travelover
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 14,328
I'd take any article written by a Rupert Murdock owned paper with a grain of salt.
.....We compared the average premiums in states that already have ObamaCare-like provisions in their laws and found that consumers in New Jersey, New York and Vermont already pay well over twice what citizens in many other states pay. Consumers in Maine and Massachusetts aren't far behind. Those states will likely see a small increase.....
travelover said:I'd take any article written by a Rupert Murdock owned paper with a grain of salt.
pb4uski said:The thing about this that doesn't make sense to me is that I'm in Vermont and currently pay ~$630/month for HDHI coverage for DW and I. I expect to pay $750/month for similar coverage next year (before subsidies)...BUT my HDHI COBRA from a large national firm (more than 25,000 employees across the US) was $900.
If this article is right and we pay twice what other citizens in many other states pay then I would think that my COBRA should have been less that what I was able to get in the individual market.
The claim in the article makes no sense to me.
For those of us who will need to pick a state to call home because we are doing the RV thing, what are the plans looking like?
I estimate we will be around 150% to 200% of FPL using dividends and interest plus already taxed cash.
I was going to base our home state on low taxes (was thinking Nevada) and low vehicle registration/ability to re-register from out of state.
Now the smarter choice might be to pick a state with the best healthcare insurance exchange rates.
Or will we need to have some sort of national policy?
I'd take any article written by a Rupert Murdock owned paper with a grain of salt.
I think PB, some of the wild ranges in premium percent increases and guesstimates are based on some apple to orange comparisons. ...........
In particular, "articles" that appear in the Opinion section of the paper.........
I'd take any article written by a Rupert Murdock owned paper with a grain of salt.
It is definitely only a guess, I certainly concur. But let's be a bit realistic. I have founds hundreds of articles from many sources claiming how insurance costs in individual markets of "low cost states" will jump considerably. I haven't stumbled across one yet saying they are going down in these states, unfortunately. So in totality no matter where the source is I believe my costs are going to go up considerably if I am in the exchange. Btw- Kaiser estimated mine to be up more than 500%, so I would be jumping for joy if that article was correct and I only got a 75% increase hung around my neck.
So just which paper/source can you read w/o any skepticism at all?
Could be a thousand sources, still says nothing about quality. The one linked earlier was interesting in that it was authored by an actuary but the analysis was devoid of hard data and based on generalizations and assumptions that may not be representative of real life for any of us or healthcare in general in the US.So despite the fact that every source you have found agrees, travelover wants to discount that source you linked solely because of the owner. Incredible.
-ERD50
MichaelB said:Two excellent sites, I haven't seen any partisan l agenda in either and have found both to be extraordinarily helpful.
KFF The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation - Health Policy, Media Resources, Public Health Education & South Africa - Kaiser Family Foundation
Health Reform GPS Health Reform GPS: Navigating the Implementation Process
Could be a thousand sources, still says nothing about quality. The one linked earlier was interesting in that it was authored by an actuary but the analysis was devoid of hard data and based on generalizations and assumptions that may not be representative of real life for any of us or healthcare in general in the US.
I believe bUU to be in the ball park. One thing that disappointed me is I believe they have not allowed your HSA contributions to count toward meeting that coverage amount which would have been a huge plus for some policies to reach accepted coverage. Someone please correct me about this if I am wrong, but Texas if you are on an individual plan now, it is too late to jump ship to the $5k deductible. Yes, you could do it for the rest of the year, but then you would definitely be in the exchange next year. You have to have been signed up for a plan back in 2010, to have any chance of maintaining grandfathered status.
Take some solace in knowing Texas is an second lower tier of states expecting possible significant rate increase... I found mine today, and I am in with the group expected to get hit the hardest.
We compared the average premiums in states that already have ObamaCare-like provisions in their laws and found that consumers in New Jersey, New York and Vermont already pay well over twice what citizens in many other states pay. Consumers in Maine and Massachusetts aren't far behind. Those states will likely see a small increase.
By contrast, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and Virginia will likely see the largest increases—somewhere between 65% and 100%. Another 18 states, including Texas and Michigan, could see their rates rise between 35% and 65%.
Matthews and Litow: ObamaCare's Health-Insurance Sticker Shock - WSJ.com
The way it was explained to me, there's a single limit, which matches whatever the requirement for HDHPs is that year. Again, I think I remember seeing that that's going to be around $6,750 next year. That has to include the out-of-pocket maximum plus the deductible. The combined limit makes more sense than specific limits on the deductible (even though it makes things more complex) because if either the deducible or the co-pays weren't limited, then a plan could simply bypass the intent of the ACA by inflating the unlimited variable. So the law seeks to control how much any individual would have to pay, at most, and the specific policy can have either a high deductible or high co-pays or some medium-ground in between.
I think there are also some limitations on certain classes of health plans, some with hard limits on deductibles and/or out-of-pocket maximum (i.e., $2000 individual/$4000 family; which is what we have in our ACA-compliant health plan).
+1. Any change is opposed by those benefiting from the status quo.
I would certainly agree with your assessment. I also want to reinforce that I am not saying this is bad policy in general either. My concerns on potential "rate shock" is directed specially for my situation. Healthy, under 50, male, underwritten policy, with no premium subsidy from government. Someone in my same state in the "high risk pool" (assuming there is one) or low income maybe even my same age, might come out better financially than what they now are paying, so yes, generalizations are impossible. But for me, I appear to be the "poster boy demographic" for a nice rate increase.
I wouldn't call it a hard limit. It's a formula based on a bunch of variables. But in a specific year, yeah, it would be a "hard limit".Interesting.... but I want to see if I am understanding what you are writing... the $6,750 is a hard limit.... which includes the co-pays to doctors
I really don't remember all the details. Now I'm going to have to look this stuff up. Check ACA Section 1302What about drugs? Are these included in that limit, or are they still separate?
That's actually not the case in many cases.Any change is promoted by those benefitting from it.
No such thing: Someone will always claim to be aggrieved by anything ever proposed.it's a shame that the changes weren't written to avoid having "losers."
Not true IMO. I think that most of the time people are in favor of changes that benefit themselves, loved ones or that enhance or support their personal value system.That's actually not the case in many cases.
OK, I suppose someone will. But that doesn't justify writing a plan that omits some form of relief to individuals and families who will suffer negative consequences from the plan.No such thing: Someone will always claim to be aggrieved by anything ever proposed.
That's a lot different from what a typical reader would infer from, "Any change is promoted by those benefitting from it."Not true IMO. I think that most of the time people are in favor of changes that benefit themselves, loved ones or that enhance or support their personal value system.
What do you feel, specifically, was omitted, that could have been included without omitting something else or otherwise undercutting the whole in some other way? Omitting something that if included would undercut the whole is sometimes or often very appropriate. It's the nature of compromise.But that doesn't justify writing a plan that omits some form of relief to individuals and families who will suffer negative consequences from the plan.
Except I believe that it changes every year. That is what I meant earlier.I would call the total out of pocket a pretty hard limit for in network, covered services.
Except I believe that it changes every year. That is what I meant earlier.
I'm not sure. All I know is that the HSA threshold (which is used as the cost-sharing limit for ACA) changes year to year.Are you referring to inflation or COL adjustment?
.
What do you feel, specifically, was omitted, that could have been included without omitting something else or otherwise undercutting the whole in some other way?
Though I don't agree that any such examples were included that meet the criteria I outlined.You can review the twenty-some pages of this thread for examples.
I don't know of any people who are.I'm mystified as to why some people seem to be pleased that there are "losers" in the new plan.