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

[Lutherman2112]

GTA Online is also having problems on its initial launch day.

Health care is a government mandate. GTA Online is not.

Open enrollment doesn't end until March of next year. Pretty sure they have a little time to get this sorted out.

But if you are uninsured now, and you don't sign up (aren't able to sign up) till after December 15, you can not obtain a 1/1/14 effective date. If you go without coverage for any part of 2014, you will get a fine, even if only a prorated one. They've got 2.5 months before they start screwing people.

Year 1=$100?

Year 1 = 1% of total income, with a minimum of $95.

The penalty is pro-rated if people have coverage for part of the year, and they won't be liable if they lack coverage for less than a three-month period during the year.

For 2014, if you sign up by March 16 and pay your premium, you will have coverage April 1and not pay a penalty.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Anyone in Tennessee enroll and get a free Obamaphone and phone/data plan? Enrollment should be increasing now.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/02/obamacare-phones-offered-to-health-insurance-buyers/

 

[oso diablo]

so has anyone actually finished this process yet? actually purchased insurance through the healthcare.gov site?

 

[Foosball God]

Anyone in Tennessee enroll and get a free Obamaphone and phone/data plan? Enrollment should be increasing now.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/02/obamacare-phones-offered-to-health-insurance-buyers/

This is only for that particular co-op. It doesn't apply if you sign up for BCBS, Aetna, or something.

 

[Foosball God]

so has anyone actually finished this process yet? actually purchased insurance through the healthcare.gov site?

I sincerely hope not. This isn't something people should be rushing into. People really need to do their research imo.

 

[oso diablo]

so has anyone actually finished this process yet? actually purchased insurance through the healthcare.gov site?

I sincerely hope not. This isn't something people should be rushing into. People really need to do their research imo.

not sure i understand that sentiment. the site is supposed to be the "expedia of health insurance". can you elaborate on why you say that?

 

[Foosball God]

so has anyone actually finished this process yet? actually purchased insurance through the healthcare.gov site?

I sincerely hope not. This isn't something people should be rushing into. People really need to do their research imo.

not sure i understand that sentiment. the site is supposed to be the "expedia of health insurance". can you elaborate on why you say that?

There are lots of choices, lots of options. Just because two plans are the same metal level don't mean that they cover all the same things. People really need to read the summary of coverage for the plans they are considering. They need to match up their choices to their healthcare needs and expectations. It's not a log in, sort by price and go type of thing.

 

[The Commish]

so has anyone actually finished this process yet? actually purchased insurance through the healthcare.gov site?

I just got through the registration process....now working on getting to a log in page. So, no. I have not.

 

[oso diablo]

i understand how health insurance works, and i'd be willing to bet that those most anxious for this outlet understand it rather well, too. So, if enrollment is working, i would expect to see some sign-ups.

and as part of the development team, wouldn't you want to see the enrollment process live-tested, too?

 

[The Commish]

i understand how health insurance works, and i'd be willing to bet that those most anxious for this outlet understand it rather well, too. So, if enrollment is working, i would expect to see some sign-ups.

and as part of the development team, wouldn't you want to see the enrollment process live-tested, too?

I'd want it stress tested first so I don't have to worry about "live-tested"

Regardless, http500 errors are the norm right now with the simple login process.

 

[Foosball God]

i understand how health insurance works, and i'd be willing to bet that those most anxious for this outlet understand it rather well, too. So, if enrollment is working, i would expect to see some sign-ups.

and as part of the development team, wouldn't you want to see the enrollment process live-tested, too?

I'm not talking about from a development perspective. I was talking from a consumer perspective. And if you are fully informed then that is awesome. Most people are not as well informed though.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

If you do not qualify for a subsidy, it is worth checking the insurers' web sites for other plans that may not be offered on the exchange. In addition to possibly working out better financially according to your needs, doctors may participate in some of an insurer's plans but not others.

 

[Henry Ford]

Henry Ford why would the company give me the 13,600 dollar difference if they take the penalty. Why would a corporation do that. It would be nice but the sad reality is they would take the penalty and add the 13,600 to there profits

If Company A offers you $60,000 per year in salary and health insurance that costs you $0 a month, and company B offers you $70,000 in salary, but you have to pay $1,000 per month for health insurance, which one are you going to pick?Now how about if Company A offers you $60,000 per year in salary and you still have to pay $1,000 per month in health insurance?

That's why they offered you health insurance in the first place. Now that you can get health insurance without a job, they can make that salary. If they don't, and cut your health benefits, you're getting screwed out of $15,600 per year in compensation. They are cutting your compensation package by the amount necessary to get health coverage. Could your boss walk in tomorrow and just say "You know what, uconnalum, we're going to cut your salary by $15,000 next year" and increase profits? Sure. Why don't they do that? Because everyone would stop working there. Just as you should if they cut out your health care benefits and don't raise compensation in other areas.

They can. Doesn't mean they will or have to. And, no. They aren't getting screwed out of anything if the employer doesn't.

Yes, they are. They're getting screwed out of five figures of their compensation package. When you take a job you take it for salary and benefits. When they cut your benefits, they are cutting your compensation. When your employer cuts your compensation by $15,000 in order to put the money in its pocket, you are getting screwed.

You don't consider benefits part of your compensation package? If they stopped matching your 401K, would you consider that a drop in your compensation?

