My husband finally has good health insurance

[audreyh1]

You wouldn't have been uninsurable as much as being exiled to the high risk pool. I think the insurance companies wanted as many people as possible in the high risk pool to help cover the costs of the cancer patients. I agree with the point about most people over 55 having something on the list. I don't know anyone over 50 that qualified for insurance other than the Texas high risk pool.

In plans available to me in Texas, I'm not seeing dramatic savings versus the now defunct Texas high risk plan. I'm pretty sure insurance companies priced their product with the expectation that individual policies would be closer to the old high risk pools.

I am seeing a dramatic savings, even though I now have a lower deductible and lower max OOP.

 

[obgyn65]

Congratulations. Another great example of the benefits of the ACA.

 

[samclem]

golftrek,
This is good news for your household. We have to keep working until there's more good news than bad. Today, as a result of the ACA, 3 million fewer Americans have health insurance than was the case last week. This is simply the number of individual plans enrolled in through federal and state exchanges minus those individual plans that were cancelled as a result of the ACA. So, there's still work to be done in helping all Americans to get coverage, and at present we are (by the numbers) moving the wrong way.
Raw numbers of insureds don't tell the whole story--we need to be concerned about the quality of the coverage (in some cases, the new ACA plans have "better" coverage, though sometimes the actual people covered and paying the bill preferred the old policy). More fundamentally, we have to be concerned about the cost of medical care and the availability/quality of that care. It remains to be seen if people who have coverage will be satisfied with the care the system will make available.

 

[MRG]

Agree, my COBRA would have expired in August. No insurance company would touch me without unacceptable riders.

In this state the only path for the high deductible pool was, 'haven't been insured for 6 months'.

Glad things are changing, hopefully most benefit.
MRG

 

[DAYDREAMER]

That's why there is a fine/tax to make free-riders kick in at least some small portion to cover their potential costs.

I think the fine/tax should be raised to be more than the cost of actually having insurance, so the individual who thinks insurance is not for them, could weigh the penalty against actually having insurance. ACA works based on everybody participating, and you participate whether buying insurance or not.

I read the OP story, and makes me glad to see the ACA actually working to help people that have lived the horror of not being insurable! I've been spoiled having excellent coverage through work, and get frustrated when i hear other spoiled co-workers complain their co-pay will be increased $5.00 because of the ACA.

 

[donheff]

golftrek,
This is good news for your household. We have to keep working until there's more good news than bad. Today, as a result of the ACA, 3 million fewer Americans have health insurance than was the case last week. This is simply the number of individual plans enrolled in through federal and state exchanges minus those individual plans that were cancelled as a result of the ACA. .

Plans were cancelled every year on whims. Plans will continue to be cancelled every years going forward. In the past there was no guarantee that you would qualify for a replacement. Now there is.

 

[AllDone]

golftrek,
This is good news for your household. We have to keep working until there's more good news than bad. Today, as a result of the ACA, 3 million fewer Americans have health insurance than was the case last week.

We don't actually know what the number of cancelled and unreplaced plans is yet nor do we have totals on new enrollments. Until the open enrollment period has ended, we really can't know the results. One side claims five million people have lost insurance and the other says the number is closer to 10K. Both sides are giving estimates only. DH and I never received any info about our COBRA insurance for the new year. We had already decided to select a much cheaper exchange plan. Does that count as a cancellation or not?

In MA there was a lot of last minute enrollment at each open enrollment period and it took three years to get everybody enrolled. People are still confused about the ACA and, to be honest, there has been a certain amount of deliberate confusion perpetrated. Even when you read threads on this forum, there is confusion expressed by people who are usually somewhat more informed about financial matters than the general public.

I think that fair-minded people have to wait until we have actual data to pronounce the ACA either a success or failure.

 

[rbmrtn]

It is somewhat comparing apple to oranges. The majority of the "cancelled" policies did not result in not being insured, which is a completely different issue. Most were either automatically enrolled in a plan that met the requirements or given the option to. They also now have the option to move another insurer or look on the exchange. So basically all these cancellation are still insured, then new insured on exchanges should result in more people being insured.

Fact check looked into the claim of workers losing insurance and found similar issues.
They were not going to be uninsured, their plans changed, which is common practice all the time.
Workers ‘Losing’ Employer Plans?

 

[FIRE'd@51]

Plans were cancelled every year on whims. Plans will continue to be cancelled every years going forward. In the past there was no guarantee that you would qualify for a replacement. Now there is.

