Report your experience with getting insurance via ACA (1 Viewer)

[Jojo the circus boy]

LOL

 

[Godsbrother]

My 28 year old son was finally able to get through the registration process and is now able to view plans. We are going to go over them this weekend but it looks like he is going to be saving at least $100/month for the same individual coverage he currently has and as much as $200 if he selects a catastrophic plan.

 

[matttyl]

My 28 year old son was finally able to get through the registration process and is now able to view plans. We are going to go over them this weekend but it looks like he is going to be saving at least $100/month for the same individual coverage he currently has and as much as $200 if he selects a catastrophic plan.

Mind sharing some basic details of his plan, and if he'll be receiving a subsidy? I've yet to see anyone under age 50 who will be getting "comparable" coverage to what they currently have for less money unless they are being subsidized or they were already highly rated for health previously.

 

[Godsbrother]

I don't know the details because a specific plan hasn't been selected yet. He is currently paying $315 for himself (no wife or kids). He said the catastrophic plans were going around $100 month, bronze was about $120, silver was was about $135. I'm not sure what the gold and platinum were quoted t and I don't know the details of the plans.

He wants me to look it over with him this weekend and to help figure out which plan makes the most sense and then we'll see what his actual cost will be. He does not have a family and has no debt other than a mortgage and school loan. I don't know exactly what his income is but I am guessing probably in the $28K-$35K range so I don't know if he'll qualify for a subsidy.

I am cautiously optimistic that he is going to save a significant amount but we'll see when he actually enrolls.

 

[BassNBrew]

I don't know the details because a specific plan hasn't been selected yet. He is currently paying $315 for himself (no wife or kids). He said the catastrophic plans were going around $100 month, bronze was about $120, silver was was about $135. I'm not sure what the gold and platinum were quoted t and I don't know the details of the plans.

He wants me to look it over with him this weekend and to help figure out which plan makes the most sense and then we'll see what his actual cost will be. He does not have a family and has no debt other than a mortgage and school loan. I don't know exactly what his income is but I am guessing probably in the $28K-$35K range so I don't know if he'll qualify for a subsidy.

I am cautiously optimistic that he is going to save a significant amount but we'll see when he actually enrolls.

So he hasn't enrolled but was able to shop? Was he using the Marketplace or a state exchange?

 

[BassNBrew]

I was still hung up between two screens this morning so I called the marketplace. Expect a huge drop in unemployment because these people answer the phones lightning fast. There must be thousands of them. Anyway after I verify myself for the upmteenth time and have to spell out basic words, she asks how she can help. I say I'm hung up between two screens on the website and she says sorry we hung up on you. I explain it a again and she says she has to get help and is going to put me on hold. Click, I get hung up on. I guess she was apologizing in advance for what was coming.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I was still hung up between two screens this morning so I called the marketplace. Expect a huge drop in unemployment because these people answer the phones lightning fast. There must be thousands of them. Anyway after I verify myself for the upmteenth time and have to spell out basic words, she asks how she can help. I say I'm hung up between two screens on the website and she says sorry we hung up on you. I explain it a again and she says she has to get help and is going to put me on hold. Click, I get hung up on. I guess she was apologizing in advance for what was coming.

 

[Zegras11]

Page 20 and are we still counting on one hand the number of people that have been able to sign up?

Anyone that thinks this will be resolved by the end of November is an idiot.

 

[Sarnoff]

Page 20 and are we still counting on one hand the number of people that have been able to sign up?

Anyone that thinks this will be resolved by the end of November is an idiot.

Tim heard a guy on TV say it would be done, so he's dead certain it's gonna happen and is still shouting down the naysayers.

 

[Godsbrother]

I don't know the details because a specific plan hasn't been selected yet. He is currently paying $315 for himself (no wife or kids). He said the catastrophic plans were going around $100 month, bronze was about $120, silver was was about $135. I'm not sure what the gold and platinum were quoted t and I don't know the details of the plans.

He wants me to look it over with him this weekend and to help figure out which plan makes the most sense and then we'll see what his actual cost will be. He does not have a family and has no debt other than a mortgage and school loan. I don't know exactly what his income is but I am guessing probably in the $28K-$35K range so I don't know if he'll qualify for a subsidy.

I am cautiously optimistic that he is going to save a significant amount but we'll see when he actually enrolls.

So he hasn't enrolled but was able to shop? Was he using the Marketplace or a state exchange?

Marketplace.

 

[matttyl]

I don't know the details because a specific plan hasn't been selected yet. He is currently paying $315 for himself (no wife or kids). He said the catastrophic plans were going around $100 month, bronze was about $120, silver was was about $135. I'm not sure what the gold and platinum were quoted t and I don't know the details of the plans.

He wants me to look it over with him this weekend and to help figure out which plan makes the most sense and then we'll see what his actual cost will be. He does not have a family and has no debt other than a mortgage and school loan. I don't know exactly what his income is but I am guessing probably in the $28K-$35K range so I don't know if he'll qualify for a subsidy.

I am cautiously optimistic that he is going to save a significant amount but we'll see when he actually enrolls.

