ObamaCare aka "Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act" (1 Viewer)

[matttyl]

Ran the numbers as Mr 2cents says and well I was below 50%, I even made it below 40%, It just must be crazy to think I was under 30%, holly #### I was under 20%, and no fricken way I am under 10%. But I was for a family of 4 with income around 80k. Of course we have to see how the state of Texas will screw us, but running the numbers as Mr. 2cents says and well under 10% is a long way from that 50% that he is promoting!

Monthly premium is $633 for the Silver plan for 7598

the dedcutible is 2000 per person for another 8000

Copay is 15% until you reach a maximum of 6,400 per person.

So lets assume your family is relatively healthy and you only accrue a total of 1000 per person over th e year . 15% of 4K is only another $600.

So lets add up the premiums, the deductibles and 15% of a normal healthy family.

I come up with a total of $16,198 for a healthy family of four. That is still 20 percent of your NET income.

Can you afford 20% of your NET income for a healthy family of four?

I guess if you pay no taxes and don't eat much you will do ok. But don't get sick or injured.

If you dispute these figures, you are a liar, period.

If that is affordable healthcare you can have it. It is cheaper to pay the tax and pay for your own healthcare.

Yeah, you're cleary insane. You think a family of four who is maxing out all 4 of their deductibles every year is going to spend less than $16k total?

I hope your wife manages your family finances.

So you are okay with that huh. That was by the way a healthy family of four with no accidental injurys or medical problems.

Tell me Tommy how much have YOU specifically paid for healthcare this year.

Also bear in mind that is with a subsidy that will get smaller every year.

ACA is a freaking lie, it is not affordable and for the poor it it is even worse. This was for a middle class family. It will absolutely crush the poor and if you fail to realize that then you refuse to deal with the reqlity of millions of American.

A long while ago I asked you tp runthe numbers and compare Obamacare to what you pay. You never replied, I wonder why?

B/c I have no idea what I currently pay. The benefits at my wife's companies are ever so slightly better than mine, so I'm on her plan. I have no idea what comes out of her checks, and I have no idea how much the company subsidy is.

If you don't know what you pay for even your own health care coverage, how are you at all able to comment on other people?!

Why would my anecdotal experience have any effect on the ACA as a whole? And even if I did know exactly how much our family's contribution is, how would I know exactly what my wife's employer is contributing?

Because it is their responsibility to inform you of it. They tell you that they either pay a % of the cost (leaving you the balance at which point you can easily figure out the amount of their contribution), or they pay a set dollar amount leaving you the balance. Either way, you would know what they contribute.

 

[matttyl]

The House Republicans sent their budget to the Senate this morning- without any funding for Obamacare. For months, John Boehner resisted doing this, because he knew it would only lead to a government shutdown. But the Tea Party has had its way. Fireworks about to happen.

Yup, and no Republican will find themselves in the oval office for a decade.

 

[matttyl]

This seems silly. One has to know exactly what they are spending on health care per year, as well as exactly what their company is spending on their behalf, in order to have an opinion on national healthcare legislation?

It would give you credibility. Saying that your wife's coverage is "ever so much better than yours", but that you don't know what the costs of it is takes away any credibility you might have had in this thread. If you don't know the costs of it, how do you know it's better than yours?!

 

[matttyl]

Looking back at my 2008 statement for reference and these figures were as follows:

Employer Contribution: 10,569

My Contribution: 1671

My costs have risen 33.7% since 2008....

That's about 8.5% per year, compounded. That's pretty typical for groups. Realize that the 8.5% increase was based (mostly) on the people in your group - not sure if they are healthy or not. Realize that future increases on ACA plans will be based on that population, ranging from young to old and healthy to sick (though I'd say leaning towards older and sicker).

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I know it's always fun to pile on Gunz, but his scenario is the same as the vast majority of people who are covered under their, or their spouse's, employer provided coverage. One of the issues with the employer care model is that it insulates the healthcare consumer from the cost of their coverage. Sure, most people probably know how much is taken out of their paycheck or the general employee contribution, and they know their co-pays and deductibles. But none of that is the actual cost of coverage or care. Then, even for people who happen to be in the individual marketplace, there are so many variables in terms of local market and individual health issues that comparing the cost of coverage and out of pocket expenses is close to meaningless.

Completely disagree. For someone to have posted as many times as he has in this forum, and made him self out to know more about this situation than he actually does - one would think he would AT LEAST know what his own coverage costs. Sure, many Americans obtain their coverage though an employer, and at some point they had to make a choice of which plan to take and the cost along with it. Often much or all of that cost is covered by their employer, but they still should know what that cost is.

Me personally, I pay $112 per month for a $2,250 individual deductible (HDHP) plan (I'm self employed). My wife has her coverage through her employer, and I know exactly how much that costs as at her age it may have been possible to obtain an individual policy for less than her cost, but her employer is generous and her cost is less than it would be to obtain coverage on the open market.

If someone doesn't at least know their own costs (even if it's zero) for their health coverage, they have no right to make claims about this legislation and the costs that will trickle down to millions of Americans.

I was commenting more on the issue of moral hazard associated with employer provided coverage than I was about TGunz specifically. But he also happens to be 100% correct. It's a logical fallacy to dismiss someone's argument based on your perception of their expertise or credentials, just as it is a logical fallacy to point to your own credentials, or someone else who you happen to agree with, as an appeal to authority. It's pretty routine for "experts" on a given topic to put forth arguments that are based entirely on conjecture and opinion, which is fine as long as it is expressed in that way. For every "expert" opinion that says one thing on healthcare reform, you can find another "expert" saying exactly the opposite.

His statement about how much a family of four should expect to spend on healthcare might be completely wrong and entirely speculative on his part, but whether or not he knows how much is withheld from his wife's paycheck has nothing to do with that.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I know it's always fun to pile on Gunz, but his scenario is the same as the vast majority of people who are covered under their, or their spouse's, employer provided coverage. One of the issues with the employer care model is that it insulates the healthcare consumer from the cost of their coverage. Sure, most people probably know how much is taken out of their paycheck or the general employee contribution, and they know their co-pays and deductibles. But none of that is the actual cost of coverage or care. Then, even for people who happen to be in the individual marketplace, there are so many variables in terms of local market and individual health issues that comparing the cost of coverage and out of pocket expenses is close to meaningless.

Completely disagree. For someone to have posted as many times as he has in this forum, and made him self out to know more about this situation than he actually does - one would think he would AT LEAST know what his own coverage costs. Sure, many Americans obtain their coverage though an employer, and at some point they had to make a choice of which plan to take and the cost along with it. Often much or all of that cost is covered by their employer, but they still should know what that cost is.

Me personally, I pay $112 per month for a $2,250 individual deductible (HDHP) plan (I'm self employed). My wife has her coverage through her employer, and I know exactly how much that costs as at her age it may have been possible to obtain an individual policy for less than her cost, but her employer is generous and her cost is less than it would be to obtain coverage on the open market.

If someone doesn't at least know their own costs (even if it's zero) for their health coverage, they have no right to make claims about this legislation and the costs that will trickle down to millions of Americans.

It's not rational for every American to know exactly how much their healthcare plan costs, exactly how much their employer contributes, exactly how much their wife's healthcare plan costs, and exactly how much her employer contributes. These are decisions that are made once, and only revisited when a spouse changes employers or if there is a severe cost shock. Otherwise, it's irrational for each person to memorize the exact data.

And the idea that someone can't have an opinion on national legislation unless they have that data memorized is beyond stupid.

 

[tommyGunZ]

This seems silly. One has to know exactly what they are spending on health care per year, as well as exactly what their company is spending on their behalf, in order to have an opinion on national healthcare legislation?

It would give you credibility. Saying that your wife's coverage is "ever so much better than yours", but that you don't know what the costs of it is takes away any credibility you might have had in this thread. If you don't know the costs of it, how do you know it's better than yours?!

Because we spent about 20 minutes comparing the plans when I changed employers a few years ago.

