Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Report: ACA's Effect on Insurance Premiums Varies by Income Level
Old 03-29-2013, 11:21 AM   #1
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 412
Report: ACA's Effect on Insurance Premiums Varies by Income Level

Report: ACA's Effect on Insurance Premiums Varies by Income Level - California Healthline

"Report Findings
The report found that middle-income residents could see individual health plan premiums increase by an average of 30% and total health care costs increase by an average of 20% under the ACA.
However, families earning less than $60,000 annually could save up to 84% on premiums and 76% on total care costs with the help of federal subsidies, according to the report.
Researchers found that residents with annual incomes between 250% and 400% of the federal poverty level who currently are enrolled in individual plans will pay an average of 47% less when they have access to subsidies under the ACA (Terhune, Los Angeles Times, 3/28)."
__________________

__________________
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid people are full of confidence.”

(—Charles Bukowski)
wanaberetiree is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-29-2013, 05:42 PM   #2
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 923
It's always been obvious that older people and those with health problems will be better off under the law at the expense of everyone else. This doesn't really say anything we didn't already know. Those over 400% of FPL that get no subsidy not only will pay much more for their coverage, but they are also the most likely to pay more taxes to fund the subsidies for everyone else, a double whammy. The insurance premiums are the same regardless of income, the only difference is who pays for it.
__________________

__________________
Disclaimer - I am an independent insurance agent. If the above message contains insurance-related content, it is NOT intended as advice, and may not be accurate, applicable or sufficient depending on specific circumstances. Don't rely on it for any purpose. I do encourage you to consult an independent agent for insurance-related advice if you have a question that is specific in nature.
dgoldenz is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 07:27 PM   #3
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,411
+1 It seems to me that the middle class (>400% FPL) gets screwed. Those under 400% FPL benefit greatly. And while the very wealthy pay more as well it doesn;t hurt them as much. Am I missing something?
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 07:29 PM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
........ Am I missing something?
If you have a catastrophic illness you don't have to go bankrupt?
__________________
Yes, I have achieved work / life balance.
travelover is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 07:39 PM   #5
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelover View Post
If you have a catastrophic illness you don't have to go bankrupt?
If you are just over 400% FPL you go bankrupt paying health insurance premiums instead.

According to this calculator http://www.coveredca.com/resources/c...ting-the-cost/

A 55 yo couple with $62,500 of income would not qualify for any subsidy and would pay $20,676 (33% of their gross income) in health insurance premiums.

Are you actually defending that outcome?
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 07:59 PM   #6
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
If you are just over 400% FPL you go bankrupt paying health insurance premiums instead.

According to this calculator Health Insurance Calculator | Covered California

A 55 yo couple with $62,500 of income would not qualify for any subsidy and would pay $20,676 (33% of their gross income) in health insurance premiums.

Are you actually defending that outcome?

i think you are just doubling a single. I live in mass. and actually have bought from the connector here. depending on what plan you buy-bronze-silver-gold

i bought a plan for a single-but i was looking at plus spouse and family.

it would be 12-14 thousand for a couple

still a lot of money and i am against the mandatory aspects of obamacare
__________________
gerrym51 is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 08:05 PM   #7
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
A 55 yo couple with $62,500 of income would not qualify for any subsidy and would pay $20,676 (33% of their gross income) in health insurance premiums.
How did you get $20,676? I see the max premium as $12,800.
__________________
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid people are full of confidence.”

(—Charles Bukowski)
wanaberetiree is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 08:10 PM   #8
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrym51 View Post
i think you are just doubling a single. I live in mass. and actually have bought from the connector here. depending on what plan you buy-bronze-silver-gold

i bought a plan for a single-but i was looking at plus spouse and family.

it would be 12-14 thousand for a couple

still a lot of money and i am against the mandatory aspects of obamacare
All I am doing is typing in household of 2, income of $62,500 and age 55. The resulting premium per month is $1,723 so 12 months would be $20,676, which is 33% of $60,500. The $1,723/month is the same as the Berkeley calculator.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 08:11 PM   #9
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanaberetiree View Post
How did you get $20,676? I see the max premium as $12,800.

you misread the calculator. it says 1700 dollars a month for the premium.


the 12,8oo is the out of pocket max. that is after premiums. it does not include them
__________________
gerrym51 is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 08:13 PM   #10
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
All I am doing is typing in household of 2, income of $62,500 and age 55. The resulting premium per month is $1,723 so 12 months would be $20,676, which is 33% of $60,500. The $1,723/month is the same as the Berkeley calculator.

although i do not understand totally i went to the california calculator and confirmed what you said.

all i can say is HOLY ****!
__________________
gerrym51 is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 08:15 PM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanaberetiree View Post
How did you get $20,676? I see the max premium as $12,800.
The $20,676 is the $1,723 premium per month * 12 months.