If he makes between 28-35k and files solo, yes he will get a subsidy. I'm going to assume by your location that your son also lives in Pittsburgh. I'm also going to assume he doesn't use any tobacco. I ran a quick quote for a 28 year old non-tobacco using male in the zip 15219 (first zip that popped up for me on google). BEFORE subsidy, a catastrophic plan would be $125, but have a $6,350 deductible (which apparently is like 20% of his pre-tax income, maybe a bit too high). A more reasonable deductible of $3,750 would be $239 a month unsubsidized.

Do you know what his deductible is now? If I may ask, how's his health?

 

[Flying Elvis]

My 28 year old son was finally able to get through the registration process and is now able to view plans. We are going to go over them this weekend but it looks like he is going to be saving at least $100/month for the same individual coverage he currently has and as much as $200 if he selects a catastrophic plan.

Mind sharing some basic details of his plan, and if he'll be receiving a subsidy? I've yet to see anyone under age 50 who will be getting "comparable" coverage to what they currently have for less money unless they are being subsidized or they were already highly rated for health previously.

That'd be me. See my post from last week. I am under 50, healthy with no known condition(s), will save ~50% for comparable coverage and will not qualify for subsidy.

 

[matttyl]

My 28 year old son was finally able to get through the registration process and is now able to view plans. We are going to go over them this weekend but it looks like he is going to be saving at least $100/month for the same individual coverage he currently has and as much as $200 if he selects a catastrophic plan.

Mind sharing some basic details of his plan, and if he'll be receiving a subsidy? I've yet to see anyone under age 50 who will be getting "comparable" coverage to what they currently have for less money unless they are being subsidized or they were already highly rated for health previously.

That'd be me. See my post from last week. I am under 50, healthy with no known condition(s), will save ~50% for comparable coverage and will not qualify for subsidy.

Mind sharing some specifics (I don't know how to look up your post from last week, sorry). What's your current plan like (deductible and out of pocket), what's your age and where do you live?

 

[matttyl]

That'd be me. See my post from last week. I am under 50, healthy with no known condition(s), will save ~50% for comparable coverage and will not qualify for subsidy.

If you're referring to this post....

At that time the least expensive plan available was a high deductible plan that covered only the annual visit each year until the deductible was reached. Said deductible was $4000 and the premium was $430 monthly. The simple math - I would pay just over $5000 for the privilege of paying the first $4000 of medical expenses.

There is no possible way at all that this was the cheapest option for you unless you are not healthy, especially if you are under 50. No where in the country is $430 a month for a $4k deductible the cheapest option for a healthy individual under 50. No way, no how.

 

[Flying Elvis]

That'd be me. See my post from last week. I am under 50, healthy with no known condition(s), will save ~50% for comparable coverage and will not qualify for subsidy.

If you're referring to this post....

At that time the least expensive plan available was a high deductible plan that covered only the annual visit each year until the deductible was reached. Said deductible was $4000 and the premium was $430 monthly. The simple math - I would pay just over $5000 for the privilege of paying the first $4000 of medical expenses.

There is no possible way at all that this was the cheapest option for you unless you are not healthy, especially if you are under 50. No where in the country is $430 a month for a $4k deductible the cheapest option for a healthy individual under 50. No way, no how.

I'm not very practiced with this forum's search +/- content features. I tried to find it quickly but couldn't.

Yes, that's the one. It's all true. Rates jumped in 20-30% increments annually from ~$200 per month in 2005 (employment start date w/current employer).

Whether you want to believe it is possible or not is irrelevant, especially to my wallet. I am low risk, healthy, non-smoker, and 37.

 

[matttyl]

That'd be me. See my post from last week. I am under 50, healthy with no known condition(s), will save ~50% for comparable coverage and will not qualify for subsidy.

If you're referring to this post....

At that time the least expensive plan available was a high deductible plan that covered only the annual visit each year until the deductible was reached. Said deductible was $4000 and the premium was $430 monthly. The simple math - I would pay just over $5000 for the privilege of paying the first $4000 of medical expenses.

There is no possible way at all that this was the cheapest option for you unless you are not healthy, especially if you are under 50. No where in the country is $430 a month for a $4k deductible the cheapest option for a healthy individual under 50. No way, no how.

I'm not very practiced with this forum's search +/- content features. I tried to find it quickly but couldn't.

Yes, that's the one. It's all true. Rates jumped in 20-30% increments annually from ~$200 per month in 2005 (employment start date w/current employer).

Whether you want to believe it is possible or not is irrelevant, especially to my wallet. I am low risk, healthy, non-smoker, and 37.

So that was an employer based plan that you're referring to with the $430 a month? That wasn't an individual plan?

If you're a "low risk, healthy, non-smoking, 37 year old" male (I assume), you can get a product on the individual market anywhere in the country for FAR less than $430 a month. Like under half that, easily.

 

[Flying Elvis]

That'd be me. See my post from last week. I am under 50, healthy with no known condition(s), will save ~50% for comparable coverage and will not qualify for subsidy.

If you're referring to this post....

At that time the least expensive plan available was a high deductible plan that covered only the annual visit each year until the deductible was reached. Said deductible was $4000 and the premium was $430 monthly. The simple math - I would pay just over $5000 for the privilege of paying the first $4000 of medical expenses.

