The out-of-pocket for most professional corporate workers before Obamacare was ZERO.
Are you trying to claim that $13,500 is somehow good.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Obamacare’s Bait and Switch Has Left Consumers Scrambling
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
The out-of-pocket for most professional corporate workers before Obamacare was ZERO.
Are you trying to claim that $13,500 is somehow good.
I have United health care. I pay $460.00 for the month, $850.00 deductible, $5100.00 maximum out of pockets money.
Also I can choose a health plan with a lower for the month premium, but the higher deductible and the higher out of the pocket costs. So if I choose that one I can open the HSA (health savings account) to contribute money to earn interest and use to pay for deductibles, coinsurance, other health needs, but not for the premium. When the year ends the money rollover to the next year and I do not lose it. For now I choose the higher premium and the lower deductible, the lower out of pockets cost. No eligible for the HSA with my choice, only the FSA.
If I choose FSA (flexible spending account) if I do not spend the money I put into this account, for the end of the year the IRS will take. So I do not like that one.
gwb-trading, how do the insurance company you talk about of the past make more money if they sell for less to you, and give more health insurance?
Also I can choose a health plan with a lower for the month premium, but the higher deductible and the higher out of the pocket costs. So if I choose that one I can open the HSA (health savings account) to contribute money to earn interest and use to pay for deductibles, coinsurance, other health needs, but not for the premium. When the year ends the money rollover to the next year and I do not lose it. For now I choose the higher premium and the lower deductible, the lower out of pockets cost. No eligible for the HSA with my choice, only the FSA.
If I choose FSA (flexible spending account) if I do not spend the money I put into this account, for the end of the year the IRS will take. So I do not like that one.
gwb-trading, how do the insurance company you talk about of the past make more money if they sell for less to you, and give more health insurance?
I have United health care. I pay $460.00 for the month, $850.00 deductible, $5100.00 maximum out of pockets money.
Also I can choose a health plan with a lower for the month premium, but the higher deductible and the higher out of the pocket costs. So if I choose that one I can open the HSA (health savings account) to contribute money to earn interest and use to pay for deductibles, coinsurance, other health needs, but not for the premium. When the year ends the money rollover to the next year and I do not lose it. For now I choose the higher premium and the lower deductible, the lower out of pockets cost. No eligible for the HSA with my choice, only the FSA.
If I choose FSA (flexible spending account) if I do not spend the money I put into this account, for the end of the year the IRS will take. So I do not like that one.
gwb-trading, how do the insurance company you talk about of the past make more money if they sell for less to you, and give more health insurance?
Based on what you cited above I assume that you are paying for your own plan and a corporation is not paying for some of the monthly payment.
In most corporate plans, the corporation covers most of the monthly health insurance payment and the employee pays a small portion of the monthly payment.
The health insurance companies still makes plenty of money because the corporation is normally kicking in $1000 towards health insurance for each $200 the employee has taken out of their pay each month. For a family plan the insurance company is collecting a monthly premium of over $1200 per month.
The issue under Obamacare is that the cost to both the employer and the employee have gone up drastically for worse coverage. Before Obamacare much better plans were offered, now the only plans offered match the Obamacare templates (bronze, silver, gold, etc.) with defined percentages, co-pays, deductibles, etc. The standard "Cadillac" plans previously offered by most professional companies are no longer allowed.
Well thanks to Obamacare your premiums went up, you have a penalty if you don't have insurance, and soon you will get to help pay for the failed insurance company bailout. But at least you have your health...
HHS: Bailing out Obamacare insurers an 'obligation' of the federal government
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/h...surers-obligation-of-the-govt/article/2576837
HHS: Bailing out Obamacare insurers an 'obligation' of the federal government
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/h...surers-obligation-of-the-govt/article/2576837
gwb, really I still can not understand what you are saying. You say in the past people can pay nothing out of the pocket, no deductibles because the corporation employer pay most of the employees cost of the health care.
So why do corporations (now) are so upset and complain they can not afford the new ACA rules? If the new ACA rules make people(employee) pay more money to their health insurance, why do the corporations not like the ACA rules for the cost savings?
So why do corporations (now) are so upset and complain they can not afford the new ACA rules? If the new ACA rules make people(employee) pay more money to their health insurance, why do the corporations not like the ACA rules for the cost savings?
gwb, really I still can not understand what you are saying. You say in the past people can pay nothing out of the pocket, no deductibles because the corporation employer pay most of the employees cost of the health care.
So why do corporations (now) are so upset and complain they can not afford the new ACA rules? If the new ACA rules make people(employee) pay more money to their health insurance, why do the corporations not like the ACA rules for the cost savings?
There is NO cost savings to corporations for medical insurance since Obamacare. The cost corporations are paying for insurance has gone way UP for LESS coverage. The amount employees pay for their share of medical coverage has also gone way UP.
For example, prior Obamacare many corporations were paying $1200 per month while employees kicked in an additional $180 per month for a family plan that covered 100% with no deductibles. After Obamacare the same corporation is paying $1600 per month while the employee kicks in an additional $400 per month for a 80% family plan with high deductibles along with higher co-pays.
