care through specialists. Until our house in Florida sells (well, we have it up for rent now after six months of no sale), we cannot afford the cost of specialists and tests. At this point, I am off meds/treatment. This would not have been the case if our insurance remained the same. I'm not sure who to blame at this point: Obama? Our insurance? It doesn't really matter. We won't get any of the financial benefits due to our income, but our income isn't enough to not be affected significantly by these changes.

[Shellers]

We're not hiring as many people, we make a lot of use of temps, our healthcare rates are skyrocketing (we just dropped Blue Cross Blue Shield yesterday, they jacked our rates up 200 per month which would put us at 17,000 for my family) and we're taking it year by year...

 

I feel your pain.

 

My husband is self employed and a major oil company retiree. We buy health insurance through his old employer. That company pays a portion of my husband's premium as part of his retiree benefits. Our rates go up every year. We are currently paying $1,599 a month ($19,188 a year)! We can barely afford to go to the doctor, and definitely can't afford to do any lab work.

 

When rates go up again next year we will probably have to drop our health insurance.

[QueenCat]

Here is one calculator to estimate how much you will pay for insurance once the exchanges are up and running. http://laborcenter.b...icy/calculator/

 

Note the fine print that says the calculator uses annual income but the actual exchanges will use adjusted gross income, which is lower. People also need to remember that this calculator is only for those who will use the exchanges, not for those who will get their insurance via employers and other sources.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Duplicate.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I feel your pain.

 

My husband is self employed and a major oil company retiree. We buy health insurance through his old employer. That company pays a portion of my husband's premium as part of his retiree benefits. Our rates go up every year. We are currently paying $1,599 a month ($19,188 a year)! We can barely afford to go to the doctor, and definitely can't afford to do any lab work.

 

When rates go up again next year we will probably have to drop our health insurance.

 

It would seem "Affordable" is a misnomer.

[Annie G]

Here is one calculator to estimate how much you will pay for insurance once the exchanges are up and running. http://laborcenter.b...icy/calculator/

 

 

 

I plugged in our numbers and it spits out nearly $1700 a month, with no tax benefit. Probably pretty close to how much the premium is now, adding up what dh's employer pays and what we pay for premiums. The question is whether dh's employer would offer any salary increase if they decided not to offer insurance, and what the policy covers. Is there a large deductible under these plans?

 

Thanks for the calculator link- that was a fast and easy way to play with the numbers! If we made $10,000 less, our monthly cost would only be around $700. But making $10,000 more doesn't raise our rate.

[Momof3littles]

I plugged in our numbers and it spits out nearly $1700 a month, with no tax benefit. Probably pretty close to how much the premium is now, adding up what dh's employer pays and what we pay for premiums. The question is whether dh's employer would offer any salary increase if they decided not to offer insurance, and what the policy covers. Is there a large deductible under these plans?

 

Thanks for the calculator link- that was a fast and easy way to play with the numbers! If we made $10,000 less, our monthly cost would only be around $700. But making $10,000 more doesn't raise our rate.

 

Yeah, it goes by % of federal poverty level for your family size, so if you make $1 over the cliff of 400%, you won't get any subsidy.

 

In terms of deductible, there are multiple tiers. If you look at the VT published rate example, you'll see how they vary. There are higher and lower deductible options, and various tiers (gold, silver, bronze). The tier you choose will affect what % is covered, from what I have read. So you can opt for a lower cost plan but may have a higher maximum OOP expense.

[melmichigan]

We have good coverage (BCBS) and we are now paying coinsurance for the first time, a higher deductible, and a higher percentage of pay toward premiums. It will be a very interesting year with children with special needs.

[Lanny]

How is that going to work with this statement? "As a business owner, you also face shared responsibility if you employ the equivalent of 50 full-time employees—for example, a combination of 100 part-time employees who work 15 hours a week."

 

Oh.... That is interesting. My impression has been that if a company has employees who only work 29 or 30 hours a week, the company is off the hook.

 

For example, 2 part time employees, each working 20 hours a week, are the equivalent of one full time employee.