There is no possible way at all that this was the cheapest option for you unless you are not healthy, especially if you are under 50. No where in the country is $430 a month for a $4k deductible the cheapest option for a healthy individual under 50. No way, no how.

I'm not very practiced with this forum's search +/- content features. I tried to find it quickly but couldn't.

Yes, that's the one. It's all true. Rates jumped in 20-30% increments annually from ~$200 per month in 2005 (employment start date w/current employer).

Whether you want to believe it is possible or not is irrelevant, especially to my wallet. I am low risk, healthy, non-smoker, and 37.

So that was an employer based plan that you're referring to with the $430 a month? That wasn't an individual plan?

If you're a "low risk, healthy, non-smoking, 37 year old" male (I assume), you can get a product on the individual market anywhere in the country for FAR less than $430 a month. Like under half that, easily.

I'll leave it to you to prove that claim.

 

[Flying Elvis]

Actually, disregard that last post. I'll simply disprove the "Like under half that, easily" part, instead.

Individual market premium average was $344 per month in 2010. Add the annual 20-30% bump I mentioned and we get to roughly $410 per month in 2011.

Source for 2010 figure: http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/individual-premiums/

EDIT: Sorry - I didn't realize it wasn't a unique URL. Scroll down and select Rhode Island.

 

[BassNBrew]

That'd be me. See my post from last week. I am under 50, healthy with no known condition(s), will save ~50% for comparable coverage and will not qualify for subsidy.

If you're referring to this post....

At that time the least expensive plan available was a high deductible plan that covered only the annual visit each year until the deductible was reached. Said deductible was $4000 and the premium was $430 monthly. The simple math - I would pay just over $5000 for the privilege of paying the first $4000 of medical expenses.

There is no possible way at all that this was the cheapest option for you unless you are not healthy, especially if you are under 50. No where in the country is $430 a month for a $4k deductible the cheapest option for a healthy individual under 50. No way, no how.

There may have been cheaper options, but BCBS jacked my rates (me and my son) from roughly $225 to somewhere in the $500s right after ACA passed over the next five years. I'm in my 40s and my son's portion today is around $150. Things really got out of hand recently.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I was still hung up between two screens this morning so I called the marketplace. Expect a huge drop in unemployment because these people answer the phones lightning fast. There must be thousands of them. Anyway after I verify myself for the upmteenth time and have to spell out basic words, she asks how she can help. I say I'm hung up between two screens on the website and she says sorry we hung up on you. I explain it a again and she says she has to get help and is going to put me on hold. Click, I get hung up on. I guess she was apologizing in advance for what was coming.

Awesome.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Actually, disregard that last post. I'll simply disprove the "Like under half that, easily" part, instead.

Individual market premium average was $344 per month in 2010. Add the annual 20-30% bump I mentioned and we get to roughly $410 per month in 2011.

Source for 2010 figure: http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/individual-premiums/

EDIT: Sorry - I didn't realize it wasn't a unique URL. Scroll down and select Rhode Island.

Fill this out for 2013 and report back:

http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/individual-health-insurance?allid=eHe29411

 

[matttyl]

Actually, disregard that last post. I'll simply disprove the "Like under half that, easily" part, instead.

Individual market premium average was $344 per month in 2010. Add the annual 20-30% bump I mentioned and we get to roughly $410 per month in 2011.

Source for 2010 figure: http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/individual-premiums/

EDIT: Sorry - I didn't realize it wasn't a unique URL. Scroll down and select Rhode Island.

Just as I thought. Rhode Island (along with a few other states in the Northeast) is a guaranteed issue state (which the ACA now mandates) and that comes with higher premiums.

I posted you exact list a week ago to show just how expensive Massachusetts is, as they are by far the most expensive state on that list. Mass operates under the "Romneycare" system, which the ACA is based on. That's where the premiums will go in the other 44 or so non guaranteed issue states very quickly.

For reference, if you lived here in Virginia where I do, a healthy male 37 year old could buy a plan with BCBS with a $750 deductible for only $121 a month.

The rates are so high for you only because you live in a guaranteed issue state, no real other reason. In truth, the best thing for you would be if Rhode Island did away with things like Guaranteed issue and went back to underwriting, your premiums would drop in half or more.

 

[matttyl]

That'd be me. See my post from last week. I am under 50, healthy with no known condition(s), will save ~50% for comparable coverage and will not qualify for subsidy.

If you're referring to this post....

At that time the least expensive plan available was a high deductible plan that covered only the annual visit each year until the deductible was reached. Said deductible was $4000 and the premium was $430 monthly. The simple math - I would pay just over $5000 for the privilege of paying the first $4000 of medical expenses.

There is no possible way at all that this was the cheapest option for you unless you are not healthy, especially if you are under 50. No where in the country is $430 a month for a $4k deductible the cheapest option for a healthy individual under 50. No way, no how.

There may have been cheaper options, but BCBS jacked my rates (me and my son) from roughly $225 to somewhere in the $500s right after ACA passed over the next five years. I'm in my 40s and my son's portion today is around $150. Things really got out of hand recently.

So your son is around $150 and you're in your 40s and are around $350? Hate to be so honest with you, but that's not all that bad in today's landscape (depending on your deductible and such).