What does that have to do with your statement that it's the employer screwing the employee?

I guess let's get on the same page, here. If an employer - an owner of a business which is is doing fine financially - comes into the office and tells everyone he's cutting previously-agreed-upon salary across the board by 20% in order to put more money in his pocket, is he screwing the employees in your opinion?

 

[Juxtatarot]

I've been thinking about whether the idea of businesses dropping the health insurance benefit but increasing wages or other benefits (thus total compensation remaining the same) might be a good idea for society in general. Personally, as someone who is healthy and financially secure, I would elect a high deductible plan, likely rarely use it, and make out ahead. Doing this would reward healthy behaviors.

Of course, there are issues. More people wouldn't buy insurance at all. And employees would likely be slow to increase wages to make up for the perpetual rising cost of insurance premiums.

 

[bagger]

I've been thinking about whether the idea of businesses dropping the health insurance benefit but increasing wages or other benefits (thus total compensation remaining the same) might be a good idea for society in general. Personally, as someone who is healthy and financially secure, I would elect a high deductible plan, likely rarely use it, and make out ahead. Doing this would reward healthy behaviors.

Of course, there are issues. More people wouldn't buy insurance at all. And employees would likely be slow to increase wages to make up for the perpetual rising cost of insurance premiums.

this is exactly what we do with high deductable plans. with hsa accounts we have a very healthy balance in that savings account where if an emergency ever happened we would not be phased at all.removing or reducing monthly deductibles and putting it into savings accounts for the individual is great because it promotes healthy lifestyles, and makes you really analyze if you need that medication, or procedure. and if you do you have thousands saved up anyway to meet a deductible.

 

[matttyl]

I've been thinking about whether the idea of businesses dropping the health insurance benefit but increasing wages or other benefits (thus total compensation remaining the same) might be a good idea for society in general. Personally, as someone who is healthy and financially secure, I would elect a high deductible plan, likely rarely use it, and make out ahead. Doing this would reward healthy behaviors.

Of course, there are issues. More people wouldn't buy insurance at all. And employees would likely be slow to increase wages to make up for the perpetual rising cost of insurance premiums.

this is exactly what we do with high deductable plans. with hsa accounts we have a very healthy balance in that savings account where if an emergency ever happened we would not be phased at all.removing or reducing monthly deductibles and putting it into savings accounts for the individual is great because it promotes healthy lifestyles, and makes you really analyze if you need that medication, or procedure. and if you do you have thousands saved up anyway to meet a deductible.

So here you claim that having a plan with lesser benefits (higher deductibles, even with lower costs) benefits the individual, but you seem to be an advocate of the ACA and it's EHBs, which are the complete opposite and give much greater benefits and come with much higher costs.

I'm very much an advocate of HSAs, which is why my personal policy is an HDHP.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

GTA Online is also having problems on its initial launch day.

Health care is a government mandate. GTA Online is not.

Open enrollment doesn't end until March of next year. Pretty sure they have a little time to get this sorted out.

But if you are uninsured now, and you don't sign up (aren't able to sign up) till after December 15, you can not obtain a 1/1/14 effective date. If you go without coverage for any part of 2014, you will get a fine, even if only a prorated one. They've got 2.5 months before they start screwing people.

Year 1=$100?

Year 1 = 1% of total income, with a minimum of $95.

I C, ty

 

[bagger]

I've been thinking about whether the idea of businesses dropping the health insurance benefit but increasing wages or other benefits (thus total compensation remaining the same) might be a good idea for society in general. Personally, as someone who is healthy and financially secure, I would elect a high deductible plan, likely rarely use it, and make out ahead. Doing this would reward healthy behaviors.

Of course, there are issues. More people wouldn't buy insurance at all. And employees would likely be slow to increase wages to make up for the perpetual rising cost of insurance premiums.

this is exactly what we do with high deductable plans. with hsa accounts we have a very healthy balance in that savings account where if an emergency ever happened we would not be phased at all.removing or reducing monthly deductibles and putting it into savings accounts for the individual is great because it promotes healthy lifestyles, and makes you really analyze if you need that medication, or procedure. and if you do you have thousands saved up anyway to meet a deductible.

So here you claim that having a plan with lesser benefits (higher deductibles, even with lower costs) benefits the individual, but you seem to be an advocate of the ACA and it's EHBs, which are the complete opposite and give much greater benefits and come with much higher costs.I'm very much an advocate of HSAs, which is why my personal policy is an HDHP.

where do you get that i have a plan with lesser benefits. i dont. a high deductible plan is one where i pay nothing or very little in the form of premiums but instead pay into a savings account which is not use it or lose it. when i do pay for health care my deductible is higher, but the source of funds i have to pay for it is much greater as i am not throwing away money on premiums every month.ACA desnt change that for me, so i am not sure why you see a disconnect between that. HDHP is not for everyone. it is the perfect plan for me.

 

[matttyl]

where do you get that i have a plan with lesser benefits. i dont. a high deductible plan is one where i pay nothing or very little in the form of premiums but instead pay into a savings account which is not use it or lose it. when i do pay for health care my deductible is higher, but the source of funds i have to pay for it is much greater as i am not throwing away money on premiums every month.
ACA desnt change that for me, so i am not sure why you see a disconnect between that. HDHP is not for everyone. it is the perfect plan for me.