 

However, I have seen a number of news stories, about companies who have notified their employees that the number of hours they will be working will be reduced to 29 or 30 hours each week. Some companies have already reduced the hours their employees work each week.

 

My own concern, about this bewildering 2700 page legislation, is whether or not the 7 million Overseas Americans are going to need to pay a tax, for something that will not cover us. I hope not, but, I'm not positive about that.

[Ann.without.an.e]

We're not hiring as many people, we make a lot of use of temps, our healthcare rates are skyrocketing (we just dropped Blue Cross Blue Shield yesterday, they jacked our rates up 200 per month which would put us at 17,000 for my family) and we're taking it year by year. People don't get raises because we have to pay more of their healthcare. All in a recession. And, because we're a small business, we aren't even allowed into the higher quality care pools, even if we could pay.

 

Nothing but good times ahead.

 

 

So, just to clarify, you completely dropped health coverage for your family? Are you going to replace it or just be uninsured? I am just curious.

[Random]

It's still disingenuous at worst, and uninformed at best, to call it government health care.

 

What about government run health care? That's what I hear most often. That is neither uninformed nor disingenuous.

 

If the federal government is taking over the industry, how is it not run by the federal government? Giving the ACA an ambiguous misnomer is not changing the real effects on the citizenry.

[justamouse]

 

 

So, just to clarify, you completely dropped health coverage for your family? Are you going to replace it or just be uninsured? I am just curious.

 

We're at a tension point right now. We found another provider, but if they raise the rates next year, we'll have to drop insurance. Like I said, it's a year by year thing.

[Ann.without.an.e]

Okay, so just to prove that I seriously do not understand all of this. Will we have a choice between employer based insurance and ACA? If our employer still offers insurance then do we even have the option of ACA? We are low income and though I hate the thought of ACA and switching, etc dh's employer says that rates are going to rise significantly next year and we are already struggling to afford coverage (great insurance though). The ACA calculator quote is less than half of what we pay right NOW (after the credit). I know that we will no longer be able to afford insurance next year if rates go up like planned.

[Upward Journey]

 

 

Oh.... That is interesting. My impression has been that if a company has employees who only work 29 or 30 hours a week, the company is off the hook.

 

For example, 2 part time employees, each working 20 hours a week, are the equivalent of one full time employee.

 

However, I have seen a number of news stories, about companies who have notified their employees that the number of hours they will be working will be reduced to 29 or 30 hours each week. Some companies have already reduced the hours their employees work each week.

 

My own concern, about this bewildering 2700 page legislation, is whether or not the 7 million Overseas Americans are going to need to pay a tax, for something that will not cover us. I hope not, but, I'm not positive about that.

 

Yes, I've been wondering about this last point a lot lately as well.

 

[Lady Florida.]

What about government run health care? That's what I hear most often. That is neither uninformed nor disingenuous.

 

If the federal government is taking over the industry, how is it not run by the federal government? Giving the ADA an ambiguous misnomer is not changing the real effects on the citizenry.

 

It regulates insurance, it doesn't run it. Even the insurance exchanges will be private health insurance (again, unless you qualify for Medicare or Medicaid). A number of industries are regulated by the government. That doesn't mean those industries are run by the government. Now the insurance industry joins those regulated by the government. I stand by my statement.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

What about government run health care? That's what I hear most often. That is neither uninformed nor disingenuous.

 

If the federal government is taking over the industry, how is it not run by the federal government? Giving the ACA an ambiguous misnomer is not changing the real effects on the citizenry.

 

It is not government run. Rates, deductibles, and copays are still set by the insurance companies, and they still have a great deal of control over what is covered and how. ACA imposed additional regulations, but to be fair, insurance has always been one of the industries with the highest amount of government regulation (often for good reason).

 

The ACA effectively slapped a bandage on a gushing artery.