ETA: I'm also in a situation where I work for a large parent company and my wife works for one of it's subsidiaries. There are quite a few folks in similar positions within the company, so I asked informally when I joined the parent and the consensus was that others similarly situated all came to the conclusion that the subsidiary was the better option.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I know it's always fun to pile on Gunz, but his scenario is the same as the vast majority of people who are covered under their, or their spouse's, employer provided coverage. One of the issues with the employer care model is that it insulates the healthcare consumer from the cost of their coverage. Sure, most people probably know how much is taken out of their paycheck or the general employee contribution, and they know their co-pays and deductibles. But none of that is the actual cost of coverage or care. Then, even for people who happen to be in the individual marketplace, there are so many variables in terms of local market and individual health issues that comparing the cost of coverage and out of pocket expenses is close to meaningless.

Completely disagree. For someone to have posted as many times as he has in this forum, and made him self out to know more about this situation than he actually does - one would think he would AT LEAST know what his own coverage costs. Sure, many Americans obtain their coverage though an employer, and at some point they had to make a choice of which plan to take and the cost along with it. Often much or all of that cost is covered by their employer, but they still should know what that cost is.

Me personally, I pay $112 per month for a $2,250 individual deductible (HDHP) plan (I'm self employed). My wife has her coverage through her employer, and I know exactly how much that costs as at her age it may have been possible to obtain an individual policy for less than her cost, but her employer is generous and her cost is less than it would be to obtain coverage on the open market.

If someone doesn't at least know their own costs (even if it's zero) for their health coverage, they have no right to make claims about this legislation and the costs that will trickle down to millions of Americans.

I was commenting more on the issue of moral hazard associated with employer provided coverage than I was about TGunz specifically. But he also happens to be 100% correct. It's a logical fallacy to dismiss someone's argument based on your perception of their expertise or credentials, just as it is a logical fallacy to point to your own credentials, or someone else who you happen to agree with, as an appeal to authority. It's pretty routine for "experts" on a given topic to put forth arguments that are based entirely on conjecture and opinion, which is fine as long as it is expressed in that way. For every "expert" opinion that says one thing on healthcare reform, you can find another "expert" saying exactly the opposite.

His statement about how much a family of four should expect to spend on healthcare might be completely wrong and entirely speculative on his part, but whether or not he knows how much is withheld from his wife's paycheck has nothing to do with that.

100% agree with the bold. I'm a perfect example of why employer sponsored coverage is a bad idea; I'm so far removed from the costs that I don't have an incentive to make educated, rational choices. If I was responsible for my own plan, I would be far more motivated to ensure that the plan I'm enrolled in gave me the best bang for the buck.

Not to mention how tying healthcare to employment has artificially constricted American workers for decades. The ACA helps, but until we see true decoupling, the inefficiencies in the labor market will remain.

 

[Foosball God]

Just because he doesn't know doesn't mean the information isn't available. It might be, it might not be, who knows. My company puts out a comprehensive benefit statement every year. Now, they don't break down the health care coverage alone but lump call health care and income protection benefits together. I haven't gotten the one for this year, but in 2012 my breakdown was as follows:

Employer Contribution: 13,944

My Contribution: 2,432

This covers the following:

Medical/Dental/Pharmacy

Vision Insurance

Life Insurance

Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance

Business Travel Insurance

Long-Term Disability Insurance

Medical alone is obviously the vast majority of this though. Probably about 90% of it.

Looking back at my 2008 statement for reference and these figures were as follows:

Employer Contribution: 10,569

My Contribution: 1671

My costs have risen 33.7% since 2008....

Looking back at my 2008 statement for reference and these figures were as follows:

Employer Contribution: 10,569

My Contribution: 1671

My costs have risen 33.7% since 2008....

That's about 8.5% per year, compounded. That's pretty typical for groups. Realize that the 8.5% increase was based (mostly) on the people in your group - not sure if they are healthy or not. Realize that future increases on ACA plans will be based on that population, ranging from young to old and healthy to sick (though I'd say leaning towards older and sicker).

And his employer went from paying roughly 87% of the total costs to roughly 85%.

 

[snogger]

The House Republicans sent their budget to the Senate this morning- without any funding for Obamacare. For months, John Boehner resisted doing this, because he knew it would only lead to a government shutdown. But the Tea Party has had its way. Fireworks about to happen.

It is a bill and the House knows it..

they are forcing the Senate to come up with their own plan, which of course won't defund ACA.. Once that happens they will be able to say "Hey we tried, but the Senate took it out and we didn't want to shutdown the country" In the Politicians mind it is a win/win ..

 

[matttyl]

I know it's always fun to pile on Gunz, but his scenario is the same as the vast majority of people who are covered under their, or their spouse's, employer provided coverage. One of the issues with the employer care model is that it insulates the healthcare consumer from the cost of their coverage. Sure, most people probably know how much is taken out of their paycheck or the general employee contribution, and they know their co-pays and deductibles. But none of that is the actual cost of coverage or care. Then, even for people who happen to be in the individual marketplace, there are so many variables in terms of local market and individual health issues that comparing the cost of coverage and out of pocket expenses is close to meaningless.

Completely disagree. For someone to have posted as many times as he has in this forum, and made him self out to know more about this situation than he actually does - one would think he would AT LEAST know what his own coverage costs. Sure, many Americans obtain their coverage though an employer, and at some point they had to make a choice of which plan to take and the cost along with it. Often much or all of that cost is covered by their employer, but they still should know what that cost is.

Me personally, I pay $112 per month for a $2,250 individual deductible (HDHP) plan (I'm self employed). My wife has her coverage through her employer, and I know exactly how much that costs as at her age it may have been possible to obtain an individual policy for less than her cost, but her employer is generous and her cost is less than it would be to obtain coverage on the open market.

If someone doesn't at least know their own costs (even if it's zero) for their health coverage, they have no right to make claims about this legislation and the costs that will trickle down to millions of Americans.

It's not rational for every American to know exactly how much their healthcare plan costs, exactly how much their employer contributes, exactly how much their wife's healthcare plan costs, and exactly how much her employer contributes. These are decisions that are made once, and only revisited when a spouse changes employers or if there is a severe cost shock. Otherwise, it's irrational for each person to memorize the exact data.

And the idea that someone can't have an opinion on national legislation unless they have that data memorized is beyond stupid.

I'm not suggesting you have to have it "memorized" by any means, but you can't simply look it up? You said you had "no idea" what is was, but you know hers is better than yours?! You can't make that statement if you don't know the cost. Sure a Ferarri is better than a Corolla....but you don't see many Ferarris driving around.

 

[matttyl]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/understanding-obamacare-bronze-silver-gold-152027179.html

A few notes from the above article which shows that even the "Affordable Care Act" isn't "affordable" at all under their own definition for many......

If you make $45,690+ as an individual, no matter your age, you will not qualify for any subsidy. The article says that even a BRONZE plan (the weakest and lowest priced plan available to anyone age 30+) would be $531 per month for a 60 year old in Indianapolis. That works out to $6,372 per year in PREMIUMS ALONE! That's 13.8% of the GROSS INCOME of a single person making $46k a year (where no subsidy is paid). I thought "affordable" was under 9.5% by the ACA's definition?! He's paying nearly 50% more than that in PREMIUMS ALONE!! I haven't even assumed the first claim!

Even a 25 year old in Vermont would pay $264 a month! That's $3,168 a year, or about 7% of a guy making that amount of money.....and he's only 25! And that's before the very first claim is made, and this Bronze plan comes with the highest deductibles and out of pocket costs (typically $4k+ in annual deductible with the $6,350 (mandated) max out of pocket). So that 25 year old breaks his leg (or fill in the blank claim) and his claim is $4k (all goes toward deductible), and his total out of pocket costs for that year were $7,168 (all before the first dollar of insurance was paid) - which is over 15% of his GROSS (before tax) INCOME. "Affordable" my butt!

As I've said all along - all these high rates will do is drive the young and healthy population OUT of the exchanges as they would rather "wing it" than pay these high premiums with high deductibles (or even higher premiums with somewhat lower deductibles as I was only looking at the weakest Bronze plan above). This will lead to an older and sicker population IN the exchanges, which will lead to even higher annual increases than we currently see today. Right now we see ~10% year to year increases in health insurance premiums (some see higher, some lower, this is a good ballpark of the average), and that's calculated on the total population which has health insurance today which we can assume is on average younger and healthier than the population that doesn't have health insurance today. What do you think the annual % increase will be in future years when it's based on an older and sicker population?! What will happen to all those 60 year olds paying $531 and those 25 year olds who paid $264 a month when next year they get a 12% increase, or 15% increase, or higher?! The healthy ones will jump ship - and the ones who didn't have insurance who had something come up in their health will jump in to replace them, further accelerating the "death spiral".