Actually, this is misleading and the bolded part is incorrect. Insurance companies had to get approval by state regulators to cancel a plan for the entire group of policy holders.

The existing HIPPA law provided for guaranteed acceptance into a comparable plan with no waiting periods or exclusion for pre-existing conditions, so long as you didn't go without insurance for more than 60 days. Unfortunately, the premium was much higher than that of an underwritten plan, but as you wrote about the ACA in post #9, you could get insurance if you could "foot the bill".

 

[golftrek]

OP here, yes my husband could get insurance under HIPPA, but the insurance was terrible. Not only were the premiums very high (he paid as much as $1000 per month for a very bad policy), the networks were very limited, one time he had NO drug coverage and every policy he had had a lifetime cap, usually $1,000,000. Those awful lifetime limits are gone under the ACA.

Jo Ann

 

[audreyh1]

Actually, this is misleading and the bolded part is incorrect. Insurance companies had to get approval by state regulators to cancel a plan for the entire group of policy holders.

The existing HIPPA law provided for guaranteed acceptance into a comparable plan with no waiting periods or exclusion for pre-existing conditions, so long as you didn't go without insurance for more than 60 days. Unfortunately, the premium was much higher than that of an underwritten plan, but as you wrote about the ACA in post #9, you could get insurance if you could "foot the bill".

I don't think this is correct. Maybe in some states, but in other states insurers could outright deny you, forcing you into a state risk pool if available.

 

[Green Hornet 21]

Less than 2 years away from retiring at 55. Health Insurance has been the biggest uncertainty in my early retirement planning. I am hoping to obtain a policy similar to yours. My employer provides excellent health insurance and although my health is excellent, I am willing to pay more for something comparable once I leave the company. Happy for you. Hopefully I can find something similar in Texas.

 

[alaska55]

This is OP is the same person who bragged about retiring at 50 (husband and wife) and flipping houses and not touching their nest eggs. You got to kidding me.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

This is OP is the same person who bragged about retiring at 50 (husband and wife) and flipping houses and not touching their nest eggs. You got to kidding me.

Is it better for people to be tied to jobs they otherwise don't need and could free up for someone who really needs the pay check, just to keep affordable health insurance?

Our post COBRA conversion policy was $2,300 a month for poor coverage and high out of pocket maximums.

 

[alaska55]

I guess you don't get my point! Having a MAGI of just over the cliff and trying to pay in to a IRA plus taxes your take home pay is less than 35K. The OP is living off other people how about carrying your own weight. I hear people bitching about the 1% and the Insurance companies all the time on this site and they acting the same way.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

I guess you don't get my point! Having a MAGI of just over the cliff and trying to pay in to a IRA plus taxes your take home pay is less than 35K. The OP is living off other people how about carrying your own weight. I hear people bitching about the 1% and the Insurance companies all the time on this site and they acting the same way.

I don't get your point. There is no law that says everyone needs to pay as much as they possibly can for either income taxes or health insurance. There are no laws against taking legal tax deductions.

I do not know anything about the OPs taxes, deductions or income as I have not personally seen her tax returns.

Do you have an issue with people taking deductions for retirement contributions? Do you know people who make retirement contributions and then choose not to deduct them on their taxes because it would mean they are some how unpatriotic or not carrying their own weight?

 

[donheff]

Actually, this is misleading and the bolded part is incorrect. Insurance companies had to get approval by state regulators to cancel a plan for the entire group of policy holders.

The existing HIPPA law provided for guaranteed acceptance into a comparable plan with no waiting periods or exclusion for pre-existing conditions, so long as you didn't go without insurance for more than 60 days. Unfortunately, the premium was much higher than that of an underwritten plan, but as you wrote about the ACA in post #9, you could get insurance if you could "foot the bill".

I don't think this is correct. Maybe in some states, but in other states insurers could outright deny you, forcing you into a state risk pool if available.

I don't know which is correct her either. If HIPPA regulations required when insurers cancelled plans some sort of replacement must be available then nothing has effectively changed - except that under the ACA the replacements must meet minimum coverage requirements. Interestingly in my daughter's case, when she turned 21 she was no longer eligible for the BCBS Federal plan she had been under for life and BCBS rejected her for individual coverage due to preexisting conditions. We found a high risk pool in DC but would not have had one in all states. Under the ACA when a kid turns 27 there are no penalties for preexisting conditions.

 

[MichaelB]

One of the things I like about this forum is that we can disagree on many things without being disagreeable and still be respectful of others.