Health Plans Up Significantly in 2014

[Hermit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Doesn't change the fact that the first kid (if these quotes are correct) effectively costs 50% more than two 60-year-olds combined. Sure, you may say "$800 more for family coverage, and then $172 for the first kid", but when all is said and done it's effectively $972 for the first kid. This would be a MASSIVE "tax" on families with children, and I say that as someone who doesn't have any. The other thing about it is that with my Megacorp plan, "employee plus spouse" coverage is quite a bit more expensive than "employee plus dependents" coverage (which is the same whether you insure 1 kid or 10).

My Megacorp plan when down considerably this year. They went from "family" to looking at individuals. My wife died in 2009 and starting this year instead of assuming the "family" includes a spouse, they are pricing for me and a 21 and 22 year old. The way things are priced by individual plans seem to make quite a difference.

[dgoldenz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Doesn't change the fact that the first kid (if these quotes are correct) effectively costs 50% more than two 60-year-olds combined. Sure, you may say "$800 more for family coverage, and then $172 for the first kid", but when all is said and done it's effectively $972 for the first kid. This would be a MASSIVE "tax" on families with children, and I say that as someone who doesn't have any. The other thing about it is that with my Megacorp plan, "employee plus spouse" coverage is quite a bit more expensive than "employee plus dependents" coverage (which is the same whether you insure 1 kid or 10).

Group plans are already priced this way. The jump in cost from "employee + spouse" to "family" is usually 50%+ more expensive. That said, I don't know how Humana came up with those numbers.

[sengsational]

Is there a macro economic answer to the thread's original premise that the prices will rise significantly? I'm just thinking out loud here. I welcome challenges to this thinking. The way I figure it, there is a certain amount of capital in the industry, a certain number of employees, a certain amount of tort payouts, etc, and all that stays the same. Let's just say for argument's sake that the private health care companies will not try to soak the public (make higher than usual profits...maybe those accounting rules will work), and say they'll be about as efficient as they are today (bites tongue). That's the one side of it. So now we're down to supply and demand. We have a fixed supply (our health care industry, as-is), and what I perceive as an increased demand (a bunch of people that only hit the ER when they're about to croak, but otherwise don't see the doctor). Now these people are going to get offered preventive care for free or for cheap (that speaks to the demand angle, not the economic angle because the health care system will still get paid by joe taxpayer). Sounds like a big bump in demand to me. More people asking for service, the same system going to provide it. So, even though I got a "C" in the class, I think that means prices will have some serious upward pressure. So I think we can all agree that prices, in general, won't go down! We need to feed the beast! What will happen, I think, is that the sick and low income will get more out of the system than they did before (paid for by the taxpayers). So the people who have had HI all along are going to need to get service from a system that's now been forced to dedicate capacity to the newcomers. If price has been artificially held down, it seems like the result will be a reduction in quality?

[ERhoosier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgoldenz Group plans are already priced this way. The jump in cost from "employee + spouse" to "family" is usually 50%+ more expensive. That said, I don't know how Humana came up with those numbers.

That's the way plans are priced for my current employer. Logical or not, 'family' is the big jump in $$$$.

[gerrym51]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERhoosier That's the way plans are priced for my current employer. Logical or not, 'family' is the big jump in $$$$.

don't tell ziggy-he won't believe you

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgoldenz Tell that to the people making $90k/year that are still struggling. $90k/year doesn't go that far in a high cost of living area, and it's still an extra $300/mo that isn't available for other discretionary spending or savings. Taxes also have to be raised to cover the subsidized part of the premium. If the premium is $1200/mo and the family was previously paying $400/mo and is now forced to pay $700/mo, that means $500/mo has to come from taxpayers. Please don't tell me that the extra $800/mo will have no effect on both an individual and national level because it obviously will. There's no free lunch.

My government employer provided health insurance costs $700/mo already (my share of the premium). Coverage is kinda craptacular. No biggie - system's broken and it is already expensive. Exchange insurance would probably be better. It would be a free lunch for us (if DW didn't have excellent employer provided coverage that is nearly free).

[Buckeye]

What is the deductible on the policy we are talking about? Are we talking first dollar coverage?

[Hermit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sengsational Is there a macro economic answer to the thread's original premise that the prices will rise significantly? I'm just thinking out loud here. I welcome challenges to this thinking. The way I figure it, there is a certain amount of capital in the industry, a certain number of employees, a certain amount of tort payouts, etc, and all that stays the same....

I believe Chief Justice John Roberts was spot on when he called it a tax. Those making greater than "$45,960 for a single person and $94,200 a year for a family of four" will subsidize those making less. Thus, the higher costs. As I recall this law was supposed to be revenue neutral. That means "the rich" will be paying the entire costs. I think they do now in a more hidden form of support for emergency room costs, etc. I just wonder where the money for that current support will go. These are just my thoughts. No research to back it up.