Do you think that a 2% "tax" will be enough to keep these folks in the pool (2% of $50k is only $1,000 - this "insurance" is already over 3x that for a 25 year old!!).

Any comment on this? Anyone? Is this "affordable"?

 

[tommyGunZ]

I know it's always fun to pile on Gunz, but his scenario is the same as the vast majority of people who are covered under their, or their spouse's, employer provided coverage. One of the issues with the employer care model is that it insulates the healthcare consumer from the cost of their coverage. Sure, most people probably know how much is taken out of their paycheck or the general employee contribution, and they know their co-pays and deductibles. But none of that is the actual cost of coverage or care. Then, even for people who happen to be in the individual marketplace, there are so many variables in terms of local market and individual health issues that comparing the cost of coverage and out of pocket expenses is close to meaningless.

Completely disagree. For someone to have posted as many times as he has in this forum, and made him self out to know more about this situation than he actually does - one would think he would AT LEAST know what his own coverage costs. Sure, many Americans obtain their coverage though an employer, and at some point they had to make a choice of which plan to take and the cost along with it. Often much or all of that cost is covered by their employer, but they still should know what that cost is.

Me personally, I pay $112 per month for a $2,250 individual deductible (HDHP) plan (I'm self employed). My wife has her coverage through her employer, and I know exactly how much that costs as at her age it may have been possible to obtain an individual policy for less than her cost, but her employer is generous and her cost is less than it would be to obtain coverage on the open market.

If someone doesn't at least know their own costs (even if it's zero) for their health coverage, they have no right to make claims about this legislation and the costs that will trickle down to millions of Americans.

It's not rational for every American to know exactly how much their healthcare plan costs, exactly how much their employer contributes, exactly how much their wife's healthcare plan costs, and exactly how much her employer contributes. These are decisions that are made once, and only revisited when a spouse changes employers or if there is a severe cost shock. Otherwise, it's irrational for each person to memorize the exact data.

And the idea that someone can't have an opinion on national legislation unless they have that data memorized is beyond stupid.

I'm not suggesting you have to have it "memorized" by any means, but you can't simply look it up? You said you had "no idea" what is was, but you know hers is better than yours?! You can't make that statement if you don't know the cost. Sure a Ferarri is better than a Corolla....but you don't see many Ferarris driving around.

Again, my wife and I did the analysis a couple years ago, and our choice was validated when I asked other folks in my company who have spouses working within the umbrella and the consensus was that our choice was correct. Since then, I haven't thought about it.

But according to you, since I don't know the actuals, I can't comment on national healthcare legislation.

 

[tommyGunZ]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/understanding-obamacare-bronze-silver-gold-152027179.html

A few notes from the above article which shows that even the "Affordable Care Act" isn't "affordable" at all under their own definition for many......

If you make $45,690+ as an individual, no matter your age, you will not qualify for any subsidy. The article says that even a BRONZE plan (the weakest and lowest priced plan available to anyone age 30+) would be $531 per month for a 60 year old in Indianapolis. That works out to $6,372 per year in PREMIUMS ALONE! That's 13.8% of the GROSS INCOME of a single person making $46k a year (where no subsidy is paid). I thought "affordable" was under 9.5% by the ACA's definition?! He's paying nearly 50% more than that in PREMIUMS ALONE!! I haven't even assumed the first claim!

Even a 25 year old in Vermont would pay $264 a month! That's $3,168 a year, or about 7% of a guy making that amount of money.....and he's only 25! And that's before the very first claim is made, and this Bronze plan comes with the highest deductibles and out of pocket costs (typically $4k+ in annual deductible with the $6,350 (mandated) max out of pocket). So that 25 year old breaks his leg (or fill in the blank claim) and his claim is $4k (all goes toward deductible), and his total out of pocket costs for that year were $7,168 (all before the first dollar of insurance was paid) - which is over 15% of his GROSS (before tax) INCOME. "Affordable" my butt!

As I've said all along - all these high rates will do is drive the young and healthy population OUT of the exchanges as they would rather "wing it" than pay these high premiums with high deductibles (or even higher premiums with somewhat lower deductibles as I was only looking at the weakest Bronze plan above). This will lead to an older and sicker population IN the exchanges, which will lead to even higher annual increases than we currently see today. Right now we see ~10% year to year increases in health insurance premiums (some see higher, some lower, this is a good ballpark of the average), and that's calculated on the total population which has health insurance today which we can assume is on average younger and healthier than the population that doesn't have health insurance today. What do you think the annual % increase will be in future years when it's based on an older and sicker population?! What will happen to all those 60 year olds paying $531 and those 25 year olds who paid $264 a month when next year they get a 12% increase, or 15% increase, or higher?! The healthy ones will jump ship - and the ones who didn't have insurance who had something come up in their health will jump in to replace them, further accelerating the "death spiral".

Do you think that a 2% "tax" will be enough to keep these folks in the pool (2% of $50k is only $1,000 - this "insurance" is already over 3x that for a 25 year old!!).

Any comment on this? Anyone? Is this "affordable"?

Where is this from? I read the linked article, but didn't see the passages quoted above.

ETA: Are you cutting and posting verbage from the "comments" section?

 

[matttyl]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/understanding-obamacare-bronze-silver-gold-152027179.html

A few notes from the above article which shows that even the "Affordable Care Act" isn't "affordable" at all under their own definition for many......

If you make $45,690+ as an individual, no matter your age, you will not qualify for any subsidy. The article says that even a BRONZE plan (the weakest and lowest priced plan available to anyone age 30+) would be $531 per month for a 60 year old in Indianapolis. That works out to $6,372 per year in PREMIUMS ALONE! That's 13.8% of the GROSS INCOME of a single person making $46k a year (where no subsidy is paid). I thought "affordable" was under 9.5% by the ACA's definition?! He's paying nearly 50% more than that in PREMIUMS ALONE!! I haven't even assumed the first claim!

Even a 25 year old in Vermont would pay $264 a month! That's $3,168 a year, or about 7% of a guy making that amount of money.....and he's only 25! And that's before the very first claim is made, and this Bronze plan comes with the highest deductibles and out of pocket costs (typically $4k+ in annual deductible with the $6,350 (mandated) max out of pocket). So that 25 year old breaks his leg (or fill in the blank claim) and his claim is $4k (all goes toward deductible), and his total out of pocket costs for that year were $7,168 (all before the first dollar of insurance was paid) - which is over 15% of his GROSS (before tax) INCOME. "Affordable" my butt!

As I've said all along - all these high rates will do is drive the young and healthy population OUT of the exchanges as they would rather "wing it" than pay these high premiums with high deductibles (or even higher premiums with somewhat lower deductibles as I was only looking at the weakest Bronze plan above). This will lead to an older and sicker population IN the exchanges, which will lead to even higher annual increases than we currently see today. Right now we see ~10% year to year increases in health insurance premiums (some see higher, some lower, this is a good ballpark of the average), and that's calculated on the total population which has health insurance today which we can assume is on average younger and healthier than the population that doesn't have health insurance today. What do you think the annual % increase will be in future years when it's based on an older and sicker population?! What will happen to all those 60 year olds paying $531 and those 25 year olds who paid $264 a month when next year they get a 12% increase, or 15% increase, or higher?! The healthy ones will jump ship - and the ones who didn't have insurance who had something come up in their health will jump in to replace them, further accelerating the "death spiral".

Do you think that a 2% "tax" will be enough to keep these folks in the pool (2% of $50k is only $1,000 - this "insurance" is already over 3x that for a 25 year old!!).

Any comment on this? Anyone? Is this "affordable"?

Where is this from? I read the linked article, but didn't see the passages quoted above.

ETA: Are you cutting and posting verbage from the "comments" section?

No. I only "quoted" the prices they listed in the article, for the 25 year old and for the 60 year old. The rest is common sense. We know who will and who won't get a subsidy, we know roughly what the deductibles for each metal level plan will be. I'm just taking things to their logical conclusion.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/understanding-obamacare-bronze-silver-gold-152027179.html

A few notes from the above article which shows that even the "Affordable Care Act" isn't "affordable" at all under their own definition for many......