 

[BassNBrew]

That'd be me. See my post from last week. I am under 50, healthy with no known condition(s), will save ~50% for comparable coverage and will not qualify for subsidy.

If you're referring to this post....

At that time the least expensive plan available was a high deductible plan that covered only the annual visit each year until the deductible was reached. Said deductible was $4000 and the premium was $430 monthly. The simple math - I would pay just over $5000 for the privilege of paying the first $4000 of medical expenses.

There is no possible way at all that this was the cheapest option for you unless you are not healthy, especially if you are under 50. No where in the country is $430 a month for a $4k deductible the cheapest option for a healthy individual under 50. No way, no how.

There may have been cheaper options, but BCBS jacked my rates (me and my son) from roughly $225 to somewhere in the $500s right after ACA passed over the next five years. I'm in my 40s and my son's portion today is around $150. Things really got out of hand recently.

So your son is around $150 and you're in your 40s and are around $350? Hate to be so honest with you, but that's not all that bad in today's landscape (depending on your deductible and such).

It's just been a huge increase over the last several years. At the rate it's increasing, we're all going to be poor eventually or just go w/o insurance.

 

[matttyl]

It's just been a huge increase over the last several years. At the rate it's increasing, we're all going to be poor eventually or just go w/o insurance.

As I've been saying for months, I'm not so sure this ACA will end up with a whole lot more people being insured than we have now. People like you will just drop all of it and be charged a penalty that's not really collectable.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Not sure if this has been discussed, but it is important consideration if you don't get a subsidy. While it used to just matter if your doctor took your carrier, now you need to check if they take all plans or just off-exchange plans offered by the carrier. I am still waiting for Anthem to finish constructing the new provider directory, bu it looks like some doctors will not be doing exchange. So I will likely go with a more expensive off-exchange plan for at least the first year while the dust settles. That will put me at just about the same, to possibly slightly higher than my current plan with all costs considered. I think that is better option to start than risk going to a doctor I think is covered and then having claim rejected.

I actually called some doctors offices yesterday to try to figure out if they would be on the off-exchange plans, but found that the people in the office didn't yet really understand the distinction. One said she thought doctor had opted out of all exchange plans, yet for one carrier (not Anthem) I checked, he was listed.

 

[Keerock]

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius apologized Wednesday to Americans for the "miserably frustrating experience" caused by problems with the Obamacare website.Sebelius told a House committee that the "vast majority" of consumers will be able to shop online for health insurance under Obamacare by the end of November without the problems being experienced now.

In an advance copy of her testimony, Sebelius says it's frustrating and unacceptable that the site has not lived up to its expectations.

However, she said Obamacare has delivered on its central promise to provide affordable healthcare.

"Over the past few weeks, millions of Americans have visited HealthCare.gov to look at their new health coverage options under the Affordable Care Act," Sebelius says. "In that time, nearly 700,000 applications have been submitted to the federal and state marketplaces from across the nation. This tremendous interest -- with over 20 million unique visits to date to HealthCare.gov -- confirms that the American people are looking for quality, affordable health coverage."

Read the story here.

OK... the bolded really bothers me. Is there really that much interest, or do the majority of these visits fall into one of these categories:

1) Duplicate visits. The statement does not indicate that they are unique. With all the problems the website is experiencing, each person has had to try multiple times.

2) Due to Obamacare, many people are losing their current plan... forcing them to look at their options

3) Many people (like myself) are checking the site to see if Obamacare would be a cheaper/better option than their current plan. Doesn't mean they need a new one... just shopping around. That's like saying "... confirms that American people are looking for quality, affordable cell phone service" because Ting.com is getting a lot of traffic.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius apologized Wednesday to Americans for the "miserably frustrating experience" caused by problems with the Obamacare website.Sebelius told a House committee that the "vast majority" of consumers will be able to shop online for health insurance under Obamacare by the end of November without the problems being experienced now.

In an advance copy of her testimony, Sebelius says it's frustrating and unacceptable that the site has not lived up to its expectations.

However, she said Obamacare has delivered on its central promise to provide affordable healthcare.

"Over the past few weeks, millions of Americans have visited HealthCare.gov to look at their new health coverage options under the Affordable Care Act," Sebelius says. "In that time, nearly 700,000 applications have been submitted to the federal and state marketplaces from across the nation. This tremendous interest -- with over 20 million unique visits to date to HealthCare.gov -- confirms that the American people are looking for quality, affordable health coverage."

Read the story here.

OK... the bolded really bothers me. Is there really that much interest, or do the majority of these visits fall into one of these categories:

1) Duplicate visits. The statement does not indicate that they are unique. With all the problems the website is experiencing, each person has had to try multiple times.

2) Due to Obamacare, many people are losing their current plan... forcing them to look at their options

3) Many people (like myself) are checking the site to see if Obamacare would be a cheaper/better option than their current plan. Doesn't mean they need a new one... just shopping around. That's like saying "... confirms that American people are looking for quality, affordable cell phone service" because Ting.com is getting a lot of traffic.

Right. Or that sales in automobiles is expected to blow old records out of the water based on the number of people who visit msn.auto.