However it should be noted the average health insurance premium increased by 4% in 2012, which is significantly less than the 9% in 2011, and the double digit increases previously.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/11/pf/insurance/health-insurance-premiums/index.html

 

An article from Reuters on the same study cited in the CNN article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/us-usa-healthcare-insurance-idUSBRE88A0SQ20120911

 

Note that the average premium paid by workers DOUBLED from 2002 to 2012 ($2,137 in 2002 and $4,316 in 2012). Employer contributions more than doubled in the same time frame. Another interesting tidbit was that workers on the lower side of the wage scale generally paid more for their health care coverage ($1K on average) while the companies who offered those plans often paid less for the coverage,

 

And people here blame ACA for the rise in health insurance premiums? Really?

 

Over the last couple of decades we have been experiencing the pitfalls of tying health insurance sold in a private market to employment, and the situation is reaching the point of simply being unsustainable. Unfortunately any discussion of a reasonable alternative based on the success (both in total cost and outcomes) in other countries has been met with the ignorant cries of "Socialism!" and "Death Panels".

[Arcadia]

Here is one calculator to estimate how much you will pay for insurance once the exchanges are up and running. http://laborcenter.b...icy/calculator/

 

I plug in and got $1,102 based on gross income. No difference if based on AGI. Excluding employer paid portion, family insurance cost us more than $300 every two weeks so still lower. Insurance and out of pocket have been going up year on year in our case. Now to see if empoyer contributions to health insurance becomes a taxable benefit to the employee.

[Shellers]

I plug in and got $1,102 based on gross income. No difference if based on AGI. Excluding employer paid portion, family insurance cost us more than $300 every two weeks so still lower. Insurance and out of pocket have been going up year on year in our case. Now to see if empoyer contributions to health insurance becomes a taxable benefit to the employee.

 

The calculator says I'll have to pay $2,250 a month for health insurance, which makes the $1,599 I'm currently paying seem like a deal. :001_unsure:

[Granny_Weatherwax]

Our insurance is provided through DH's employer. Like so many others we have seen huge increases in monthly premiums and a surprisingly high rate of denied claims this last six months. Lab tests that were paid a year ago are no longer covered. Most Wellcheck services are no longer covered.

 

My employer is no longer hiring FT employees but relying on multiple PTers to fill positions. The unofficial reason is saving on benefits packages.

 

--

I used the calculator in the above post and as long as we can count DGD as a dependent our premiums are manageable. As soon as we lose her, the jump in monthly cost was more than double. Either way the premiums are quite a bit more than what we are paying now through DH's employer.

[momto10blessings]

 

Note the fine print that says the calculator uses annual income but the actual exchanges will use adjusted gross income, which is lower. People also need to remember that this calculator is only for those who will use the exchanges, not for those who will get their insurance via employers and other sources.

 

What is "the exchange"? We do not have a healthcare option through my dh's employer so we have our own insurance.

[Momof3littles]

What is "the exchange"? We do not have a healthcare option through my dh's employer so we have our own insurance.

 

The exchange (now relabeled "the marketplace) as I understand it is comprised of varying tiers of plans (gold, silver, bronze) that meet the new ACA requirements for coverage.

All existing plans will have to meet the new requirements (maternity and mental health coverage for ex), including private plans. The loophole for that is that if you enrolled in your private plan before ACA was passed in March 2010, the plan does not have to meet the new requirements. If you look at the PDF in the link on VT putting up their exchange, it will give you some idea of how the tiers work.

The states were supposed to set up their own exchanges but many refuse. Residents in the states that won't set up an exchange will have the Federal exchange available to them. People making up to 400 percent the federal poverty level based on AGI will qualify for subsidies to buy insurance in the exchange/"marketplace." The # of dependents you have will affect where you are in terms of percentage of federal poverty level.

That is my understanding. I am not sure if private plans will continue to exist outside of the marketplace. i think they will, but as far as I know t hey will have to meet the ACA requirements for covering services like maternity and mental health unless your enrollment in the private plan predates ACA and is grandfathered.

If an employed individual can get affordable premiums through work, i believe the employee cannot get subsidies for the exchange even if they are under 400 percent of fed poverty level. Affordable premiums are defined as not exceeding 9.5% of household income for the employee's premium; dependents' premiums have zero bearing on that measure of affordability according to the IRS clarification. Just the employee's coverage through work must be "affordable." Businesses over 50 employees are supposed to offer dependent coverage (but do not have to cover the spouse). However, they have no obligation to make the dependent coverage meet the affordable #s. However, the same is true now, really.