HAHA to the bolded part, where can I sign up for that? On average, HDPHs have like 25%-40% lower premiums, they aren't free.

I get exactly what a HDHP is, as I said above I have one myself and I feel it's perfect for me as well. And yes, you and I do have lesser benefits, but as I said it comes with lesser premiums to offset it. Lets say you have a $5k deductible and you have a $4k claim. Your benefit from the policy is 0, which is obviously far less than the benefit paid from a policy with a $500 deductible. Sure you may have a HSA to help, but it would take quite a while to build up enough to offset that cost from lower premiums.

Initially, HDHPs, by law, couldn't give you anything "up front" before deductible (with possibly the exception of preventive care). Doctor visits, Rx, as well as in patient or out patient was only covered after deductible - so yes that's lesser coverage/benefits than a plan that had benefits prior to deductibles (like these ACA plans). If you didn't have any claims you came out ahead. If you did have claims you were likely out more going this route - but that's the risk you take. By in large, HDHPs and ACA plans are at the opposite ends of the spectrum - so how can both be good? Personally I feel the HDHP type plans should have been expanded, not done away with.

 

[Phil Elliott]

If anyone has questions while they are waiting to get into the website, you can call 800-fu**yo. 800-318-2596 You can get in without any time on hold .

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/03/need-health-care-coverage-just-dial-1-800-####yo-to-reach-obamacares-national-hotline/

 

[Christo]

Henry Ford why would the company give me the 13,600 dollar difference if they take the penalty. Why would a corporation do that. It would be nice but the sad reality is they would take the penalty and add the 13,600 to there profits

If Company A offers you $60,000 per year in salary and health insurance that costs you $0 a month, and company B offers you $70,000 in salary, but you have to pay $1,000 per month for health insurance, which one are you going to pick?Now how about if Company A offers you $60,000 per year in salary and you still have to pay $1,000 per month in health insurance?

That's why they offered you health insurance in the first place. Now that you can get health insurance without a job, they can make that salary. If they don't, and cut your health benefits, you're getting screwed out of $15,600 per year in compensation. They are cutting your compensation package by the amount necessary to get health coverage. Could your boss walk in tomorrow and just say "You know what, uconnalum, we're going to cut your salary by $15,000 next year" and increase profits? Sure. Why don't they do that? Because everyone would stop working there. Just as you should if they cut out your health care benefits and don't raise compensation in other areas.

They can. Doesn't mean they will or have to. And, no. They aren't getting screwed out of anything if the employer doesn't.

Yes, they are. They're getting screwed out of five figures of their compensation package. When you take a job you take it for salary and benefits. When they cut your benefits, they are cutting your compensation. When your employer cuts your compensation by $15,000 in order to put the money in its pocket, you are getting screwed.

He's right....why is this even a question?? When I signed my contract for my job, I signed up for the whole package. Now I acknowledge that we have language in our contracts that things can change and they provide us with X amount of months notice before they do etc (when it comes to things other than salary) but let's not pretend benefits aren't part of compensation and that if they cut those benefits it's a cut to total compensation.

Who's pretending that?

 

[Christo]

Henry Ford why would the company give me the 13,600 dollar difference if they take the penalty. Why would a corporation do that. It would be nice but the sad reality is they would take the penalty and add the 13,600 to there profits

If Company A offers you $60,000 per year in salary and health insurance that costs you $0 a month, and company B offers you $70,000 in salary, but you have to pay $1,000 per month for health insurance, which one are you going to pick?Now how about if Company A offers you $60,000 per year in salary and you still have to pay $1,000 per month in health insurance?

That's why they offered you health insurance in the first place. Now that you can get health insurance without a job, they can make that salary. If they don't, and cut your health benefits, you're getting screwed out of $15,600 per year in compensation. They are cutting your compensation package by the amount necessary to get health coverage. Could your boss walk in tomorrow and just say "You know what, uconnalum, we're going to cut your salary by $15,000 next year" and increase profits? Sure. Why don't they do that? Because everyone would stop working there. Just as you should if they cut out your health care benefits and don't raise compensation in other areas.

They can. Doesn't mean they will or have to. And, no. They aren't getting screwed out of anything if the employer doesn't.

Yes, they are. They're getting screwed out of five figures of their compensation package. When you take a job you take it for salary and benefits. When they cut your benefits, they are cutting your compensation. When your employer cuts your compensation by $15,000 in order to put the money in its pocket, you are getting screwed.

You don't consider benefits part of your compensation package? If they stopped matching your 401K, would you consider that a drop in your compensation?

What does that have to do with your statement that it's the employer screwing the employee?

I guess let's get on the same page, here. If an employer - an owner of a business which is is doing fine financially - comes into the office and tells everyone he's cutting previously-agreed-upon salary across the board by 20% in order to put more money in his pocket, is he screwing the employees in your opinion?

Not if he wouldn't have done it but for new laws.

 

[NutterButter]

GTA Online is also having problems on its initial launch day.

Health care is a government mandate. GTA Online is not.

Open enrollment doesn't end until March of next year. Pretty sure they have a little time to get this sorted out.

But if you are uninsured now, and you don't sign up (aren't able to sign up) till after December 15, you can not obtain a 1/1/14 effective date. If you go without coverage for any part of 2014, you will get a fine, even if only a prorated one. They've got 2.5 months before they start screwing people.

Year 1=$100?