 

[matttyl]

Not sure if this has been discussed, but it is important consideration if you don't get a subsidy. While it used to just matter if your doctor took your carrier, now you need to check if they take all plans or just off-exchange plans offered by the carrier. I am still waiting for Anthem to finish constructing the new provider directory, bu it looks like some doctors will not be doing off-exchange. So I will likely go with a more expensive off-exchange plan for at least the first year while the dust settles. That will put me at just about the same, to possibly slightly higher than my current plan with all costs considered. I think that is better option to start than risk going to a doctor I think is covered and then having claim rejected.

I actually called some doctors offices yesterday to try to figure out if they would be on the off-exchange plans, but found that the people in the office didn't yet really understand the distinction. One said she thought doctor had opted out of all exchange plans, yet for one carrier (not Anthem) I checked, he was listed.

I think you mean the opposite. Some doctors will not be "in network" with "on exchange" plans. While you might be able to get the same plan either on or off the exchange, you likely won't have the same network. For many that may not matter as their doctor may continue to be on both. Networks have had to be trimmed quite a bit by insurance carriers to make their plans more price competitive in the market.

 

[matttyl]

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius apologized Wednesday to Americans for the "miserably frustrating experience" caused by problems with the Obamacare website.Sebelius told a House committee that the "vast majority" of consumers will be able to shop online for health insurance under Obamacare by the end of November without the problems being experienced now.

In an advance copy of her testimony, Sebelius says it's frustrating and unacceptable that the site has not lived up to its expectations.

However, she said Obamacare has delivered on its central promise to provide affordable healthcare.

"Over the past few weeks, millions of Americans have visited HealthCare.gov to look at their new health coverage options under the Affordable Care Act," Sebelius says. "In that time, nearly 700,000 applications have been submitted to the federal and state marketplaces from across the nation. This tremendous interest -- with over 20 million unique visits to date to HealthCare.gov -- confirms that the American people are looking for quality, affordable health coverage."

Read the story here.

OK... the bolded really bothers me. Is there really that much interest, or do the majority of these visits fall into one of these categories:

1) Duplicate visits. The statement does not indicate that they are unique. With all the problems the website is experiencing, each person has had to try multiple times.

2) Due to Obamacare, many people are losing their current plan... forcing them to look at their options

3) Many people (like myself) are checking the site to see if Obamacare would be a cheaper/better option than their current plan. Doesn't mean they need a new one... just shopping around. That's like saying "... confirms that American people are looking for quality, affordable cell phone service" because Ting.com is getting a lot of traffic.

Well we know that there are a few million Americans who fall into #2, so I'd say that's a bunch of them.

Also, that 700k number is laughable. First off, it's "nearly" 700k, and it very likely includes Medicaid applications. If they can't even get 700k enrolled in a month when they are forcibly kicking people off of their current coverage, and their own numbers say they need at least 7M enrolled to make this thing work.....I can see where this is leading.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I think you mean the opposite. Some doctors will not be "in network" with "on exchange" plans. While you might be able to get the same plan either on or off the exchange, you likely won't have the same network. For many that may not matter as their doctor may continue to be on both. Networks have had to be trimmed quite a bit by insurance carriers to make their plans more price competitive in the market.

Sorry, yes, I'll edit. Same plans are not available to me on and off. Exchange has some PPOs. Off-exchange is all HMOs

 

[Flying Elvis]

Actually, disregard that last post. I'll simply disprove the "Like under half that, easily" part, instead.

Individual market premium average was $344 per month in 2010. Add the annual 20-30% bump I mentioned and we get to roughly $410 per month in 2011.

Source for 2010 figure: http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/individual-premiums/

EDIT: Sorry - I didn't realize it wasn't a unique URL. Scroll down and select Rhode Island.

Fill this out for 2013 and report back:

http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/individual-health-insurance?allid=eHe29411

server error.

Though I'm not sure why you want me to do that when I've already posted in depth remarks about my local exchange site.

Actually, disregard that last post. I'll simply disprove the "Like under half that, easily" part, instead.

Individual market premium average was $344 per month in 2010. Add the annual 20-30% bump I mentioned and we get to roughly $410 per month in 2011.

Source for 2010 figure: http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/individual-premiums/

EDIT: Sorry - I didn't realize it wasn't a unique URL. Scroll down and select Rhode Island.

Just as I thought. Rhode Island (along with a few other states in the Northeast) is a guaranteed issue state (which the ACA now mandates) and that comes with higher premiums.

I posted you exact list a week ago to show just how expensive Massachusetts is, as they are by far the most expensive state on that list. Mass operates under the "Romneycare" system, which the ACA is based on. That's where the premiums will go in the other 44 or so non guaranteed issue states very quickly.

For reference, if you lived here in Virginia where I do, a healthy male 37 year old could buy a plan with BCBS with a $750 deductible for only $121 a month.

The rates are so high for you only because you live in a guaranteed issue state, no real other reason. In truth, the best thing for you would be if Rhode Island did away with things like Guaranteed issue and went back to underwriting, your premiums would drop in half or more.

Well thank goodness it's just as you thought. For a bit there I was certain the actual costs that I was actually paying were made up, or that perhaps I was too stupid to price shop for health insurance.

It's just been a huge increase over the last several years. At the rate it's increasing, we're all going to be poor eventually or just go w/o insurance.

