Health insurance costs for 2014 - didn't expect that

[raildogg]

So I just got my letter about my 2014 plans and was surprised to find out that a similar plan to what I have now costs more than 3x in 2014. Wow. I knew my premium would go up quite a bit but not this much. I guess open enrollment begins October 1st so we can shop but this is too much. Not sure if I qualify for a federal subsidy or whatever other thing they are offering.

So this government mandated healthcare doesn't turn out to be cheaper - not one bit. At least this is what I have experienced. I'm sure many others will have different experiences.

There are some additional benefits that the ACA requires but I don't believe they offset the monthly premiums.

Update:

I was informed recently that the insurance company will let its member keep their 2013 plans in 2014 as well. This means that that my healthcare costs in 2014 will not be 3x the cost. In fact, the rate increase will actually be reasonable. I hope this helps many others who were likely going to get a huge increase. I am glad that the rates won't be rising as much.

 

[lxskllr]

I'm shocked! See? This is my shocked face :^|

 

[Gunslinger08]

Every article and report on health insurance premiums that I've seen says that they're going up more than usual. This makes sense, given the new rules that the insurance companies have to play by. I don't think it's a stretch to say that legislators understood this would happen and that it was most likely intended. We will eventually have a single payer system, once private insurance is too expensive for the middle class, even with employer subsidy.

 

[Matthiasa]

Eh mine only went up like 5%.
The only way its goes up 3x is if where you work covers less.
Typically employers do cover most of it after all.

 

[Engineer]

I don't think it's a stretch to say that legislators understood this would happen and that it was most likely intended. We will eventually have a single payer system, once private insurance is too expensive for the middle class, even with employer subsidy.

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

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

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

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

Not sure where the idea came from that the ACA was going to lower anything.....because, from where I'm sitting, it has done 100% the opposite.

 

[raildogg]

Matthiasa, I pay my individual coverage myself.

 

[Engineer]

Typically employers do cover most of it after all.

Wow, the ATOT crowd must live sheltered lives. As of a few years ago, only 58% of employers (down from 72% a decade earlier) even offered insurance, much less cover most of it.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Wow, the ATOT crowd must live sheltered lives. As of a few years ago, only 58% of employers (down from 72% a decade earlier) even offered insurance, much less cover most of it.

Haven't you figured it out yet? Most of ATOT live in these little bubbles that do not allow them to see anything outside of them thus are unaffected by anything the rest of the world deals with.

Almost every thread related to things that could or do impact much of the US and/or world end up with more people saying "doesn't affect me so don't care" than anything else.

 

[fstime]

Health Insurance is the biggest liability to our federal budget (which is running deficits in the trillions).

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

 

[Engineer]

Haven't you figured it out yet? Most of ATOT live in these little bubbles that do not allow them to see anything outside of them thus are unaffected by anything the rest of the world deals with.

Almost every thread related to things that could or do impact much of the US and/or world end up with more people saying "doesn't affect me so don't care" than anything else.

Mention the decline of manufacturing along with the decline of middle class (especially in P&N) and you'll get exactly that. Most will go a step farther and say that we need to remove manufacturing completely and go to a 'modern service economy'. Jobs for middle class? We don't need no stinking jobs.

Of course, most of the AT crowd has never been in or around a factory to even know what it means or does for the US economy and the middle class, so it's not surprising. They only spout what they see in their college economics courses.

 

[sixone]

Health Insurance is the biggest liability to our federal budget (which is running deficits in the trillions).

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

Those trillion-dollar debts (not deficits) don't even include what we promised to pay in Social Security, Medicare, and federal pensions.

There is no money for a single-payer system, even if you tax the rich at 100%.

 

[Engineer]

There is no money for a single-payer system, even if you tax the rich at 100%.

The US healthcare system currently takes 17% of GDP in spending on healthcare. I'm sure if we took that and placed it into single payer, it could be made to work....especially when you consider that nearly every other industrialized country makes a go at it at a much smaller % (around 10 to 12% IIRC) of their GDP (which is smaller than the US by quite a bit) and they cover 100% of their citizens.

Oh I forgot, profits over people every day of the week....what was I thinking? pfftt.

 

[Lonyo]

The US healthcare system currently takes 17% of GDP in spending on healthcare. I'm sure if we took that and placed it into single payer, it could be made to work....especially when you consider that nearly every other industrialized country makes a go at it at a much smaller % (around 10 to 12% IIRC) of their GDP (which is smaller than the US by quite a bit) and they cover 100% of their citizens.

Oh I forgot, profits over people every day of the week....what was I thinking? pfftt.

There's no money at current rates for a single payer system. And that's the only way it could happen, nothing changes except who pays!
Don't they teach anything at school these days?

