My recollection is that FL is one of the states that has an elected insurance commissioner (most are appointed by the state's governor). You have what the electorate paid for.
+1
My recollection is that FL is one of the states that has an elected insurance commissioner (most are appointed by the state's governor). You have what the electorate paid for.
I made no such assumption.i actually think it was correct. when you add family coverage its a big jump then incremental for additional children.
i think you are making an assumption that its 108 for each child
I made no such assumption.
Did you read it all? I specifically said I priced it as follows:
60-yo couple, no kids: $613/mo.
60-yo couple, one kid: $1585/mo.
60-yo couple, 2 kids: $1693/mo.
Where is my assumption? These are directly from their web site for quotes. The first kid costs an extra $972; the second $108 above that. What exactly am I assuming? I can not believe that this is correct.
An article in today's Wall Street Journal said individual health plans could go up as much as 116% at the extreme with 40% to 50% more the norm.
Health Insurers Warn on Premiums - WSJ.com
The article talks about what the large insurance companies are telling their brokers.
If your income is too high for assistance, this could hurt.
Isn't the WSJ part of the FOX empire? The slant is very similiar.
As a health insurance agent, I can confirm that this is true, and would add that the estimates of increases stated are on the low side. My average client is a family with parents about 40 years old with two kids and spending an average of $300-600/month. In 2014, the cost for this family with no subsidy will likely be well over $1,000/month, which most people simply can't afford and will not pay. Just because you make $100k combined doesn't mean you're going to be able to spend $15k/year on health insurance, not including any costs that apply towards the out-of-pocket maximums.
Doesn't change the fact that the first kid (if these quotes are correct) effectively costs 50% more than two 60-year-olds combined.the family jump is what makes it correct
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).
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.
That's the way plans are priced for my current employer. Logical or not, 'family' is the big jump in $$$$.
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.
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....
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
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.
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.
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.
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.No argument here.
You think maybe comments like these might have had something to do with it?...in the thread that got shut down for reason unclear to me.
Obamacare is strictly a plan to get more lower income people insurance-thats it and get us to pay for it
I hate to sound like the GOP spin machine...