As I've been saying for months, I'm not so sure this ACA will end up with a whole lot more people being insured than we have now. People like you will just drop all of it and be charged a penalty that's not really collectable.

"People like you" . . . That explains a lot. I can only hope you know BassNBrew well enough to make such a statement. However, considering you don't know me at all and were quite willing to call me a liar and/or stupid, I'll just assume the worst and discontinue conversing with "people like you."

 

[matttyl]

Actually, disregard that last post. I'll simply disprove the "Like under half that, easily" part, instead.

Individual market premium average was $344 per month in 2010. Add the annual 20-30% bump I mentioned and we get to roughly $410 per month in 2011.

Source for 2010 figure: http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/individual-premiums/

EDIT: Sorry - I didn't realize it wasn't a unique URL. Scroll down and select Rhode Island.

Just as I thought. Rhode Island (along with a few other states in the Northeast) is a guaranteed issue state (which the ACA now mandates) and that comes with higher premiums.

I posted you exact list a week ago to show just how expensive Massachusetts is, as they are by far the most expensive state on that list. Mass operates under the "Romneycare" system, which the ACA is based on. That's where the premiums will go in the other 44 or so non guaranteed issue states very quickly.

For reference, if you lived here in Virginia where I do, a healthy male 37 year old could buy a plan with BCBS with a $750 deductible for only $121 a month.

The rates are so high for you only because you live in a guaranteed issue state, no real other reason. In truth, the best thing for you would be if Rhode Island did away with things like Guaranteed issue and went back to underwriting, your premiums would drop in half or more.

Well thank goodness it's just as you thought. For a bit there I was certain the actual costs that I was actually paying were made up, or that perhaps I was too stupid to price shop for health insurance.

It's just been a huge increase over the last several years. At the rate it's increasing, we're all going to be poor eventually or just go w/o insurance.

As I've been saying for months, I'm not so sure this ACA will end up with a whole lot more people being insured than we have now. People like you will just drop all of it and be charged a penalty that's not really collectable.

"People like you" . . . That explains a lot. I can only hope you know BassNBrew well enough to make such a statement. However, considering you don't know me at all and were quite willing to call me a liar and/or stupid, I'll just assume the worst and discontinue conversing with "people like you."

Why are you getting so bent out of shape here? I posted to you why the rates in Rhode Island are as high as they are, and the list of states that you posted shows it quite well. States like New York, Mass, New Jersey, Vermont and Rhode Island are "guaranteed issue" states - they can't deny anyone coverage. That is why they are, by far, the most expensive states on average on the list you posted. If everything else about you were the same, but you lived in a different state your insurance options would cost you less than half of what they do currently. Guaranteed issue is the reason your cheapest option is as high as it is. Next year, this will be the case nationwide and everyone will be dealing the the high rates you've been seeing for years in RI.

I'm sorry you're so upset about it, I'm just trying to be the voice of reason in these discussions. You told me your age, approximate health and where you live. That's enough to tell me that your options currently are limited to guaranteed issue only pricing which everyone will face going forward. So if you've been upset about those high rates....well now the rest of the country will be as well.

 

[Foosball God]

Not sure if this has been discussed, but it is important consideration if you don't get a subsidy. While it used to just matter if your doctor took your carrier, now you need to check if they take all plans or just off-exchange plans offered by the carrier. I am still waiting for Anthem to finish constructing the new provider directory, bu it looks like some doctors will not be doing exchange. So I will likely go with a more expensive off-exchange plan for at least the first year while the dust settles. That will put me at just about the same, to possibly slightly higher than my current plan with all costs considered. I think that is better option to start than risk going to a doctor I think is covered and then having claim rejected.

I actually called some doctors offices yesterday to try to figure out if they would be on the off-exchange plans, but found that the people in the office didn't yet really understand the distinction. One said she thought doctor had opted out of all exchange plans, yet for one carrier (not Anthem) I checked, he was listed.

Seems odd. What is the benefit for the doctors to not accept on-exchange plans versus off?

 

[Schlzm]

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius apologized Wednesday to Americans for the "miserably frustrating experience" caused by problems with the Obamacare website.

Sebelius told a House committee that the "vast majority" of consumers will be able to shop online for health insurance under Obamacare by the end of November without the problems being experienced now.

In an advance copy of her testimony, Sebelius says it's frustrating and unacceptable that the site has not lived up to its expectations.

However, she said Obamacare has delivered on its central promise to provide affordable healthcare.

"Over the past few weeks, millions of Americans have visited HealthCare.gov to look at their new health coverage options under the Affordable Care Act," Sebelius says. "In that time, nearly 700,000 applications have been submitted to the federal and state marketplaces from across the nation. This tremendous interest -- with over 20 million unique visits to date to HealthCare.gov -- confirms that the American people are looking for quality, affordable health coverage."

Read the story here.

OK... the bolded really bothers me. Is there really that much interest, or do the majority of these visits fall into one of these categories:

1) Duplicate visits. The statement does not indicate that they are unique. With all the problems the website is experiencing, each person has had to try multiple times.