If you make $45,690+ as an individual, no matter your age, you will not qualify for any subsidy. The article says that even a BRONZE plan (the weakest and lowest priced plan available to anyone age 30+) would be $531 per month for a 60 year old in Indianapolis. That works out to $6,372 per year in PREMIUMS ALONE! That's 13.8% of the GROSS INCOME of a single person making $46k a year (where no subsidy is paid). I thought "affordable" was under 9.5% by the ACA's definition?! He's paying nearly 50% more than that in PREMIUMS ALONE!! I haven't even assumed the first claim!

Even a 25 year old in Vermont would pay $264 a month! That's $3,168 a year, or about 7% of a guy making that amount of money.....and he's only 25! And that's before the very first claim is made, and this Bronze plan comes with the highest deductibles and out of pocket costs (typically $4k+ in annual deductible with the $6,350 (mandated) max out of pocket). So that 25 year old breaks his leg (or fill in the blank claim) and his claim is $4k (all goes toward deductible), and his total out of pocket costs for that year were $7,168 (all before the first dollar of insurance was paid) - which is over 15% of his GROSS (before tax) INCOME. "Affordable" my butt!

As I've said all along - all these high rates will do is drive the young and healthy population OUT of the exchanges as they would rather "wing it" than pay these high premiums with high deductibles (or even higher premiums with somewhat lower deductibles as I was only looking at the weakest Bronze plan above). This will lead to an older and sicker population IN the exchanges, which will lead to even higher annual increases than we currently see today. Right now we see ~10% year to year increases in health insurance premiums (some see higher, some lower, this is a good ballpark of the average), and that's calculated on the total population which has health insurance today which we can assume is on average younger and healthier than the population that doesn't have health insurance today. What do you think the annual % increase will be in future years when it's based on an older and sicker population?! What will happen to all those 60 year olds paying $531 and those 25 year olds who paid $264 a month when next year they get a 12% increase, or 15% increase, or higher?! The healthy ones will jump ship - and the ones who didn't have insurance who had something come up in their health will jump in to replace them, further accelerating the "death spiral".

Do you think that a 2% "tax" will be enough to keep these folks in the pool (2% of $50k is only $1,000 - this "insurance" is already over 3x that for a 25 year old!!).

Any comment on this? Anyone? Is this "affordable"?

What would a 60 yo in Indianapolis pay now? Or the 25 yo in Vermont? How much do they use preventative services that will not cost out of pocket now, compared to how they were covered previously? Do either of them have pre-existing conditions? How about people below 400% of the poverty line who don't qualify for Medicaid? Or someone making 150K a year who's wife or children have pre-existing conditions?

I think the best answer to the question is that some people will pay more, and some people will pay less. Some people who couldn't get coverage previously will be able to get it. Based on experiences in the states some people may opt out and pay a fine, most others probably won't. There aren't many absolutes here. Will healthcare suddenly be universally "affordable"? Obviously not, but hasn't been since the advent of what we'd consider modern medicine in the early 20th century. Will it generally be affordable to more people? I don't think anyone can answer that yet. I think it's fair to say it will be more accessible, but the long term cost outlooks are TBD with some evidence of trending in the right direction.

 

[Foosball God]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/understanding-obamacare-bronze-silver-gold-152027179.html

A few notes from the above article which shows that even the "Affordable Care Act" isn't "affordable" at all under their own definition for many......

If you make $45,690+ as an individual, no matter your age, you will not qualify for any subsidy. The article says that even a BRONZE plan (the weakest and lowest priced plan available to anyone age 30+) would be $531 per month for a 60 year old in Indianapolis. That works out to $6,372 per year in PREMIUMS ALONE! That's 13.8% of the GROSS INCOME of a single person making $46k a year (where no subsidy is paid). I thought "affordable" was under 9.5% by the ACA's definition?! He's paying nearly 50% more than that in PREMIUMS ALONE!! I haven't even assumed the first claim!

Even a 25 year old in Vermont would pay $264 a month! That's $3,168 a year, or about 7% of a guy making that amount of money.....and he's only 25! And that's before the very first claim is made, and this Bronze plan comes with the highest deductibles and out of pocket costs (typically $4k+ in annual deductible with the $6,350 (mandated) max out of pocket). So that 25 year old breaks his leg (or fill in the blank claim) and his claim is $4k (all goes toward deductible), and his total out of pocket costs for that year were $7,168 (all before the first dollar of insurance was paid) - which is over 15% of his GROSS (before tax) INCOME. "Affordable" my butt!

As I've said all along - all these high rates will do is drive the young and healthy population OUT of the exchanges as they would rather "wing it" than pay these high premiums with high deductibles (or even higher premiums with somewhat lower deductibles as I was only looking at the weakest Bronze plan above). This will lead to an older and sicker population IN the exchanges, which will lead to even higher annual increases than we currently see today. Right now we see ~10% year to year increases in health insurance premiums (some see higher, some lower, this is a good ballpark of the average), and that's calculated on the total population which has health insurance today which we can assume is on average younger and healthier than the population that doesn't have health insurance today. What do you think the annual % increase will be in future years when it's based on an older and sicker population?! What will happen to all those 60 year olds paying $531 and those 25 year olds who paid $264 a month when next year they get a 12% increase, or 15% increase, or higher?! The healthy ones will jump ship - and the ones who didn't have insurance who had something come up in their health will jump in to replace them, further accelerating the "death spiral".

Do you think that a 2% "tax" will be enough to keep these folks in the pool (2% of $50k is only $1,000 - this "insurance" is already over 3x that for a 25 year old!!).

Any comment on this? Anyone? Is this "affordable"?

Where is this from? I read the linked article, but didn't see the passages quoted above.

ETA: Are you cutting and posting verbage from the "comments" section?

No. I only "quoted" the prices they listed in the article, for the 25 year old and for the 60 year old. The rest is common sense. We know who will and who won't get a subsidy, we know roughly what the deductibles for each metal level plan will be. I'm just taking things to their logical conclusion.

And the prices they list in the article, how did they come up with them? Was that the lowest? The highest? The average of all Issuers in that rating area? I'm not sure how they can pluck a rate out of the air like that?

 

[Sand]

Walgreens dumps 180,000 workers' health plans. Oof.

They are still going to subsidize it. Their employees just pick plans out of an exchange. Employees could wind up paying more or less depending on what they select.

The subsidy was talked about in the article. But make no mistake - this is a downgrade to the healthcare costs for the employees. They will pay more as Walgreens has decided to save money by doing this. This also puts Walgreens in a spot where their liability for healthcare is a known amount and easy to manipulate in future years.

 

[matttyl]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/understanding-obamacare-bronze-silver-gold-152027179.html

A few notes from the above article which shows that even the "Affordable Care Act" isn't "affordable" at all under their own definition for many......

If you make $45,690+ as an individual, no matter your age, you will not qualify for any subsidy. The article says that even a BRONZE plan (the weakest and lowest priced plan available to anyone age 30+) would be $531 per month for a 60 year old in Indianapolis. That works out to $6,372 per year in PREMIUMS ALONE! That's 13.8% of the GROSS INCOME of a single person making $46k a year (where no subsidy is paid). I thought "affordable" was under 9.5% by the ACA's definition?! He's paying nearly 50% more than that in PREMIUMS ALONE!! I haven't even assumed the first claim!

Even a 25 year old in Vermont would pay $264 a month! That's $3,168 a year, or about 7% of a guy making that amount of money.....and he's only 25! And that's before the very first claim is made, and this Bronze plan comes with the highest deductibles and out of pocket costs (typically $4k+ in annual deductible with the $6,350 (mandated) max out of pocket). So that 25 year old breaks his leg (or fill in the blank claim) and his claim is $4k (all goes toward deductible), and his total out of pocket costs for that year were $7,168 (all before the first dollar of insurance was paid) - which is over 15% of his GROSS (before tax) INCOME. "Affordable" my butt!