Year 1 = 1% of total income, with a minimum of $95.

The penalty is pro-rated if people have coverage for part of the year, and they won't be liable if they lack coverage for less than a three-month period during the year.

For 2014, if you sign up by March 16 and pay your premium, you will have coverage April 1and not pay a penalty.

Oh, so you only have 5 1/2 months to sign up. Now it makes sense why people are trying to sign up on day one.

 

[matttyl]

GTA Online is also having problems on its initial launch day.

Health care is a government mandate. GTA Online is not.

Open enrollment doesn't end until March of next year. Pretty sure they have a little time to get this sorted out.

But if you are uninsured now, and you don't sign up (aren't able to sign up) till after December 15, you can not obtain a 1/1/14 effective date. If you go without coverage for any part of 2014, you will get a fine, even if only a prorated one. They've got 2.5 months before they start screwing people.

Year 1=$100?

Year 1 = 1% of total income, with a minimum of $95.

The penalty is pro-rated if people have coverage for part of the year, and they won't be liable if they lack coverage for less than a three-month period during the year.

For 2014, if you sign up by March 16 and pay your premium, you will have coverage April 1and not pay a penalty.

Oh, so you only have 5 1/2 months to sign up. Now it makes sense why people are trying to sign up on day one.

Yeah, and folks can sign up for Jan 1, have everything covered without a pre-ex., pay for 9 months of coverage and get everything covered during that time - then not pay for October till end of year (you know, through the holidays), and they won't have any tax penalty. Then they can just sign back up for Jan 1st, 2015 and do it all over again, without any pre-existing condition limitations. 75% of the premium, but 100% of the benefits. Happens in Mass all the time, why do they think it won't happen again?

 

[the moops]

How are they getting 100% of the benefits when they have no insurance for Oct, Nov, Dec?

 

[Henry Ford]

How are they getting 100% of the benefits when they have no insurance for Oct, Nov, Dec?

Ball bearings.

 

[matttyl]

How are they getting 100% of the benefits when they have no insurance for Oct, Nov, Dec?

They have all of their services in the first 9 months. They wait on other services till after the following January.

Direct from Boston Globe about it going on in Massachusetts (who has an even higher individual mandate than Obamacare will at first):

Thousands of consumers are gaming Massachusetts’ 2006 health insurance law by buying insurance when they need to cover pricey medical care, such as fertility treatments and knee surgery, and then swiftly dropping coverage, a practice that insurance executives say is driving up costs for other people and small businesses.
In 2009 alone, 936 people signed up for coverage with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts for three months or less and ran up claims of more than $1,000 per month while in the plan. Their medical spending while insured was more than four times the average for consumers who buy coverage on their own and retain it in a normal fashion, according to data the state’s largest private insurer provided the Globe.
The typical monthly premium for these short-term members was $400, but their average claims exceeded $2,200 per month. The previous year, the company’s data show it had even more high-spending, short-term members. Over those two years, the figures suggest the price tag ran into the millions.

 

[NutterButter]

GTA Online is also having problems on its initial launch day.

Health care is a government mandate. GTA Online is not.

Open enrollment doesn't end until March of next year. Pretty sure they have a little time to get this sorted out.

But if you are uninsured now, and you don't sign up (aren't able to sign up) till after December 15, you can not obtain a 1/1/14 effective date. If you go without coverage for any part of 2014, you will get a fine, even if only a prorated one. They've got 2.5 months before they start screwing people.

Year 1=$100?

Year 1 = 1% of total income, with a minimum of $95.

The penalty is pro-rated if people have coverage for part of the year, and they won't be liable if they lack coverage for less than a three-month period during the year.

For 2014, if you sign up by March 16 and pay your premium, you will have coverage April 1and not pay a penalty.

Oh, so you only have 5 1/2 months to sign up. Now it makes sense why people are trying to sign up on day one.

Yeah, and folks can sign up for Jan 1, have everything covered with a pre-ex., pay for 9 months of coverage and get everything covered during that time - then not pay for October till end of year (you know, through the holidays), and they won't have any tax penalty. Then they can just sign back up for Jan 1st, 2015 and do it all over again, without any pre-existing condition limitations. 75% of the premium, but 100% of the benefits. Happens in Mass all the time, why do they think it won't happen again?

Sounds like the shark move for everyone.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

How are they getting 100% of the benefits when they have no insurance for Oct, Nov, Dec?

Ball bearings.

and fetzer valves.

 

[matttyl]

Yeah, and folks can sign up for Jan 1, have everything covered with a pre-ex., pay for 9 months of coverage and get everything covered during that time - then not pay for October till end of year (you know, through the holidays), and they won't have any tax penalty. Then they can just sign back up for Jan 1st, 2015 and do it all over again, without any pre-existing condition limitations. 75% of the premium, but 100% of the benefits. Happens in Mass all the time, why do they think it won't happen again?

Sounds like the shark move for everyone.

Very much is. Lets say you have a plan with a $2,500 or more deductible. You get to the end of September with little to no claims. You've literally got 90 days to rack up $2,500 in claims for the insurance to pay anything, as the deductible will go back to $0 on Jan 1 no matter what you do. You could drop the coverage, save 3 months of premium (over the holidays), have zero tax penalty, and you'd only "lose" if you have claims of over $2,500 (or whatever your deductible) in 90 days. Then just sign back up Jan. 1st 2015 yet again without any pre-ex limitations.