[Bikerdude]

From another source.

"The Society of Actuaries has released a report that concludes claims costs in individual health plans — expected to get more crowded as the health-care overhaul known as Obamacare takes effect — will rise by an average of 32% throughout the U.S. once the landmark law is fully enacted next year."

Actuaries say individual plan claims will rise 32% under Obamacare - Health Exchange - MarketWatch

[pb4uski]

So when will the revolution begin? There are going to be hoards of really pissed off constituents when all this comes to pass - subsidy or not.

While I have the ability to manage my income to avoid the cliff in the subsidy, I see that as a huge problem with this scheme that I haven't seen much written about other than on these boards. Some poor schmucks who are unaware or not paying attention will likely get a raise or some overtime pay that pushes them over the cliff and get a really nasty surprise. If they don't somehow fix that it will be an outrage.

[Bikerdude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikerdude From another source. "The Society of Actuaries has released a report that concludes claims costs in individual health plans — expected to get more crowded as the health-care overhaul known as Obamacare takes effect — will rise by an average of 32% throughout the U.S. once the landmark law is fully enacted next year." Actuaries say individual plan claims will rise 32% under Obamacare - Health Exchange - MarketWatch

This is the report detail with individual State impacts:

http://cdn-files.soa.org/web/researc...aca-report.pdf

[rbmrtn]

Here is some comments on the report from kaiser

FAQ On The Latest Study: Obamacare's Impact On Insurance Claim Costs - Kaiser Health News

Talking in terms of percent increase seems to be more drama, average increase of "32%" is about $100 per the tables, that doesn't seem unreasonable.

Also this referring to the individual market which is a very small part of the market. The majority won't see this.

[gerrym51]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbmrtn Here is some comments on the report from kaiser FAQ On The Latest Study: Obamacare's Impact On Insurance Claim Costs - Kaiser Health News Talking in terms of percent increase seems to be more drama, average increase of "32%" is about $100 per the tables, that doesn't seem unreasonable. Also this referring to the individual market which is a very small part of the market. The majority won't see this.

although in general its not many i would think a greater percentage of early retirees on this board will be in these exchange groups-i am in massachusettes.

[Animorph]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbmrtn Here is some comments on the report from kaiser FAQ On The Latest Study: Obamacare's Impact On Insurance Claim Costs - Kaiser Health News Talking in terms of percent increase seems to be more drama, average increase of "32%" is about $100 per the tables, that doesn't seem unreasonable. Also this referring to the individual market which is a very small part of the market. The majority won't see this.

+1

This is just the difference between underwritten individual coverage and a general population pool with probably some adverse selection. Two different products, two different prices. Not a "price increase".

[dgoldenz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbmrtn Here is some comments on the report from kaiser FAQ On The Latest Study: Obamacare's Impact On Insurance Claim Costs - Kaiser Health News Talking in terms of percent increase seems to be more drama, average increase of "32%" is about $100 per the tables, that doesn't seem unreasonable. Also this referring to the individual market which is a very small part of the market. The majority won't see this.

Where did you get $100 from? A 32% increase in average claims per insured would be massive. When insurance companies start seeing these trends they will simply stop selling in the states with the highest claims rates. Humana and Aetna have already stated that they will participate in no more than 10-15 state exchanges, far less states than they sell in now.

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgoldenz Where did you get $100 from? A 32% increase in average claims per insured would be massive. When insurance companies start seeing these trends they will simply stop selling in the states with the highest claims rates. Humana and Aetna have already stated that they will participate in no more than 10-15 state exchanges, far less states than they sell in now.

See bottom row of table on page 7

http://cdn-files.soa.org/web/researc...aca-report.pdf

[dgoldenz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski See bottom row of table on page 7 http://cdn-files.soa.org/web/researc...aca-report.pdf

That's for one person and factors all age brackets. A $100/mo increase for an individual would mean a $300-400/mo increase for a family. For a younger individual or family paying significantly less than the average, it means a huge increase in premiums.

[pb4uski]

No argument here.

[bondi688]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski No argument here.

I am still confused about the projected premium you arrived at with the calculator from California in the thread that got shut down for reason unclear to me. I was looking forward to more comments to clarify whether the calculator is inaccurate, you had put in wrong data etc. Now I remain confused and do not know if my budget for health insurance have to be drastically changed or I have to maneuver to keep my gross income down below a certain level until I can qualify for MediCare.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bondi688 ...in the thread that got shut down for reason unclear to me.

You think maybe comments like these might have had something to do with it?

Quote:

Obamacare is strictly a plan to get more lower income people insurance-thats it and get us to pay for it

Quote:

I hate to sound like the GOP spin machine...