As I've said all along - all these high rates will do is drive the young and healthy population OUT of the exchanges as they would rather "wing it" than pay these high premiums with high deductibles (or even higher premiums with somewhat lower deductibles as I was only looking at the weakest Bronze plan above). This will lead to an older and sicker population IN the exchanges, which will lead to even higher annual increases than we currently see today. Right now we see ~10% year to year increases in health insurance premiums (some see higher, some lower, this is a good ballpark of the average), and that's calculated on the total population which has health insurance today which we can assume is on average younger and healthier than the population that doesn't have health insurance today. What do you think the annual % increase will be in future years when it's based on an older and sicker population?! What will happen to all those 60 year olds paying $531 and those 25 year olds who paid $264 a month when next year they get a 12% increase, or 15% increase, or higher?! The healthy ones will jump ship - and the ones who didn't have insurance who had something come up in their health will jump in to replace them, further accelerating the "death spiral".

Do you think that a 2% "tax" will be enough to keep these folks in the pool (2% of $50k is only $1,000 - this "insurance" is already over 3x that for a 25 year old!!).

Any comment on this? Anyone? Is this "affordable"?

Where is this from? I read the linked article, but didn't see the passages quoted above.

ETA: Are you cutting and posting verbage from the "comments" section?

No. I only "quoted" the prices they listed in the article, for the 25 year old and for the 60 year old. The rest is common sense. We know who will and who won't get a subsidy, we know roughly what the deductibles for each metal level plan will be. I'm just taking things to their logical conclusion.

And the prices they list in the article, how did they come up with them? Was that the lowest? The highest? The average of all Issuers in that rating area? I'm not sure how they can pluck a rate out of the air like that?

Some states have already released their rates, these are some of those.

 

[Foosball God]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/understanding-obamacare-bronze-silver-gold-152027179.html

A few notes from the above article which shows that even the "Affordable Care Act" isn't "affordable" at all under their own definition for many......

If you make $45,690+ as an individual, no matter your age, you will not qualify for any subsidy. The article says that even a BRONZE plan (the weakest and lowest priced plan available to anyone age 30+) would be $531 per month for a 60 year old in Indianapolis. That works out to $6,372 per year in PREMIUMS ALONE! That's 13.8% of the GROSS INCOME of a single person making $46k a year (where no subsidy is paid). I thought "affordable" was under 9.5% by the ACA's definition?! He's paying nearly 50% more than that in PREMIUMS ALONE!! I haven't even assumed the first claim!

Even a 25 year old in Vermont would pay $264 a month! That's $3,168 a year, or about 7% of a guy making that amount of money.....and he's only 25! And that's before the very first claim is made, and this Bronze plan comes with the highest deductibles and out of pocket costs (typically $4k+ in annual deductible with the $6,350 (mandated) max out of pocket). So that 25 year old breaks his leg (or fill in the blank claim) and his claim is $4k (all goes toward deductible), and his total out of pocket costs for that year were $7,168 (all before the first dollar of insurance was paid) - which is over 15% of his GROSS (before tax) INCOME. "Affordable" my butt!

As I've said all along - all these high rates will do is drive the young and healthy population OUT of the exchanges as they would rather "wing it" than pay these high premiums with high deductibles (or even higher premiums with somewhat lower deductibles as I was only looking at the weakest Bronze plan above). This will lead to an older and sicker population IN the exchanges, which will lead to even higher annual increases than we currently see today. Right now we see ~10% year to year increases in health insurance premiums (some see higher, some lower, this is a good ballpark of the average), and that's calculated on the total population which has health insurance today which we can assume is on average younger and healthier than the population that doesn't have health insurance today. What do you think the annual % increase will be in future years when it's based on an older and sicker population?! What will happen to all those 60 year olds paying $531 and those 25 year olds who paid $264 a month when next year they get a 12% increase, or 15% increase, or higher?! The healthy ones will jump ship - and the ones who didn't have insurance who had something come up in their health will jump in to replace them, further accelerating the "death spiral".

Do you think that a 2% "tax" will be enough to keep these folks in the pool (2% of $50k is only $1,000 - this "insurance" is already over 3x that for a 25 year old!!).

Any comment on this? Anyone? Is this "affordable"?

Where is this from? I read the linked article, but didn't see the passages quoted above.

ETA: Are you cutting and posting verbage from the "comments" section?

No. I only "quoted" the prices they listed in the article, for the 25 year old and for the 60 year old. The rest is common sense. We know who will and who won't get a subsidy, we know roughly what the deductibles for each metal level plan will be. I'm just taking things to their logical conclusion.

And the prices they list in the article, how did they come up with them? Was that the lowest? The highest? The average of all Issuers in that rating area? I'm not sure how they can pluck a rate out of the air like that?

Some states have already released their rates, these are some of those.

There isn't one rate for the State though. Each Issuer has determined their own rates, based off age, rating area, and a few other factors. Just wondering what that premium is supposed to signify.

 

[matttyl]

What would a 60 yo in Indianapolis pay now? Or the 25 yo in Vermont? How much do they use preventative services that will not cost out of pocket now, compared to how they were covered previously? Do either of them have pre-existing conditions? How about people below 400% of the poverty line who don't qualify for Medicaid? Or someone making 150K a year who's wife or children have pre-existing conditions?

I think the best answer to the question is that some people will pay more, and some people will pay less. Some people who couldn't get coverage previously will be able to get it. Based on experiences in the states some people may opt out and pay a fine, most others probably won't. There aren't many absolutes here. Will healthcare suddenly be universally "affordable"? Obviously not, but hasn't been since the advent of what we'd consider modern medicine in the early 20th century. Will it generally be affordable to more people? I don't think anyone can answer that yet. I think it's fair to say it will be more accessible, but the long term cost outlooks are TBD with some evidence of trending in the right direction.

Obviously it's different for each person, but I'd say the VAST MAJORITY of 25 year olds in Vermont can currently get coverage with a lower than $4k deductible for less than $264 per month. That's ludicrous!! Remember, the quoted rates are just for the BRONZE, or weakest plan offered (other than catastrophic would would have higher OOP). What if the 25 year old wanted coverage more similar to the $1k deductible that he has now (and can just afford)? Well that will be much higher than the $264 per month, as that's a stronger plan (likely Gold or Platinum). Well, he can't afford that, so many will pay more and get less.

Most 60 year olds, assuming reasonably healthy, could currently get coverage with a lower than $4k deductible for less than $531 a month. Remember, most people don't have a pre-existing condition that would preclude them from being able to obtain coverage, so this will hurt the majority of people. Also the vast majority of coverage today comes with a deductible much lower than $4k per person.

You tell me, is it fair to charge 50 people more so that 1 can pay less? Or to give 50 people lesser coverage because it's all they can afford so that the 1 person can obtain coverage they can afford? I'm not saying those are the exact numbers, but if they were - would that be fair or the proper thing to do? Hypothetically speaking.

 

[matttyl]

There isn't one rate for the State though. Each Issuer has determined their own rates, based off age, rating area, and a few other factors. Just wondering what that premium is supposed to signify.

As far as I know, those are the only factors, aside from if you smoke or not. Smokers would pay 50% more than what was quoted, making their % of income absolutely insane. And what do you mean "what that premium is suppose to signify"? The premiums quoted in the article are the rates for Bronze levels of coverages for people of those ages in those states. Those are quotes for the lowest level of coverage available (the highest deductibles and out of pockets allowed).

 

[Foosball God]

There isn't one rate for the State though. Each Issuer has determined their own rates, based off age, rating area, and a few other factors. Just wondering what that premium is supposed to signify.

As far as I know, those are the only factors, aside from if you smoke or not. Smokers would pay up to 50% more than what was quoted, making their % of income absolutely insane. And what do you mean "what that premium is suppose to signify"? The premiums quoted in the article are the rates for Bronze levels of coverages for people of those ages in those states. Those are quotes for the lowest level of coverage available (the highest deductibles and out of pockets allowed).

FYP.

And what I'm saying is that if they pulled a specific premium for those ages how did they decide which Issuer to pull the rate for? All Issuers are not charging all consumers the same rate. Did they pick one Issuer at random? Did they pick the lowest cost bronze plan they could find for that subscriber? Was it an average of all Issuers that offer coverage to a 60 year old in Indianapolis? There is no context there.

 

[tommyGunZ]

There isn't one rate for the State though. Each Issuer has determined their own rates, based off age, rating area, and a few other factors. Just wondering what that premium is supposed to signify.