People don't seem to understand how dangerous the combination of Guaranteed Issue with no pre-ex is going to be. A pregnant female can literally sign up for insurance when 8 months pregnant, pay 1 month of premium and have the entire delivery covered which typically cost well over $10k (and she can pick the lowest deductible so it's the lowest out of pocket for her).

 

[tommyGunZ]

Yeah, and folks can sign up for Jan 1, have everything covered without a pre-ex., pay for 9 months of coverage and get everything covered during that time - then not pay for October till end of year (you know, through the holidays), and they won't have any tax penalty. Then they can just sign back up for Jan 1st, 2015 and do it all over again, without any pre-existing condition limitations. 75% of the premium, but 100% of the benefits. Happens in Mass all the time, why do they think it won't happen again?

How often does it happen? If this is a serious systemic problem, I'm sure there is data supporting the issue.

Do you have a link?

 

[bagger]

where do you get that i have a plan with lesser benefits. i dont. a high deductible plan is one where i pay nothing or very little in the form of premiums but instead pay into a savings account which is not use it or lose it. when i do pay for health care my deductible is higher, but the source of funds i have to pay for it is much greater as i am not throwing away money on premiums every month.

ACA desnt change that for me, so i am not sure why you see a disconnect between that. HDHP is not for everyone. it is the perfect plan for me.

HAHA to the bolded part, where can I sign up for that? On average, HDPHs have like 25%-40% lower premiums, they aren't free.I get exactly what a HDHP is, as I said above I have one myself and I feel it's perfect for me as well. And yes, you and I do have lesser benefits, but as I said it comes with lesser premiums to offset it. Lets say you have a $5k deductible and you have a $4k claim. Your benefit from the policy is 0, which is obviously far less than the benefit paid from a policy with a $500 deductible. Sure you may have a HSA to help, but it would take quite a while to build up enough to offset that cost from lower premiums.

Initially, HDHPs, by law, couldn't give you anything "up front" before deductible (with possibly the exception of preventive care). Doctor visits, Rx, as well as in patient or out patient was only covered after deductible - so yes that's lesser coverage/benefits than a plan that had benefits prior to deductibles (like these ACA plans). If you didn't have any claims you came out ahead. If you did have claims you were likely out more going this route - but that's the risk you take. By in large, HDHPs and ACA plans are at the opposite ends of the spectrum - so how can both be good? Personally I feel the HDHP type plans should have been expanded, not done away with.

my wife's firm was free when we used her plan. Now using mine as she is part time. My hdhp is fairly nominal.

 

[matttyl]

my wife's firm was free when we used her plan. Now using mine as she is part time. My hdhp is fairly nominal.

How is it "free" when your wife's firm paid for it?! Sounds like you were just a moocher to that employer! There have been pages on either this thread or another ACA thread with folks adamant that anything an employer paid for your health insurance is simply part of your compensation package, and I agree with that. It wasn't free at all, someone was fitting the bill - just like everyone who will be getting a subsidy. It's not "free" at all.

 

[matttyl]

Yeah, and folks can sign up for Jan 1, have everything covered without a pre-ex., pay for 9 months of coverage and get everything covered during that time - then not pay for October till end of year (you know, through the holidays), and they won't have any tax penalty. Then they can just sign back up for Jan 1st, 2015 and do it all over again, without any pre-existing condition limitations. 75% of the premium, but 100% of the benefits. Happens in Mass all the time, why do they think it won't happen again?

How often does it happen? If this is a serious systemic problem, I'm sure there is data supporting the issue.

Do you have a link?

Didn't read post #177 of this thread? And that was just on people who had coverage for 3 months or less (so they still paid a penalty), and was only from one carrier in Mass.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/04/04/short_term_customers_boosting_health_costs/

 

[Lutherman2112]

Yeah, and folks can sign up for Jan 1, have everything covered without a pre-ex., pay for 9 months of coverage and get everything covered during that time - then not pay for October till end of year (you know, through the holidays), and they won't have any tax penalty. Then they can just sign back up for Jan 1st, 2015 and do it all over again, without any pre-existing condition limitations. 75% of the premium, but 100% of the benefits. Happens in Mass all the time, why do they think it won't happen again?

How often does it happen? If this is a serious systemic problem, I'm sure there is data supporting the issue.

Do you have a link?

Didn't read post #177 of this thread? And that was just on people who had coverage for 3 months or less (so they still paid a penalty), and was only from one carrier in Mass.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/04/04/short_term_customers_boosting_health_costs/

And in the past 3.5 years since that article, has the state of Massachusetts done anything about the jumping and dumping?

 

[The Commish]

Henry Ford why would the company give me the 13,600 dollar difference if they take the penalty. Why would a corporation do that. It would be nice but the sad reality is they would take the penalty and add the 13,600 to there profits

If Company A offers you $60,000 per year in salary and health insurance that costs you $0 a month, and company B offers you $70,000 in salary, but you have to pay $1,000 per month for health insurance, which one are you going to pick?Now how about if Company A offers you $60,000 per year in salary and you still have to pay $1,000 per month in health insurance?