Everyone will have to have insurance that meets the guidelines or they will be fined/taxed. That # starts off low and then goes up over the next few years. There are a few exceptions to that, and in certain cases, people will not be hit with a penalty for not carrying insurance.

If I am wrong hopefully someone will jump in to clear things up. I am still learning!

[Momof3littles]

Our insurance is provided through DH's employer. Like so many others we have seen huge increases in monthly premiums and a surprisingly high rate of denied claims this last six months. Lab tests that were paid a year ago are no longer covered. Most Wellcheck services are no longer covered.

 

My employer is no longer hiring FT employees but relying on multiple PTers to fill positions. The unofficial reason is saving on benefits packages.

 

--

I used the calculator in the above post and as long as we can count DGD as a dependent our premiums are manageable. As soon as we lose her, the jump in monthly cost was more than double. Either way the premiums are quite a bit more than what we are paying now through DH's employer.

 

I think a lot of wellness things will now have to be covered by all plans, unless they qualify for grandfathered in status.

 

Part-timers still count, although I am not certain how that works. Someone posted a link upthread and I've read a bit about it. They put in some provision to basically not make it possible for companies to easily slide people to part time. Depending on how many part time workers they have, it still "adds up" to an equivalent # of FT positions for legal purposes and the resulting obligations under ACA. I don't claim to get all of the ins and outs of this, but part of it has already been written into the law.

[whitestavern]

Here is one calculator to estimate how much you will pay for insurance once the exchanges are up and running. http://laborcenter.b...icy/calculator/

 

 

 

 

Ours will double ($1200/month). This is one of the big reasons my dh just got a full time job--he's been on his own for 7 years now. That's just crazy expensive.

[Word Nerd]

Preventive care and annual checkups will be free because there's no copay now, but everything else will be more expensive on my plan because they made our individual deductibles so high. If any of us has to go to the ER, not only will I have to pay for it all out of pocket until I hit the deductible, I'll owe an additional $150 ER surcharge.

[Laura Corin]

My own concern, about this bewildering 2700 page legislation, is whether or not the 7 million Overseas Americans are going to need to pay a tax, for something that will not cover us. I hope not, but, I'm not positive about that.

 

That hadn't occurred to me. Husband is covered by the NHS in the UK - he doesn't need American insurance. Nor do my two dual-citizen children.

 

I found this, but I don't know how accurate it is:

 

 

Q: What are the implications of the Affordable Health Care Act for Americans abroad? Will I be penalized for not having American health insurance coverage?

A: Under the Affordable Health Care Act (Public Law 111-148, popularly known as "Obamacare") there is a specific provision that individuals residing outside the United States or residents of territories "shall be treated as having minimum essential coverage" for any month they are qualified under the tax code as "residing abroad."

 

Laura

[TranquilMind]

Preventive care and annual checkups will be free because there's no copay now, but everything else will be more expensive on my plan because they made our individual deductibles so high. If any of us has to go to the ER, not only will I have to pay for it all out of pocket until I hit the deductible, I'll owe an additional $150 ER surcharge.

 

What a lose-lose for everyone. I'd rather pay the $50 for a necessary doctor visit, than get it free and pay $10,000 more a year on premiums, plus the lovely $2500 deductible, which will never be met unless really bad stuff happens.

 

I never did nor will I ever use maternity or mental health care, but I get to pay for them forever.

[TranquilMind]

Yes, our premiums are skyrocketing and so is our deductible. The corporation my husband works for is projecting we will be paying 60% of our salary toward insurance premiums in the not so distant future. That is hard to imagine and quite scary.

 

 

Yikes.

 

This system of wringing more and more out of the working stiff just cannot continue.

[TranquilMind]

 

It is not government run. Rates, deductibles, and copays are still set by the insurance companies, and they still have a great deal of control over what is covered and how. ACA imposed additional regulations, but to be fair, insurance has always been one of the industries with the highest amount of government regulation (often for good reason).