2) Due to Obamacare, many people are losing their current plan... forcing them to look at their options

3) Many people (like myself) are checking the site to see if Obamacare would be a cheaper/better option than their current plan. Doesn't mean they need a new one... just shopping around. That's like saying "... confirms that American people are looking for quality, affordable cell phone service" because Ting.com is getting a lot of traffic.

Well we know that there are a few million Americans who fall into #2, so I'd say that's a bunch of them.Also, that 700k number is laughable. First off, it's "nearly" 700k, and it very likely includes Medicaid applications. If they can't even get 700k enrolled in a month when they are forcibly kicking people off of their current coverage, and their own numbers say they need at least 7M enrolled to make this thing work.....I can see where this is leading.

I also love that they use this number as some sort of success because "Americans are looking for quality, affordable healthcare" but that doesn't mean they are finding it. I would say the ratio of those whose rates are increasing vs. decreasing is probably around 3:1 right now. Who knows how much that is going to change as more practices opt out of the exchanges, doctors retire, and the metrics aren't meant to make this dog and pony show even close to cost neutral.Schlzm

 

[Schlzm]

Not sure if this has been discussed, but it is important consideration if you don't get a subsidy. While it used to just matter if your doctor took your carrier, now you need to check if they take all plans or just off-exchange plans offered by the carrier. I am still waiting for Anthem to finish constructing the new provider directory, bu it looks like some doctors will not be doing exchange. So I will likely go with a more expensive off-exchange plan for at least the first year while the dust settles. That will put me at just about the same, to possibly slightly higher than my current plan with all costs considered. I think that is better option to start than risk going to a doctor I think is covered and then having claim rejected.

I actually called some doctors offices yesterday to try to figure out if they would be on the off-exchange plans, but found that the people in the office didn't yet really understand the distinction. One said she thought doctor had opted out of all exchange plans, yet for one carrier (not Anthem) I checked, he was listed.

Seems odd. What is the benefit for the doctors to not accept on-exchange plans versus off?

From the quotes I read, a lot of doctors are worried about actually getting paid through the new exchanges because of the mounting confusion on if any of this is going to even work. Many point to problems with Medicare and Medicaid alongside fights with insurance companies to validate their concerns. Schlzm

 

[Foosball God]

Not sure if this has been discussed, but it is important consideration if you don't get a subsidy. While it used to just matter if your doctor took your carrier, now you need to check if they take all plans or just off-exchange plans offered by the carrier. I am still waiting for Anthem to finish constructing the new provider directory, bu it looks like some doctors will not be doing exchange. So I will likely go with a more expensive off-exchange plan for at least the first year while the dust settles. That will put me at just about the same, to possibly slightly higher than my current plan with all costs considered. I think that is better option to start than risk going to a doctor I think is covered and then having claim rejected.

I actually called some doctors offices yesterday to try to figure out if they would be on the off-exchange plans, but found that the people in the office didn't yet really understand the distinction. One said she thought doctor had opted out of all exchange plans, yet for one carrier (not Anthem) I checked, he was listed.

Seems odd. What is the benefit for the doctors to not accept on-exchange plans versus off?

From the quotes I read, a lot of doctors are worried about actually getting paid through the new exchanges because of the mounting confusion on if any of this is going to even work. Many point to problems with Medicare and Medicaid alongside fights with insurance companies to validate their concerns.Schlzm

But the doctor doesn't get paid through the exchange. They still get paid by the Insurance companies. The exchange will handle the subsidy payments but that doesn't go to physicians.

 

[Schlzm]

Not sure if this has been discussed, but it is important consideration if you don't get a subsidy. While it used to just matter if your doctor took your carrier, now you need to check if they take all plans or just off-exchange plans offered by the carrier. I am still waiting for Anthem to finish constructing the new provider directory, bu it looks like some doctors will not be doing exchange. So I will likely go with a more expensive off-exchange plan for at least the first year while the dust settles. That will put me at just about the same, to possibly slightly higher than my current plan with all costs considered. I think that is better option to start than risk going to a doctor I think is covered and then having claim rejected.

I actually called some doctors offices yesterday to try to figure out if they would be on the off-exchange plans, but found that the people in the office didn't yet really understand the distinction. One said she thought doctor had opted out of all exchange plans, yet for one carrier (not Anthem) I checked, he was listed.

Seems odd. What is the benefit for the doctors to not accept on-exchange plans versus off?

From the quotes I read, a lot of doctors are worried about actually getting paid through the new exchanges because of the mounting confusion on if any of this is going to even work. Many point to problems with Medicare and Medicaid alongside fights with insurance companies to validate their concerns.Schlzm

But the doctor doesn't get paid through the exchange. They still get paid by the Insurance companies. The exchange will handle the subsidy payments but that doesn't go to physicians.

I am not familiar with medical billing at all so if I'm wrong here I apologize. Also not sure where the NY Post is these days on the "politcally aligned reliability scale" but here is the article I read.http://nypost.com/2013/10/29/docs-resisting-obamacare/

Schlzm

 

[matttyl]

Not sure if this has been discussed, but it is important consideration if you don't get a subsidy. While it used to just matter if your doctor took your carrier, now you need to check if they take all plans or just off-exchange plans offered by the carrier. I am still waiting for Anthem to finish constructing the new provider directory, bu it looks like some doctors will not be doing exchange. So I will likely go with a more expensive off-exchange plan for at least the first year while the dust settles. That will put me at just about the same, to possibly slightly higher than my current plan with all costs considered. I think that is better option to start than risk going to a doctor I think is covered and then having claim rejected.