That's why they offered you health insurance in the first place. Now that you can get health insurance without a job, they can make that salary. If they don't, and cut your health benefits, you're getting screwed out of $15,600 per year in compensation. They are cutting your compensation package by the amount necessary to get health coverage. Could your boss walk in tomorrow and just say "You know what, uconnalum, we're going to cut your salary by $15,000 next year" and increase profits? Sure. Why don't they do that? Because everyone would stop working there. Just as you should if they cut out your health care benefits and don't raise compensation in other areas.

They can. Doesn't mean they will or have to. And, no. They aren't getting screwed out of anything if the employer doesn't.

Yes, they are. They're getting screwed out of five figures of their compensation package. When you take a job you take it for salary and benefits. When they cut your benefits, they are cutting your compensation. When your employer cuts your compensation by $15,000 in order to put the money in its pocket, you are getting screwed.

He's right....why is this even a question?? When I signed my contract for my job, I signed up for the whole package. Now I acknowledge that we have language in our contracts that things can change and they provide us with X amount of months notice before they do etc (when it comes to things other than salary) but let's not pretend benefits aren't part of compensation and that if they cut those benefits it's a cut to total compensation.

Who's pretending that?

So you just don't equate a cut in total compensation with being "screwed". I have this right?

 

[Lutherman2112]

Yeah, and folks can sign up for Jan 1, have everything covered without a pre-ex., pay for 9 months of coverage and get everything covered during that time - then not pay for October till end of year (you know, through the holidays), and they won't have any tax penalty. Then they can just sign back up for Jan 1st, 2015 and do it all over again, without any pre-existing condition limitations. 75% of the premium, but 100% of the benefits. Happens in Mass all the time, why do they think it won't happen again?

How often does it happen? If this is a serious systemic problem, I'm sure there is data supporting the issue.

Do you have a link?

http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/HCR-2011/GamingMandates2011-1128.pdf

 

[matttyl]

Yeah, and folks can sign up for Jan 1, have everything covered without a pre-ex., pay for 9 months of coverage and get everything covered during that time - then not pay for October till end of year (you know, through the holidays), and they won't have any tax penalty. Then they can just sign back up for Jan 1st, 2015 and do it all over again, without any pre-existing condition limitations. 75% of the premium, but 100% of the benefits. Happens in Mass all the time, why do they think it won't happen again?

How often does it happen? If this is a serious systemic problem, I'm sure there is data supporting the issue.

Do you have a link?

Didn't read post #177 of this thread? And that was just on people who had coverage for 3 months or less (so they still paid a penalty), and was only from one carrier in Mass.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/04/04/short_term_customers_boosting_health_costs/

And in the past 3.5 years since that article, has the state of Massachusetts done anything about the jumping and dumping?

That article (and others) were written after they specifically looked into the situation, with a Division of Insurance analysis performed in June of 2010. Since then,yes, they have shortened the open enrollment period slightly, but the issue is still there. It's reported than it cost Mass. $37.3M in 2009 alone. That's a state with a roughly 6.6M population. Extrapolate that to a country of 316M, and we're talking about $1.8B a year - and as you point out that was 4 years ago, and costs have gone up since.

Also realize that Mass has a MUCH higher penalty for going without than Obamacare will (at least in the early years). You will see more of this if the "penalty" for doing and getting caught isn't as high.

I'm just stating that as long as we have the dangerous combination that everyone "loves" of both Guaranteed Issue, and no pre-ex. you will have this situation happen.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I've been thinking about whether the idea of businesses dropping the health insurance benefit but increasing wages or other benefits (thus total compensation remaining the same) might be a good idea for society in general. Personally, as someone who is healthy and financially secure, I would elect a high deductible plan, likely rarely use it, and make out ahead. Doing this would reward healthy behaviors.

Of course, there are issues. More people wouldn't buy insurance at all. And employees would likely be slow to increase wages to make up for the perpetual rising cost of insurance premiums.

So, I'm seriously considering recommending to my company's CEO that we drop health insurance and give everyone raises to compensate (at least initially). Less than 50 employees so my understanding is there would be no employer fines. Seems like an excellent way for the company to control compensation expenses for the future. Some employees would love it -- the younger people who wouldn't have expensive coverage, those that would be covered under their spouses' plans, those like me that are healthy and can deal with a high deductible plan. Some of the lesser paid employees might even qualify for subsidies. Sure, some of the older, sickly workers wouldn't like it but, honestly, maybe they shouldn't be as big of a concern.

What am I missing?

 

[matttyl]

I've been thinking about whether the idea of businesses dropping the health insurance benefit but increasing wages or other benefits (thus total compensation remaining the same) might be a good idea for society in general. Personally, as someone who is healthy and financially secure, I would elect a high deductible plan, likely rarely use it, and make out ahead. Doing this would reward healthy behaviors.

Of course, there are issues. More people wouldn't buy insurance at all. And employees would likely be slow to increase wages to make up for the perpetual rising cost of insurance premiums.

So, I'm seriously considering recommending to my company's CEO that we drop health insurance and give everyone raises to compensate (at least initially). Less than 50 employees so my understanding is there would be no employer fines. Seems like an excellent way for the company to control compensation expenses for the future. Some employees would love it -- the younger people who wouldn't have expensive coverage, those that would be covered under their spouses' plans, those like me that are healthy and can deal with a high deductible plan. Some of the lesser paid employees might even qualify for subsidies. Sure, some of the older, sickly workers wouldn't like it but, honestly, maybe they shouldn't be as big of a concern.