 

The ACA effectively slapped a bandage on a gushing artery.

However it should be noted the average health insurance premium increased by 4% in 2012, which is significantly less than the 9% in 2011, and the double digit increases previously.

http://money.cnn.com...iums/index.html

 

 

 

 

About the bolded, it fails to mention there that while premiums increased "only" another 4%, out-of-pocket deductibles went up tenfold+! That's simply a rearranging of the hit on the consumer.

[TranquilMind]

What about government run health care? That's what I hear most often. That is neither uninformed nor disingenuous.

 

If the federal government is taking over the industry, how is it not run by the federal government? Giving the ACA an ambiguous misnomer is not changing the real effects on the citizenry.

 

 

All of the oversight and power, none of the responsibility. That's how we do it in Congress!

[TranquilMind]

 

It would seem "Affordable" is a misnomer.

 

 

That is the understatement of the century.

[TranquilMind]

Oh.... That is interesting. My impression has been that if a company has employees who only work 29 or 30 hours a week, the company is off the hook.

 

For example, 2 part time employees, each working 20 hours a week, are the equivalent of one full time employee.

 

However, I have seen a number of news stories, about companies who have notified their employees that the number of hours they will be working will be reduced to 29 or 30 hours each week. Some companies have already reduced the hours their employees work each week.

 

My own concern, about this bewildering 2700 page legislation, is whether or not the 7 million Overseas Americans are going to need to pay a tax, for something that will not cover us. I hope not, but, I'm not positive about that.

 

 

 

Right. All the part-timers are joined together to create full time equivalancies, for which employers will be taxed. No stone will go unturned to extract more money out of businesses and individuals.

[NotSoObvious]

 

 

Oh.... That is interesting. My impression has been that if a company has employees who only work 29 or 30 hours a week, the company is off the hook.

 

For example, 2 part time employees, each working 20 hours a week, are the equivalent of one full time employee.

 

However, I have seen a number of news stories, about companies who have notified their employees that the number of hours they will be working will be reduced to 29 or 30 hours each week. Some companies have already reduced the hours their employees work each week.

 

My own concern, about this bewildering 2700 page legislation, is whether or not the 7 million Overseas Americans are going to need to pay a tax, for something that will not cover us. I hope not, but, I'm not positive about that.

 

 

Nope, doesn't apply to overseas Americans.

[Myeightkiddies]

 

I never did nor will I ever use maternity or mental health care, but I get to pay for them forever.

 

 

I don't need the maternity. As for the mental health care, I may need that after dealing with the cost increase of our insurance.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

About the bolded, it fails to mention there that while premiums increased "only" another 4%, out-of-pocket deductibles went up tenfold+! That's simply a rearranging of the hit on the consumer.

 

Can you cite a source for that information? (And no, anecdotal information does not qualify.)

 

And FTR, deductibles had been increasing for the past decade as well. I am not sure how the survey was conducted, but they may have accounted for the deductible change by comparing a similar basket of plans over time.

[Mom0012]

 

I think a lot of wellness things will now have to be covered by all plans, unless they qualify for grandfathered in status.

 

Part-timers still count, although I am not certain how that works. Someone posted a link upthread and I've read a bit about it. They put in some provision to basically not make it possible for companies to easily slide people to part time. Depending on how many part time workers they have, it still "adds up" to an equivalent # of FT positions for legal purposes and the resulting obligations under ACA. I don't claim to get all of the ins and outs of this, but part of it has already been written into the law.

 

Yes, but wellness care isn't that expensive and I wouldn't even carry insurance for that type of coverage. The ONLY reason I feel I need insurance is if I get breast cancer, my husband has a heart attack or something terrible happens to one of my kids. We will pay $1500/month according to that calculator and I'm just not going to pay that. Period. Hopefully, the insurance company won't be able to turn us away due to the changes in pre existing illnesses if something terrible happens. The whole thing makes me livid.