Neither corporations or professional employees are pleased.
Why do you say "LESS" coverage now with the ACA? What I read is before the ACA laws effect the insurance company can have limits to pay. The insurance company will pay the fixed amount, then they stop paying for people who need more care. Hmm? Is this moral and is this smart for the developed country to do to their people?
Ok, so with the ACA laws people have to be responsible to pay some money from their paycheck, to save some money for their health care for to pay deductibles, the coinsurance. But when the people pay the out of pocket limit, then the insurance will pay 100% and can not cut away those people.
This is moral, this is create the healthier and relaxed and smarter country of people.
Do you think is not wise for a country to invest in their people? Only people who are healthy, educated and not fearing poverty will make the country strong.
Ok, so with the ACA laws people have to be responsible to pay some money from their paycheck, to save some money for their health care for to pay deductibles, the coinsurance. But when the people pay the out of pocket limit, then the insurance will pay 100% and can not cut away those people.
This is moral, this is create the healthier and relaxed and smarter country of people.
Do you think is not wise for a country to invest in their people? Only people who are healthy, educated and not fearing poverty will make the country strong.
Why do you say "LESS" coverage now with the ACA? What I read is before the ACA laws effect the insurance company can have limits to pay. The insurance company will pay the fixed amount, then they stop paying for people who need more care. Hmm? Is this moral and is this smart for the developed country to do to their people?
Ok, so with the ACA laws people have to be responsible to pay some money from their paycheck, to save some money for their health care for to pay deductibles, the coinsurance. But when the people pay the out of pocket limit, then the insurance will pay 100% and can not cut away those people.
This is moral, this is create the healthier and relaxed and smarter country of people.
Do you think is not wise for a country to invest in their people? Only people who are healthy, educated and not fearing poverty will make the country strong.
Earlier you stated that you have United Health Care. This upcoming year is your last year with United Health Care if you are under Obamacare. UHC is leaving Obamacare and will no longer offer ACA polices in 2017.
If Obama wanted to have universal coverage then he should have focused on implementing a public plan. There are many other countries with examples of public plans that could have been used as a template (e.g. UK, Canada, Germany, etc.). Instead Obama attempted to have a give-away to Health Insurance and Drug companies. Unfortunately the ACA math is not working out for the Insurance companies. The Co-ops are going bankrupt and most Insurance companies will pull out in 2017 - despite record premium increases of over 50% this year.
Rise in ACA premiums forces NC residents to seek cheaper options
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article45787330.html
- Insurance companies raising rates, cutting back or backing out
- Rates going up as much as 50% on some policies in 2016
- Some opt for short-term policies that require paying ACA fine
The Thrill Is Gone for Obamacare as Health-Care Approval Fades
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/thrill-gone-obamacare-health-care-140000282.html
Troubling signs about the Affordable Care Act and the state of health care in the U.S. have bubbled up in the last few weeks.
The administration’s Obamacare enrollment projections for the coming year are down, the projected cost of premiums and out of pocket costs are up, nearly half of the insurance co-ops associated with the program are going out of business, and UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest health insurer, said it may withdraw from the government marketplaces in 2017.
Now comes a new survey by Gallup showing growing discontent with Obamacare and the U.S. health-care industry more generally after years of relative satisfaction with the quality and cost of the health-care system.
gwb, this is your link http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article45787330.html
The link say this.
("Hammock is currently on a Blue Cross and Blue Shield policy that’s costing her $650 a month,
But she would have to spend more than $10,000 this year on premiums and the deductible before her health insurance kicked in and paid for treatment.")
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if she pay $650.00 a month, that is = $7800.00 for the year
Then she is saying she have to pay $10,000 on the premiums and deductible before insurance pay.
So her deductible is $2200 because $7800 + $2200 = $10,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then she say in the link
“It’s offensive beyond words for me to pay a quarter of my income for something I don’t use,”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So she is saying $7800 premium for the year is a quarter of her income. This information show her income for the year is about $31,000.
I look on the government website for North Carolina resident with $31,000 income. She can get subsidy.
My income is 2.5 more than this women, but I do not eligible for subsidy, I am younger too, but I pay less premium, less deductible than this lady. I live in NJ.
Hmmm? She is not talking all the truth
I understand the problems you talk about with the insurers. But this lady is bullshit talk.
The link say this.
("Hammock is currently on a Blue Cross and Blue Shield policy that’s costing her $650 a month,
But she would have to spend more than $10,000 this year on premiums and the deductible before her health insurance kicked in and paid for treatment.")
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if she pay $650.00 a month, that is = $7800.00 for the year
Then she is saying she have to pay $10,000 on the premiums and deductible before insurance pay.
So her deductible is $2200 because $7800 + $2200 = $10,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then she say in the link
“It’s offensive beyond words for me to pay a quarter of my income for something I don’t use,”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So she is saying $7800 premium for the year is a quarter of her income. This information show her income for the year is about $31,000.
I look on the government website for North Carolina resident with $31,000 income. She can get subsidy.
My income is 2.5 more than this women, but I do not eligible for subsidy, I am younger too, but I pay less premium, less deductible than this lady. I live in NJ.