What am I missing?

the employer mandate will hit small employers just the same in the future, so he may likely be fined if he goes along with it. And it may not be as cheap as you think on the exchange if you're young and you don't qualify for a subsidy.

 

[the moops]

the employer mandate will hit small employers just the same in the future

Is this just a guess or has this been discussed?

 

[matttyl]

the employer mandate will hit small employers just the same in the future

Is this just a guess or has this been discussed?

It's a guess on my part, but I'm sure it's been discussed. Honestly, if I were a small company at this point I wouldn't offer any plan. What benefit would it give to my employees for me to pigeon hole each of them into the one plan that I offer? As long as it's "affordable" by definition, none of my employees would be eligible for a subsidy on the exchange, nor would their spouses if I allow for a spouse to be included on the group plan. By saying no group, they can get whatever plan they want, possibly get a subsidy - and they do all the work so I don't have to do any of it. Much less of a headache for me to deal with.

 

[bagger]

my wife's firm was free when we used her plan. Now using mine as she is part time. My hdhp is fairly nominal.

How is it "free" when your wife's firm paid for it?! Sounds like you were just a moocher to that employer! There have been pages on either this thread or another ACA thread with folks adamant that anything an employer paid for your health insurance is simply part of your compensation package, and I agree with that. It wasn't free at all, someone was fitting the bill - just like everyone who will be getting a subsidy. It's not "free" at all.

free to the employee. i was not aware that benefits paid to employee = moocher.

once youre done working at mcdonalds and get benefits above and beyond your hourly paycheck youll see a whole new world out there.

 

[matttyl]

free to the employee. i was not aware that benefits paid to employee = moocher.

once youre done working at mcdonalds and get benefits above and beyond your hourly paycheck youll see a whole new world out there.

I'm a self employed individual, thank you. And I'm in the insurance industry, so I'm pretty sure I know more about this situation than you who apparently doesn't even pay for his own insurance. I have the ability to be on my wife's group plan, but I'm not. I'm not a moocher.

And yes, you were mooching off of your spouse's employer if you in fact were covered without having to pay anything. What did you do for her employer other than happen to be married to one of their employees? If I were that employer, why on Earth should I pay anything for your coverage? You don't work for me, your spouse does.

What if there was another employee, doing the same job as your spouse, having worked for me this same amount of time but she's not married. Should I pay them more salary because they don't have a mooching spouse that I have to pay for?

 

[tommyGunZ]

free to the employee. i was not aware that benefits paid to employee = moocher.

once youre done working at mcdonalds and get benefits above and beyond your hourly paycheck youll see a whole new world out there.

I'm a self employed individual, thank you. And I'm in the insurance industry, so I'm pretty sure I know more about this situation than you who apparently doesn't even pay for his own insurance. I have the ability to be on my wife's group plan, but I'm not. I'm not a moocher.

And yes, you were mooching off of your spouse's employer if you in fact were covered without having to pay anything. What did you do for her employer other than happen to be married to one of their employees? If I were that employer, why on Earth should I pay anything for your coverage? You don't work for me, your spouse does.

What if there was another employee, doing the same job as your spouse, having worked for me this same amount of time but she's not married. Should I pay them more salary because they don't have a mooching spouse that I have to pay for?

Are you really this dense? His wife's employer offers that benefit as part of a compensation package to attract talent. That's WHY ON EARTH her employer would pay for bagger's coverage.

Jesus dude. You are so anti-Obamacare that you're losing it.

 

[Christo]

Henry Ford why would the company give me the 13,600 dollar difference if they take the penalty. Why would a corporation do that. It would be nice but the sad reality is they would take the penalty and add the 13,600 to there profits

If Company A offers you $60,000 per year in salary and health insurance that costs you $0 a month, and company B offers you $70,000 in salary, but you have to pay $1,000 per month for health insurance, which one are you going to pick?Now how about if Company A offers you $60,000 per year in salary and you still have to pay $1,000 per month in health insurance?

That's why they offered you health insurance in the first place. Now that you can get health insurance without a job, they can make that salary. If they don't, and cut your health benefits, you're getting screwed out of $15,600 per year in compensation. They are cutting your compensation package by the amount necessary to get health coverage. Could your boss walk in tomorrow and just say "You know what, uconnalum, we're going to cut your salary by $15,000 next year" and increase profits? Sure. Why don't they do that? Because everyone would stop working there. Just as you should if they cut out your health care benefits and don't raise compensation in other areas.

They can. Doesn't mean they will or have to. And, no. They aren't getting screwed out of anything if the employer doesn't.

Yes, they are. They're getting screwed out of five figures of their compensation package. When you take a job you take it for salary and benefits. When they cut your benefits, they are cutting your compensation. When your employer cuts your compensation by $15,000 in order to put the money in its pocket, you are getting screwed.

He's right....why is this even a question?? When I signed my contract for my job, I signed up for the whole package. Now I acknowledge that we have language in our contracts that things can change and they provide us with X amount of months notice before they do etc (when it comes to things other than salary) but let's not pretend benefits aren't part of compensation and that if they cut those benefits it's a cut to total compensation.

Who's pretending that?

So you just don't equate a cut in total compensation with being "screwed". I have this right?

Not by your employer. Go talk to your government.

 

[matttyl]

free to the employee. i was not aware that benefits paid to employee = moocher.

once youre done working at mcdonalds and get benefits above and beyond your hourly paycheck youll see a whole new world out there.