As far as I know, those are the only factors, aside from if you smoke or not. Smokers would pay up to 50% more than what was quoted, making their % of income absolutely insane. And what do you mean "what that premium is suppose to signify"? The premiums quoted in the article are the rates for Bronze levels of coverages for people of those ages in those states. Those are quotes for the lowest level of coverage available (the highest deductibles and out of pockets allowed).

FYP.

And what I'm saying is that if they pulled a specific premium for those ages how did they decide which Issuer to pull the rate for? All Issuers are not charging all consumers the same rate. Did they pick one Issuer at random? Did they pick the lowest cost bronze plan they could find for that subscriber? Was it an average of all Issuers that offer coverage to a 60 year old in Indianapolis? There is no context there.

Exactly. Just more fear mongering from matttyl

Indiana has not released data on metal-level premiums, although some information can be gleaned from looking through the rate filings submitted by insurers (endless thanks to Sarah Lueck at the Center for Budget Priorities and Policy for showing me how to access said filings).

Anthem's rate filing includes projections for health insurance costs in their bronze plans. A 47-year-old male who does not smoke would be charged, on average, $307 per month. Sample plans from another plan, MDWise, predict a 47-year-old man will be charged $294 and $391 for a bronze and silver plan, respectively.

 

[matttyl]

There isn't one rate for the State though. Each Issuer has determined their own rates, based off age, rating area, and a few other factors. Just wondering what that premium is supposed to signify.

As far as I know, those are the only factors, aside from if you smoke or not. Smokers would pay up to 50% more than what was quoted, making their % of income absolutely insane. And what do you mean "what that premium is suppose to signify"? The premiums quoted in the article are the rates for Bronze levels of coverages for people of those ages in those states. Those are quotes for the lowest level of coverage available (the highest deductibles and out of pockets allowed).

FYP.

And what I'm saying is that if they pulled a specific premium for those ages how did they decide which Issuer to pull the rate for? All Issuers are not charging all consumers the same rate. Did they pick one Issuer at random? Did they pick the lowest cost bronze plan they could find for that subscriber? Was it an average of all Issuers that offer coverage to a 60 year old in Indianapolis? There is no context there.

If it were the highest or the lowest or the average, it would honestly be about the same from the things that I've seen....and that makes sense.

Not to get too technical, but all "bronze plans" have to have an "actuarial value" between 58-62. All "silver plans" have to be between 68-72. All "gold plans have to be between 78-82. So, pretty much all "bronze" plans are "apples to apples" with the biggest differences being with the networks each carrier uses. Because of this, insurers generally price their plans very close to each other as they obviously wouldn't get any business if their bronze plan was that much higher than everyone else.

They didn't list in the article exactly where the prices came from that they used, but they are about the amounts that I've seen various places. The majority of people need to be ready to pay more (unless they are getting a subsidy, which just means that others are paying it for them).

 

[Foosball God]

I haven't looked at all the data we collected because I don't have a need to, so I'm not going to say whether the rates are good, bad, or ugly yet. But when these articles pull a rate out of the air and declare that it is what a person would pay I'm always very skeptical of their motives (For or against Obamacare) because they generally give no context whatsoever on what that premium really represents.

 

[Foosball God]

There isn't one rate for the State though. Each Issuer has determined their own rates, based off age, rating area, and a few other factors. Just wondering what that premium is supposed to signify.

As far as I know, those are the only factors, aside from if you smoke or not. Smokers would pay up to 50% more than what was quoted, making their % of income absolutely insane. And what do you mean "what that premium is suppose to signify"? The premiums quoted in the article are the rates for Bronze levels of coverages for people of those ages in those states. Those are quotes for the lowest level of coverage available (the highest deductibles and out of pockets allowed).

FYP.

And what I'm saying is that if they pulled a specific premium for those ages how did they decide which Issuer to pull the rate for? All Issuers are not charging all consumers the same rate. Did they pick one Issuer at random? Did they pick the lowest cost bronze plan they could find for that subscriber? Was it an average of all Issuers that offer coverage to a 60 year old in Indianapolis? There is no context there.

If it were the highest or the lowest or the average, it would honestly be about the same from the things that I've seen....and that makes sense.

Not to get too technical, but all "bronze plans" have to have an "actuarial value" between 58-62. All "silver plans" have to be between 68-72. All "gold plans have to be between 78-82. So, pretty much all "bronze" plans are "apples to apples" with the biggest differences being with the networks each carrier uses. Because of this, insurers generally price their plans very close to each other as they obviously wouldn't get any business if their bronze plan was that much higher than everyone else.

They didn't list in the article exactly where the prices came from that they used, but they are about the amounts that I've seen various places. The majority of people need to be ready to pay more (unless they are getting a subsidy, which just means that others are paying it for them).

The AV doesn't really have anything to do with the premium rate. The AV is determined by multiple things like the coinsurance amount, maximum out of pocket, etc. Those things are independent from the premium itself.

 

[matttyl]

There isn't one rate for the State though. Each Issuer has determined their own rates, based off age, rating area, and a few other factors. Just wondering what that premium is supposed to signify.

As far as I know, those are the only factors, aside from if you smoke or not. Smokers would pay up to 50% more than what was quoted, making their % of income absolutely insane. And what do you mean "what that premium is suppose to signify"? The premiums quoted in the article are the rates for Bronze levels of coverages for people of those ages in those states. Those are quotes for the lowest level of coverage available (the highest deductibles and out of pockets allowed).

FYP.

And what I'm saying is that if they pulled a specific premium for those ages how did they decide which Issuer to pull the rate for? All Issuers are not charging all consumers the same rate. Did they pick one Issuer at random? Did they pick the lowest cost bronze plan they could find for that subscriber? Was it an average of all Issuers that offer coverage to a 60 year old in Indianapolis? There is no context there.

Exactly. Just more fear mongering from matttyl

Indiana has not released data on metal-level premiums, although some information can be gleaned from looking through the rate filings submitted by insurers (endless thanks to Sarah Lueck at the Center for Budget Priorities and Policy for showing me how to access said filings).

Anthem's rate filing includes projections for health insurance costs in their bronze plans. A 47-year-old male who does not smoke would be charged, on average, $307 per month. Sample plans from another plan, MDWise, predict a 47-year-old man will be charged $294 and $391 for a bronze and silver plan, respectively.

Thanks, those numbers fall RIGHT IN LINE with what I posted.

First off, you can see that one company charges $307 and another charges $294 - both for the bronze plan. Note my "apples to apples" comparison above - plans will be similarly priced for the same metal level across different carriers.

Secondly, ~$300 per month for a 47 year and and ~$530 a month for a 60 year old is about right when looking at the 3:1 maximum age band differential that will be implemented. Also, the $530 was for "Indianapolis" while the $300 may be for a lowered priced area in the same state (not everyone in the same state will pay the same amount for the same plan).

 

[the moops]

If those numbers are true, VT is really screwing people.

Here in MN, a 25 year old making more than 45,000 can get a catastrophic plan for $77. A Platinum plan is only $151.

 

[matttyl]

The AV doesn't really have anything to do with the premium rate. The AV is determined by multiple things like the coinsurance amount, maximum out of pocket, etc. Those things are independent from the premium itself.

Seriously?! You have to realize that the higher than AV the higher than premium. A higher deductible will give you a lower AV and thus a lower premium.

Again, the premium quoted was for a person of a certain age in a certain state (or area) for a Bronze level plan. That's the lowest priced option available, and comes with the highest deductibles and OOPs (the lowest AV).

EDIT - Sorry, was typing too fast and didn't reread.

 

[Foosball God]

The AV doesn't really have anything to do with the premium rate. The AV is determined by multiple things like the coinsurance amount, maximum out of pocket, etc. Those things are independent from the premium itself.

Seriously?! You have to realize that the higher than AV the higher than premium. A lower deductible will give you a lower AV and thus a lower premium.

Again, the premium quoted was for a person of a certain age in a certain state (or area) for a Bronze level plan. That's the lowest priced option available, and comes with the highest deductibles and OOPs (the lowest AV).

A lower deductible generally results in a higher premium, not a lower one. But that is irrelevant to the AV. When determining AV the premium rate is not a consideration whatsoever. The AV is calculated strictly from the benefits template that Issuers provided. It does not look at the rate templates at all.