The $12,800 is the maximum annual out of pocket cost (not including premium). Hover over the blue Out-of-Pocket Limit.

So if this family had a health event that went to their OOP limit they would pay 54% of their gross income for health care. Outrageous.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 08:18 PM   #12
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
The $20,676 is the $1,723 premium per month * 12 months.

The $12,800 is the maximum annual out of pocket cost (not including premium). Hover over the blue Out-of-Pocket Limit.

So if this family had a health event that went to their OOP limit they would pay 54% of their gross income for health care. Outrageous.

i agree the calculator suggests this amount. I cannot believe it is correct. California must be super expensive
__________________
gerrym51 is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 08:23 PM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
JoeWras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
The $20,676 is the $1,723 premium per month * 12 months.

The $12,800 is the maximum annual out of pocket cost (not including premium). Hover over the blue Out-of-Pocket Limit.

So if this family had a health event that went to their OOP limit they would pay 54% of their gross income for health care. Outrageous.
And it is not difficult to have such a health event. For example, a trip to the hospital for some bad torso pains that you think may be a heart attack, but instead are just kidney stones that are eventually passed, could put you at the limit. Not hard to do at all.
__________________
JoeWras is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 08:27 PM   #14
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrym51 View Post
i agree the calculator suggests this amount. I cannot believe it is correct. California must be super expensive
It seems credible to me in that the $1,723 is 2-3 times what I am paying now in a no underwriting state and that is the rough magnitude of increases in premiums that some pundits are expecting.

I hope I am wrong.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 08:30 PM   #15
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,424
Under our current system individuals enjoy low premiums until they need health care or show certain conditions, then they are either charged outrageous premiums or simply denied coverage. Those in large groups enjoy competitive premiums others are denied. Those without coverage are exploited by providers that charge far higher prices for the same service. To say that the old and sick will benefit at the expense of others is quite disingenuous when for so many years those others have been the ones with the advantage. .

This will be a very difficult adjustment for all of us.
__________________
MichaelB is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:12 PM   #16
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 572
A scenario where a couple making $62500 paying $20672, a third of their income for health insurance premium, has to be hypothetical, because they will be getting health insurance coverage at work and the employers pick up a substantial part of the group rate.

But that said, there may come a point when the employers say that they cannot afford to continue to pay for those health insurance coverage for employees, and then everyone will be facing the true cost of paying for health care.
__________________
bondi688 is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:20 PM   #17
Recycles dryer sheets
kmt1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Scarsdale
Posts: 175
What is in that calculator is nothing compared to NY state. See

Stephen T. Parante and Tarren Bragdon: Why Health Care Is So Expensive in New York - WSJ.com

and

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-styl...icle-1.1144838

Because of community rating and guaranteed issue the NY state health insurance market are just filled with people that are very ill since insurance companies cannot deny them coverage or charge them differently. BTW, this is just like what Obamacare will want to do except NY state does not have "tax" for no health care coverage. Most people in NY state, unless these prices come down, will just pay the "tax" if they do not have coverage and could not get it via a company. Hopefully the exchanges as part of Obamacare will work to lower the prices but I doubt it.
__________________
kmt1972 is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:22 PM   #18
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by bondi688 View Post
A scenario where a couple making $62500 paying $20672, a third of their income for health insurance premium, has to be hypothetical, because they will be getting health insurance coverage at work and the employers pick up a substantial part of the group rate.

But that said, there may come a point when the employers say that they cannot afford to continue to pay for those health insurance coverage for employees, and then everyone will be facing the true cost of paying for health care.
this scenario has nothing to do with employers. this is the price the california calculator gives for someone purchasing through the obamacare exchange
__________________
gerrym51 is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:26 PM   #19
Recycles dryer sheets
kmt1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Scarsdale
Posts: 175
Of course the discontinuous nature of Obamacare subsidies also will lead to all sort of economic distortions. Just put in family of 3, income of 78120, and age of 55. The put in income of 78121. Monthly cost jumps from 618 to 1723. Granted the higher cost can be deducted from federal income tax. But one way or another from 78120 to 78121 this faimily faces a massive marginal tax rate.
__________________
kmt1972 is offline  
Old 03-29-2013, 09:33 PM   #20
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 559
the reason i think the calculator is wrong.

I live in massachusettes which already has Romneycare.

i just turned 62 and purchased a single policy on the exchange.

i bought a silver plan.

it is 575 dollars a month with a 2000 deductible and 4000 max out of pocket.

massachusettes requires everything be covered like Obamacare that copies it.

California has to be super expensive?
__________________

__________________
gerrym51 is offline  
Closed Thread

« 90YO dash | Flu »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:27 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.