I'm a self employed individual, thank you. And I'm in the insurance industry, so I'm pretty sure I know more about this situation than you who apparently doesn't even pay for his own insurance. I have the ability to be on my wife's group plan, but I'm not. I'm not a moocher.

And yes, you were mooching off of your spouse's employer if you in fact were covered without having to pay anything. What did you do for her employer other than happen to be married to one of their employees? If I were that employer, why on Earth should I pay anything for your coverage? You don't work for me, your spouse does.

What if there was another employee, doing the same job as your spouse, having worked for me this same amount of time but she's not married. Should I pay them more salary because they don't have a mooching spouse that I have to pay for?

Are you really this dense? His wife's employer offers that benefit as part of a compensation package to attract talent. That's WHY ON EARTH her employer would pay for bagger's coverage.

Jesus dude. You are so anti-Obamacare that you're losing it.

Yes, they offer that benefit to attract her talent - and apparently it worked. He, though, doesn't work for her company. It's a free benefit to him, but that doesn't make it actually "free" as he claimed (or as you claim as it's part of her compensation, right?), and it does make him a moocher (definition - to get or take without paying or at another's expense; sponge).

And if you're truly going to consider it part of her "compensation package", and they hire someone else to do the exact same job who doesn't have a spouse or kids that the employer will cover (meaning that they will be compensated less) - legally that's discrimination. By that definition, it can't be considered "compensation", unless they offer a "cafeteria plan" for their benefits. That's very legal, though.

 

[Henry Ford]

Henry Ford why would the company give me the 13,600 dollar difference if they take the penalty. Why would a corporation do that. It would be nice but the sad reality is they would take the penalty and add the 13,600 to there profits

If Company A offers you $60,000 per year in salary and health insurance that costs you $0 a month, and company B offers you $70,000 in salary, but you have to pay $1,000 per month for health insurance, which one are you going to pick?Now how about if Company A offers you $60,000 per year in salary and you still have to pay $1,000 per month in health insurance?

That's why they offered you health insurance in the first place. Now that you can get health insurance without a job, they can make that salary. If they don't, and cut your health benefits, you're getting screwed out of $15,600 per year in compensation. They are cutting your compensation package by the amount necessary to get health coverage. Could your boss walk in tomorrow and just say "You know what, uconnalum, we're going to cut your salary by $15,000 next year" and increase profits? Sure. Why don't they do that? Because everyone would stop working there. Just as you should if they cut out your health care benefits and don't raise compensation in other areas.

They can. Doesn't mean they will or have to. And, no. They aren't getting screwed out of anything if the employer doesn't.

Yes, they are. They're getting screwed out of five figures of their compensation package. When you take a job you take it for salary and benefits. When they cut your benefits, they are cutting your compensation. When your employer cuts your compensation by $15,000 in order to put the money in its pocket, you are getting screwed.

He's right....why is this even a question?? When I signed my contract for my job, I signed up for the whole package. Now I acknowledge that we have language in our contracts that things can change and they provide us with X amount of months notice before they do etc (when it comes to things other than salary) but let's not pretend benefits aren't part of compensation and that if they cut those benefits it's a cut to total compensation.

Who's pretending that?

So you just don't equate a cut in total compensation with being "screwed". I have this right?

Not by your employer. Go talk to your government.

That's a very strange position to take.

 

[Henry Ford]

free to the employee. i was not aware that benefits paid to employee = moocher.



once youre done working at mcdonalds and get benefits above and beyond your hourly paycheck youll see a whole new world out there.

I'm a self employed individual, thank you. And I'm in the insurance industry, so I'm pretty sure I know more about this situation than you who apparently doesn't even pay for his own insurance. I have the ability to be on my wife's group plan, but I'm not. I'm not a moocher.And yes, you were mooching off of your spouse's employer if you in fact were covered without having to pay anything. What did you do for her employer other than happen to be married to one of their employees? If I were that employer, why on Earth should I pay anything for your coverage? You don't work for me, your spouse does.

What if there was another employee, doing the same job as your spouse, having worked for me this same amount of time but she's not married. Should I pay them more salary because they don't have a mooching spouse that I have to pay for?

Are you really this dense? His wife's employer offers that benefit as part of a compensation package to attract talent. That's WHY ON EARTH her employer would pay for bagger's coverage.

Jesus dude. You are so anti-Obamacare that you're losing it.

Yes, they offer that benefit to attract her talent - and apparently it worked. He, though, doesn't work for her company. It's a free benefit to him, but that doesn't make it actually "free" as he claimed (or as you claim as it's part of her compensation, right?), and it does make him a moocher (definition - to get or take without paying or at another's expense; sponge).And if you're truly going to consider it part of her "compensation package", and they hire someone else to do the exact same job who doesn't have a spouse or kids that the employer will cover (meaning that they will be compensated less) - legally that's discrimination. By that definition, it can't be considered "compensation", unless they offer a "cafeteria plan" for their benefits. That's very legal, though.

Don't try to talk about legal standards for discrimination. It's a bad look for you.

 

[matttyl]

Don't try to talk about legal standards for discrimination. It's a bad look for you.

I'll give you that. Just saying that higher deductible plans are in no way "free" (even if an employer is paying for it, it's still being paid and most here still consider it part of a compensation package including you).