 

[matttyl]

If those numbers are true, VT is really screwing people.

Here in MN, a 25 year old making more than 45,000 can get a catastrophic plan for $77. A Platinum plan is only $151.

That's much better, but honestly that seems very low on the platinum plan.....very, very low.

The reason I say that is again with the maximum of a 3 to 1 ratio of the rate for the highest age to that of the lowest age. If the 25 year old can get this best possible coverage for $151 per month, that means that the MOST a 64 year old can be charged for that plan is $453 per month. No insurance company will be making money on that. They better hope that every single possible 25 year old enrolls in this platinum plan and pays in $151 a month and doesn't have a claim. Otherwise that premium will skyrocket.

 

[matttyl]

The AV doesn't really have anything to do with the premium rate. The AV is determined by multiple things like the coinsurance amount, maximum out of pocket, etc. Those things are independent from the premium itself.

Seriously?! You have to realize that the higher than AV the higher than premium. A lower deductible will give you a lower AV and thus a lower premium.

Again, the premium quoted was for a person of a certain age in a certain state (or area) for a Bronze level plan. That's the lowest priced option available, and comes with the highest deductibles and OOPs (the lowest AV).

A lower deductible generally results in a higher premium, not a lower one. But that is irrelevant to the AV. When determining AV the premium rate is not a consideration whatsoever. The AV is calculated strictly from the benefits template that Issuers provided. It does not look at the rate templates at all.

Sorry, I was typing too fast above and didn't proof read, and I have corrected it.

I understand that cost doesn't come into play when figuring the AV. I'm saying that the lower the AV, the weaker the plan and thus the lower the premium. The Bronze plans have the lowest AVs, and thus the lowest premiums. Had the article quoted silver or (gulp) Gold/Platinum plans (which may be closer to the plans many of those people enjoy today), the premiums would be far higher.

Most people need to be prepared to pay much, much more.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The AV doesn't really have anything to do with the premium rate. The AV is determined by multiple things like the coinsurance amount, maximum out of pocket, etc. Those things are independent from the premium itself.

Seriously?! You have to realize that the higher than AV the higher than premium. A lower deductible will give you a lower AV and thus a lower premium.

Again, the premium quoted was for a person of a certain age in a certain state (or area) for a Bronze level plan. That's the lowest priced option available, and comes with the highest deductibles and OOPs (the lowest AV).

You've looked at all of the filings for all of the insurers participating in Indiana?

Also, Indiana elected not to participate in the state/regional exchange program or partner with the federal gov't. Early data is suggesting (not surprisingly) that states who are embracing the exchanges and working to set up efficient and cost effective systems are experiencing lower average premiums. Conversely, states like Indiana who are fighting Obamacare and doing nothing to help implement such exchanges (Indiana literally didn't even submit an exchange blueprint) are initially quoting higher rates.

 

[matttyl]

The AV doesn't really have anything to do with the premium rate. The AV is determined by multiple things like the coinsurance amount, maximum out of pocket, etc. Those things are independent from the premium itself.

Seriously?! You have to realize that the higher than AV the higher than premium. A lower deductible will give you a lower AV and thus a lower premium.

Again, the premium quoted was for a person of a certain age in a certain state (or area) for a Bronze level plan. That's the lowest priced option available, and comes with the highest deductibles and OOPs (the lowest AV).

You've looked at all of the filings for all of the insurers participating in Indiana?

Also, Indiana elected not to participate in the state/regional exchange program or partner with the federal gov't. Early data is suggesting (not surprisingly) that states who are embracing the exchanges and working to set up efficient and cost effective systems are experiencing lower average premiums. Conversely, states like Indiana who are fighting Obamacare and doing nothing to help implement such exchanges (Indiana literally didn't even submit an exchange blueprint) are initially quoting higher rates.

Of course I haven't, none of us have. Why would it matter? The prices are what they are. People in Vermont and Indiana (and many other states) are about to get hosed, and they have no recourse.

 

[Foosball God]

The AV doesn't really have anything to do with the premium rate. The AV is determined by multiple things like the coinsurance amount, maximum out of pocket, etc. Those things are independent from the premium itself.

Seriously?! You have to realize that the higher than AV the higher than premium. A lower deductible will give you a lower AV and thus a lower premium.

Again, the premium quoted was for a person of a certain age in a certain state (or area) for a Bronze level plan. That's the lowest priced option available, and comes with the highest deductibles and OOPs (the lowest AV).

You've looked at all of the filings for all of the insurers participating in Indiana?

Also, Indiana elected not to participate in the state/regional exchange program or partner with the federal gov't. Early data is suggesting (not surprisingly) that states who are embracing the exchanges and working to set up efficient and cost effective systems are experiencing lower average premiums. Conversely, states like Indiana who are fighting Obamacare and doing nothing to help implement such exchanges (Indiana literally didn't even submit an exchange blueprint) are initially quoting higher rates.

That really doesn't have anything to do with what the premium rates are. It being a State Based Marketplace vs. a Federally Facilitated, or State Partnership Marketplace has no impact on the premiums.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The AV doesn't really have anything to do with the premium rate. The AV is determined by multiple things like the coinsurance amount, maximum out of pocket, etc. Those things are independent from the premium itself.

Seriously?! You have to realize that the higher than AV the higher than premium. A lower deductible will give you a lower AV and thus a lower premium.

Again, the premium quoted was for a person of a certain age in a certain state (or area) for a Bronze level plan. That's the lowest priced option available, and comes with the highest deductibles and OOPs (the lowest AV).

You've looked at all of the filings for all of the insurers participating in Indiana?

Also, Indiana elected not to participate in the state/regional exchange program or partner with the federal gov't. Early data is suggesting (not surprisingly) that states who are embracing the exchanges and working to set up efficient and cost effective systems are experiencing lower average premiums. Conversely, states like Indiana who are fighting Obamacare and doing nothing to help implement such exchanges (Indiana literally didn't even submit an exchange blueprint) are initially quoting higher rates.

That really doesn't have anything to do with what the premium rates are. It being a State Based Marketplace vs. a Federally Facilitated, or State Partnership Marketplace has no impact on the premiums.

Why wouldn't enrollment affect premiums?

 

[Foosball God]

The AV doesn't really have anything to do with the premium rate. The AV is determined by multiple things like the coinsurance amount, maximum out of pocket, etc. Those things are independent from the premium itself.

Seriously?! You have to realize that the higher than AV the higher than premium. A lower deductible will give you a lower AV and thus a lower premium.

Again, the premium quoted was for a person of a certain age in a certain state (or area) for a Bronze level plan. That's the lowest priced option available, and comes with the highest deductibles and OOPs (the lowest AV).

You've looked at all of the filings for all of the insurers participating in Indiana?

Also, Indiana elected not to participate in the state/regional exchange program or partner with the federal gov't. Early data is suggesting (not surprisingly) that states who are embracing the exchanges and working to set up efficient and cost effective systems are experiencing lower average premiums. Conversely, states like Indiana who are fighting Obamacare and doing nothing to help implement such exchanges (Indiana literally didn't even submit an exchange blueprint) are initially quoting higher rates.

That really doesn't have anything to do with what the premium rates are. It being a State Based Marketplace vs. a Federally Facilitated, or State Partnership Marketplace has no impact on the premiums.

Why wouldn't enrollment affect premiums?

Because the insurance companies really have no idea what their enrollment will be like yet, regardless of model. At a minimum even if the exchanges are not working, people will be able to get insurance the old fashioned way by calling the insurance companies directly, or working through a broker. Whatever projections each insurance company is using it isn't very likely they are making the type of marketplace a factor in their enrollment estimates.

I could be wrong there as I'm not as intimately tied to the Issuer side of the house as I am to the marketplace but I would be surprised

 

[the moops]

If those numbers are true, VT is really screwing people.

Here in MN, a 25 year old making more than 45,000 can get a catastrophic plan for $77. A Platinum plan is only $151.

That's much better, but honestly that seems very low on the platinum plan.....very, very low.

The reason I say that is again with the maximum of a 3 to 1 ratio of the rate for the highest age to that of the lowest age. If the 25 year old can get this best possible coverage for $151 per month, that means that the MOST a 64 year old can be charged for that plan is $453 per month. No insurance company will be making money on that. They better hope that every single possible 25 year old enrolls in this platinum plan and pays in $151 a month and doesn't have a claim. Otherwise that premium will skyrocket.