[Mom0012]

 

 

Can you cite a source for that information? (And no, anecdotal information does not qualify.)

 

And FTR, deductibles had been increasing for the past decade as well. I am not sure how the survey was conducted, but they may have accounted for the deductible change by comparing a similar basket of plans over time.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Features/Insuring-Your-Health/2013/032613-Michelle-Andrews-on-high-deductible-plans-and-large-employers.aspx

 

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PracticeManagement/Reimbursement/38150

 

[TranquilMind]

 

 

I don't need the maternity. As for the mental health care, I may need that after dealing with the cost increase of our insurance.

 

Lol.

[TranquilMind]

Yes, but wellness care isn't that expensive and I wouldn't even carry insurance for that type of coverage. The ONLY reason I feel I need insurance is if I get breast cancer, my husband has a heart attack or something terrible happens to one of my kids. We will pay $1500/month according to that calculator and I'm just not going to pay that. Period. Hopefully, the insurance company won't be able to turn us away due to the changes in pre existing illnesses if something terrible happens. The whole thing makes me livid.

 

Right. Throwing "wellness" at us is a drop in the bucket. I could easily and willingly pay for that. It's the big stuff that we need the 80% coverage on, and not after extracting 20 grand from us for premiums PLUS making us pay thousands out of pocket first.

[TranquilMind]

Can you cite a source for that information? (And no, anecdotal information does not qualify.)

 

And FTR, deductibles had been increasing for the past decade as well. I am not sure how the survey was conducted, but they may have accounted for the deductible change by comparing a similar basket of plans over time.

 

Yes, I can cite a source. My husband's paycheck - and everyone else we know. Who are you to say that anecdotal evidence "does not qualify"? Sorry, if it happens to us and everyone we happen to know, I'm paying attention and not dismissing it as irrelevant.

 

But if you want other proof, here you go. It's all over the media:

 

From here:

On average, expect a 30% to 40% increase in the baseline cost of individual health insurance to account for the new premium taxes, reinsurance costs, benefit mandate increases, and underwriting reforms. Those increases can come in the form of outright price increases or bigger deductibles and co-pays.

In states with the least mandates or for health insurance companies with the tightest underwriting now, the increase could be a lot more.

But when you add the impact of the requirement that older consumers can be charged no more than three times as much as the youngest consumers (the usual standard is now a five times difference), premiums increase dramatically for the youngest.

For example, expect individual health insurance rates for people in their 20s and early 30s to about double.

People in their late 50s and 60s might see net decreases because of the benefit they will get from the rate band compression.

 

From Forbes Magazine:

 

At the end of 2012, Mark Bertolini, the CEO of Aetna, the third-largest health insurer in the country, warned that many consumers would face “premium rate shock†with the advent of Obamacare’s major insurance regulations in 2014. He predicted that unsubsidized premiums would rise 20 to 50 percent, on average.

For some people, premiums would double. “We’re going to see some markets go up as much as 100 percent,†Bertolini told Bloomberg News.

Aetna isn’t the only company forecasting higher health-insurance premiums. In California, Blue Shield has asked regulators to approve premium increases of up to 20 percent. Obamacare’s new regulations were a factor in the request. A spokesperson for the company said the new law “will bring a lot of volatility†into the market.

A shock? Not to those who’ve been paying attention. When Obamacare was making its way through Congress, the Congressional Budget Office warned that premiums in the individual market would increase by 10-13 percent.

Even the law’s designers admit that it will raise premiums. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Economics Professor Jonathan Gruber, one of Obamacare’s chief architects, estimated that premiums in Wisconsin would rise by about 30 percent by 2016 following implementation of the law. Most of the Badger State’s individual insurance market will see an even larger increase, averaging about 41 percent.

[Arcadia]

How is that going to work with this statement? "As a business owner, you also face shared responsibility if you employ the equivalent of 50 full-time employees—for example, a combination of 100 part-time employees who work 15 hours a week."

 

 

One of the US company that I worked for got round that by retrenching and than hiring contractors as needed. For them it was a headcount, employee benefits and retrenchment benefits issue rather than healthcare.