The current system works fine.

 

[Engineer]

The current system works fine.

I sincerely hope that's sarcasm.

 

[FleshLight]

Ours (Fortune 500 Engineering firm) went down almost 15-25% for the HDHP, Kaiser, and PPO plans for 2014.

Mine went from $100/month to $75 month =). Not sure if this was because of consolidating benefit packages across three divisions or Obama

 

[IronWing]

A scheme mandating private insurance, what could go wrong?

 

[ThatsABigOne]

My premium is going to go up by 60 dollars and deductable will go to 6500. Fuck Obamacare.

 

[allisolm]

Wow, the ATOT crowd must live sheltered lives. As of a few years ago, only 58% of employers (down from 72% a decade earlier) even offered insurance, much less cover most of it.

http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2012-section-2/

"98% of large firms (200 or more workers) offer health benefits in 2012 (Exhibit 2.2). In contrast, only 61% of small firms (3-199 workers) offer health benefits in 2012."

Smaller firms are less likely to offer health insurance: 50% of firms with 3 to 9 workers offer coverage, compared to 73% of firms with 10 to 24 workers, 87% of firms with 25 to 49 workers, and 94% of firms with 50 to 199 employees (Exhibit 2.3).

http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2012-section-6/

In 2012, covered workers on average contribute 18% of the premium for single coverage and 28% of the premium for family coverage, the same contribution percentages reported for 2011 (Exhibit 6.1).

 

[Ns1]

Up 10-20% here too.

 

[Engineer]

http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2012-section-2/

"98% of large firms (200 or more workers) offer health benefits in 2012 (Exhibit 2.2). In contrast, only 61% of small firms (3-199 workers) offer health benefits in 2012."

Smaller firms are less likely to offer health insurance: 50% of firms with 3 to 9 workers offer coverage, compared to 73% of firms with 10 to 24 workers, 87% of firms with 25 to 49 workers, and 94% of firms with 50 to 199 employees (Exhibit 2.3).

http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2012-section-6/

In 2012, covered workers on average contribute 18% of the premium for single coverage and 28% of the premium for family coverage, the same contribution percentages reported for 2011 (Exhibit 6.1).

Looks like I might have read the previous articles wrong...(chose wrong number).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...lth-insurance/2012/04/24/gIQAfGH6eT_blog.html

67.5% vs the 58% that I quoted (from a number in the article later).

In 2002, 72 percent of employers offered health insurance—a number that dropped to 67.5 percent in 2010. Even among those who offered for coverage, fewer employees opted to participate in the program. The take-up rate for employer-sponsored insurance fell just slightly, from 86 percent in 1997 to 86.3 percent in 2010.

“The majority of uninsured workers report that they are not covered by health benefits because their employers did not offer coverage,” EBRI’s Paul Fronstin notes. “In 2010, 58.2 percent of uninsured workers reported that they worked for employers that did not offer health benefits to any employees This is up from 53.1 percent in 1997.”

Regardless, the number of employers offering is in decline and the benefits are definitely in decline (with higher premiums). I bet that number is dropping quickly with all of these employers dropping people to the exchanges (Home Depot, Walgreens, etc).

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Who do you think is paying for the "Free healthcare?"

 

[Engineer]

Who do you think is paying for the "Free healthcare?"

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

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

Although I'm surprised since more people are being 'forced' to pay now, that the costs aren't at least steady as more now pay. Was wrong on that completely.

 

[jpiniero]

There's no money at current rates for a single payer system. And that's the only way it could happen, nothing changes except who pays!
Don't they teach anything at school these days?

The problem is I (and apparently half of the country) have so little confidence in the Democrats that if single payer ever happened costs would skyrocket even more and the US healthcare system would collapse (and probally bankrupt the US Govt, if it isn't already bankrupt)

 

[raildogg]

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

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

Although I'm surprised since more people are being 'forced' to pay now, that the costs aren't at least steady as more now pay. Was wrong on that completely.

And the ones who are working are probably the ones who will get the least benefit out of the new system. I'm not sure how the subsidies work with the ACA but I keep seeing it mentioned. Does one have to be at a certain income level to qualify for assistance? And where do these subsidies come from? It seems like a very big and complicated process. The government must have to keep on top of it to maintain it properly.

Sorry, I'm not informed on the ACA.

 

[_Rick_]

(and probally bankrupt the US Govt, if it isn't already bankrupt)

A government only manages a nation's wealth. It's the nation that goes bankrupt, not it's government.
It's you that goes bankrupt, in fact, as your productivity and wealth are the collateral for government debt, in a way.

...well, armed forces also play a role. Hitler bankrupted Germany as well, and clung onto the country for quite a few more years, until it all fell apart.