Platinum for a 60 year old is $408

 

[matttyl]

Those rates will skyrocket.

 

[matttyl]

Wisconsin folks are getting screwed...

http://insuranceexchangehq.com/wisconsin-insurance-exchange-rates-released/

For a 40-year-old resident living in Milwaukee with a plan that has a $3000 deductible, premiums will be about 40.85 percent more than what they are now. If that resident lives in Eau Claire, the rates will go up by about 48.35 percent. The largest increase appears to be in the Madison area, where rates for a 40-year-old will increase by 73.43 percent.

 

[matttyl]

Average cost of coverage for a NON-SMOKING 21 year old in Iowa will be $287 a month.

http://qctimes.com/iowa-sample-rate-summaries/pdf_f245ca8c-2467-58f2-a637-6962072078ac.html

Even the $280 per month plan comes with a $2,500 deductible. That's $5,860 in total out of pocket before the insurance kicks in. "Affordable"?!

 

[matttyl]

Florida rates to increase 35-40%.

http://insuranceexchangehq.com/florida-insurance-exchange-rates-released/

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Average cost of coverage for a NON-SMOKING 21 year old in Iowa will be $287 a month.

http://qctimes.com/iowa-sample-rate-summaries/pdf_f245ca8c-2467-58f2-a637-6962072078ac.html

Even the $280 per month plan comes with a $2,500 deductible. That's $5,860 in total out of pocket before the insurance kicks in. "Affordable"?!

Exactly thats why Tommy wont compare the two. He is a total hypocrite.

All you have to do is run the numbers and NOT LIE and see how your situation compares.

I have not seen here where ONE family comes out better with Obamacare, Not one.

 

[Sand]

I have not seen here where ONE family comes out better with Obamacare, Not one.

Early retirees make out like bandits thanks to the spread limitation. If I was 55 I would think very, very heavily about hanging it up.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/understanding-obamacare-bronze-silver-gold-152027179.html

A few notes from the above article which shows that even the "Affordable Care Act" isn't "affordable" at all under their own definition for many......

If you make $45,690+ as an individual, no matter your age, you will not qualify for any subsidy. The article says that even a BRONZE plan (the weakest and lowest priced plan available to anyone age 30+) would be $531 per month for a 60 year old in Indianapolis. That works out to $6,372 per year in PREMIUMS ALONE! That's 13.8% of the GROSS INCOME of a single person making $46k a year (where no subsidy is paid). I thought "affordable" was under 9.5% by the ACA's definition?! He's paying nearly 50% more than that in PREMIUMS ALONE!! I haven't even assumed the first claim!

Even a 25 year old in Vermont would pay $264 a month! That's $3,168 a year, or about 7% of a guy making that amount of money.....and he's only 25! And that's before the very first claim is made, and this Bronze plan comes with the highest deductibles and out of pocket costs (typically $4k+ in annual deductible with the $6,350 (mandated) max out of pocket). So that 25 year old breaks his leg (or fill in the blank claim) and his claim is $4k (all goes toward deductible), and his total out of pocket costs for that year were $7,168 (all before the first dollar of insurance was paid) - which is over 15% of his GROSS (before tax) INCOME. "Affordable" my butt!

As I've said all along - all these high rates will do is drive the young and healthy population OUT of the exchanges as they would rather "wing it" than pay these high premiums with high deductibles (or even higher premiums with somewhat lower deductibles as I was only looking at the weakest Bronze plan above). This will lead to an older and sicker population IN the exchanges, which will lead to even higher annual increases than we currently see today. Right now we see ~10% year to year increases in health insurance premiums (some see higher, some lower, this is a good ballpark of the average), and that's calculated on the total population which has health insurance today which we can assume is on average younger and healthier than the population that doesn't have health insurance today. What do you think the annual % increase will be in future years when it's based on an older and sicker population?! What will happen to all those 60 year olds paying $531 and those 25 year olds who paid $264 a month when next year they get a 12% increase, or 15% increase, or higher?! The healthy ones will jump ship - and the ones who didn't have insurance who had something come up in their health will jump in to replace them, further accelerating the "death spiral".

Do you think that a 2% "tax" will be enough to keep these folks in the pool (2% of $50k is only $1,000 - this "insurance" is already over 3x that for a 25 year old!!).

Any comment on this? Anyone? Is this "affordable"?

Healthare costs for those not able to go thru an employer and even for some who can is out of control, way out of control.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I have not seen here where ONE family comes out better with Obamacare, Not one.

Early retirees make out like bandits thanks to the spread limitation. If I was 55 I would think very, very heavily about hanging it up.

Expand please. Most folks in their late 50s and early 60 up to 65 when Medicare kicks in, those folks pay thru the nose. What are you specifically referring to?

 

[Sand]

I have not seen here where ONE family comes out better with Obamacare, Not one.

Early retirees make out like bandits thanks to the spread limitation. If I was 55 I would think very, very heavily about hanging it up.

Expand please. Most folks in their late 50s and early 60 up to 65 when Medicare kicks in, those folks pay thru the nose. What are you specifically referring to?

Lots out there on this - a couple articles.

 

[matttyl]

I have not seen here where ONE family comes out better with Obamacare, Not one.

Early retirees make out like bandits thanks to the spread limitation. If I was 55 I would think very, very heavily about hanging it up.

Yeah, dropping your income as well just makes you eligible for a subsidy to boot. They'll pay this lower premium for you!

 

[matttyl]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/understanding-obamacare-bronze-silver-gold-152027179.html

A few notes from the above article which shows that even the "Affordable Care Act" isn't "affordable" at all under their own definition for many......

If you make $45,690+ as an individual, no matter your age, you will not qualify for any subsidy. The article says that even a BRONZE plan (the weakest and lowest priced plan available to anyone age 30+) would be $531 per month for a 60 year old in Indianapolis. That works out to $6,372 per year in PREMIUMS ALONE! That's 13.8% of the GROSS INCOME of a single person making $46k a year (where no subsidy is paid). I thought "affordable" was under 9.5% by the ACA's definition?! He's paying nearly 50% more than that in PREMIUMS ALONE!! I haven't even assumed the first claim!

Even a 25 year old in Vermont would pay $264 a month! That's $3,168 a year, or about 7% of a guy making that amount of money.....and he's only 25! And that's before the very first claim is made, and this Bronze plan comes with the highest deductibles and out of pocket costs (typically $4k+ in annual deductible with the $6,350 (mandated) max out of pocket). So that 25 year old breaks his leg (or fill in the blank claim) and his claim is $4k (all goes toward deductible), and his total out of pocket costs for that year were $7,168 (all before the first dollar of insurance was paid) - which is over 15% of his GROSS (before tax) INCOME. "Affordable" my butt!

As I've said all along - all these high rates will do is drive the young and healthy population OUT of the exchanges as they would rather "wing it" than pay these high premiums with high deductibles (or even higher premiums with somewhat lower deductibles as I was only looking at the weakest Bronze plan above). This will lead to an older and sicker population IN the exchanges, which will lead to even higher annual increases than we currently see today. Right now we see ~10% year to year increases in health insurance premiums (some see higher, some lower, this is a good ballpark of the average), and that's calculated on the total population which has health insurance today which we can assume is on average younger and healthier than the population that doesn't have health insurance today. What do you think the annual % increase will be in future years when it's based on an older and sicker population?! What will happen to all those 60 year olds paying $531 and those 25 year olds who paid $264 a month when next year they get a 12% increase, or 15% increase, or higher?! The healthy ones will jump ship - and the ones who didn't have insurance who had something come up in their health will jump in to replace them, further accelerating the "death spiral".

Do you think that a 2% "tax" will be enough to keep these folks in the pool (2% of $50k is only $1,000 - this "insurance" is already over 3x that for a 25 year old!!).

Any comment on this? Anyone? Is this "affordable"?

Healthare costs for those not able to go thru an employer and even for some who can is out of control, way out of control.

Link please? And not isolated cases. I'm in the health insurance industry, and I also purchased my own insurance privately (without an employer). It's extremely reasonable, and even cheaper than many of my friends who have their coverage through and employer who plays a hefty % of the premium for them.