I actually called some doctors offices yesterday to try to figure out if they would be on the off-exchange plans, but found that the people in the office didn't yet really understand the distinction. One said she thought doctor had opted out of all exchange plans, yet for one carrier (not Anthem) I checked, he was listed.

Seems odd. What is the benefit for the doctors to not accept on-exchange plans versus off?

They can potentially charge more off exchange than on it. If they were to be "on exchange", they would have to accept a lower amount.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

But the doctor doesn't get paid through the exchange. They still get paid by the Insurance companies. The exchange will handle the subsidy payments but that doesn't go to physicians.

Yes, but like Matty said, the insurers are probably offerng less to doctors for on-exchange plans to make them profitable.

 

[BassNBrew]

The system is down at the moment.

We are experiencing technical difficulties and hope to have them resolved soon. Please try again later.

In a hurry? You might be able to apply faster at our Marketplace call center. Call 1-800-318-2596 to talk with one of our trained representatives about applying over the phone.

 

[matttyl]

The system is down at the moment.

We are experiencing technical difficulties and hope to have them resolved soon. Please try again later.

In a hurry? You might be able to apply faster at our Marketplace call center. Call 1-800-318-2596 to talk with one of our trained representatives about applying over the phone.

BassNBrew, I hope I didn't upset you, but Flying Elvis in post 983 seems to think I did. I certainly didn't mean anything by my post, hope you know that.

 

[BassNBrew]

The system is down at the moment.

We are experiencing technical difficulties and hope to have them resolved soon. Please try again later.

In a hurry? You might be able to apply faster at our Marketplace call center. Call 1-800-318-2596 to talk with one of our trained representatives about applying over the phone.

BassNBrew, I hope I didn't upset you, but Flying Elvis in post 983 seems to think I did. I certainly didn't mean anything by my post, hope you know that.

You didn't at all. We're just having a discussion.

Accordingly to the IRS numbers, roughly 36.4% of my agi went towards health insurance payments last year. If I kept the quasi same plan, that would jump to 46.4% this year. Most don't realize what insurance costs because it's couple to their employment. That's going to change moving forward as the masses will complain until everyone is subsidized and the gov't just prints money to pay for it. If that doesn't happen, your going to have people drop out because it's too expensive.

I really think they missed the mark with the word affordable in ACA.

 

[Schlzm]

The system is down at the moment.

We are experiencing technical difficulties and hope to have them resolved soon. Please try again later.

In a hurry? You might be able to apply faster at our Marketplace call center. Call 1-800-318-2596 to talk with one of our trained representatives about applying over the phone.

BassNBrew, I hope I didn't upset you, but Flying Elvis in post 983 seems to think I did. I certainly didn't mean anything by my post, hope you know that.

You didn't at all. We're just having a discussion.

Accordingly to the IRS numbers, roughly 36.4% of my agi went towards health insurance payments last year. If I kept the quasi same plan, that would jump to 46.4% this year. Most don't realize what insurance costs because it's couple to their employment. That's going to change moving forward as the masses will complain until everyone is subsidized and the gov't just prints money to pay for it. If that doesn't happen, your going to have people drop out because it's too expensive.

I really think they missed the mark with the word affordable in ACA.

In the same fashion that the Affordable Care Act is more popular than Obamacare, the Expensive Care Act probably would have been less. Schlzm

 

[matttyl]

I really think they missed the mark with the word affordable in ACA.

Exactly, it's only affordable now for people of little to no means. Go ahead and tell me what the least expensive plan will be for a 60 year old couple who makes $65k total a year (meaning they won't qualify for a subsidy). Oh, it's $980 a month and it comes with a $12k shared deductible (meaning no coverage until the pair combine to meet the full $12k which could all be from one person). So even if nothing happens, that's $11,760 a year in premiums just to be healthy. That's nearly 20% of their BEFORE TAX income, likely over a quarter of their after tax income. Yes, that is the cheapest plan available.

Source - http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/ifp/individual-family-health-insurance!goToScreen?allid=eHe29411&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ehealthinsurance.com%2Findividual-family-health-insurance%3Faction%3DchangeCensus&sourcePage=&edit=false&ajax=false&screenName=best-sellers

I thought that with all the young subsidizing the older, that rates for older folks would be more "affordable"?!

 

[Mystery Achiever]

ehealth is offering to take on exchange enrollment for free until healthcare.giv is fixed.

...no response from WHite House yet.

 

[BassNBrew]

ehealth is offering to take on exchange enrollment for free until healthcare.giv is fixed.

...no response from WHite House yet.

Well their website wasn't working yesterday either.

 

[otello]

Is Sibelius going to resign?

 

[Foosball God]

ehealth is offering to take on exchange enrollment for free until healthcare.giv is fixed.

...no response from WHite House yet.

Smart business by them. Since they seem to be contracted with some of the larger insurance companies. The smaller guys are probably going to be even more pissed off.

 

[BassNBrew]

Wow, just checked out e-health and the plans for 2014 are about double 2013.