Hmmm? She is not talking all the truth
I understand the problems you talk about with the insurers. But this lady is bullshit talk.
Obamacare bailouts prove that the law is flawed and lousy
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ob...-is-flawed-and-lousy-2015-12-02?siteid=yhoof2
This week, as part of the reconciliation bill, Congress may vote on bailing out health-insurance companies losing money from their participation in the Affordable Care Act exchanges. With an $18 trillion national debt, Congress should stand firm and say no to the bailouts.
Sen. Marco Rubio is leading the fight against the bailouts. In a letter to congressional leaders, he wrote: “The reason these health-insurance companies are enduring a financial loss is that ObamaCare is a disastrous law. It broke the promise to lower health-insurance premiums and allow Americans to keep their health care. Now the very architects of this law are attempting to place taxpayers on the hook.”
Last year Rubio limited the bailout of the insurance companies with the ObamaCare Bailout Prevention Act. Some of the provisions were included in last year’s spending bill. The result of the measure was that, in October, the Department of Health and Human Services transferred $362 million to the losing insurance companies, rather than the $2.9 billion that they requested. That’s $2.5 billion more for taxpayers.
The Health Insurance Association of America, under the leadership of Karen Ignagni, lobbied heavily in favor of the Affordable Care Act. Insurance companies shouldn’t get government money now that their bet is going the wrong way.
Insurance companies thought they would have a captive market of young, healthy people who would be forced to sign up for expensive policies with the threat of penalties. But it was a cynical scheme. The premiums from young people, who do not use much health care because they are rarely sick, would be used to pay for the care of the old and the chronically ill. The Affordable Care Act was structured so that younger, healthy Americans would pay for everyone else, even though the young have higher unemployment rates, less disposable income, more student loans and fewer assets.
Little did these insurance companies know that enrollment would fall far short of predictions. Enrollment in the exchanges is estimated by Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell to be 10 million in 2016, compared with 22 million predicted by the Congressional Budget Office in May 2013. Insurance companies are not getting enough premiums to cover the costs of treating enrollees.
The problem is that the Affordable Care Act is simply unsustainable, as I predicted in December 2009. It mandates a generous, comprehensive plan that is also expensive. Young, healthy people do not want to sign up because the premiums are far higher than their health-care costs. They rightly do not see why they have to buy a plan with pediatric dental care if they have no children, and mental-health and drug-abuse coverage if they do not need it. Many would buy a simple plan, covering major catastrophic expenses, but such plans are not allowed to be sold on the exchanges. People who are signing up for Obamacare are not the young. They are sicker than average and have chronic health conditions that make them more expensive to insure.
(More at above url)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ob...-is-flawed-and-lousy-2015-12-02?siteid=yhoof2
This week, as part of the reconciliation bill, Congress may vote on bailing out health-insurance companies losing money from their participation in the Affordable Care Act exchanges. With an $18 trillion national debt, Congress should stand firm and say no to the bailouts.
Sen. Marco Rubio is leading the fight against the bailouts. In a letter to congressional leaders, he wrote: “The reason these health-insurance companies are enduring a financial loss is that ObamaCare is a disastrous law. It broke the promise to lower health-insurance premiums and allow Americans to keep their health care. Now the very architects of this law are attempting to place taxpayers on the hook.”
Last year Rubio limited the bailout of the insurance companies with the ObamaCare Bailout Prevention Act. Some of the provisions were included in last year’s spending bill. The result of the measure was that, in October, the Department of Health and Human Services transferred $362 million to the losing insurance companies, rather than the $2.9 billion that they requested. That’s $2.5 billion more for taxpayers.
The Health Insurance Association of America, under the leadership of Karen Ignagni, lobbied heavily in favor of the Affordable Care Act. Insurance companies shouldn’t get government money now that their bet is going the wrong way.
Insurance companies thought they would have a captive market of young, healthy people who would be forced to sign up for expensive policies with the threat of penalties. But it was a cynical scheme. The premiums from young people, who do not use much health care because they are rarely sick, would be used to pay for the care of the old and the chronically ill. The Affordable Care Act was structured so that younger, healthy Americans would pay for everyone else, even though the young have higher unemployment rates, less disposable income, more student loans and fewer assets.
Little did these insurance companies know that enrollment would fall far short of predictions. Enrollment in the exchanges is estimated by Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell to be 10 million in 2016, compared with 22 million predicted by the Congressional Budget Office in May 2013. Insurance companies are not getting enough premiums to cover the costs of treating enrollees.
The problem is that the Affordable Care Act is simply unsustainable, as I predicted in December 2009. It mandates a generous, comprehensive plan that is also expensive. Young, healthy people do not want to sign up because the premiums are far higher than their health-care costs. They rightly do not see why they have to buy a plan with pediatric dental care if they have no children, and mental-health and drug-abuse coverage if they do not need it. Many would buy a simple plan, covering major catastrophic expenses, but such plans are not allowed to be sold on the exchanges. People who are signing up for Obamacare are not the young. They are sicker than average and have chronic health conditions that make them more expensive to insure.
(More at above url)