WWTBAM Bored

Just got my premium increase for next year. Me and the 3 kids

For 2014-I paid just under $700 a month

For 2015-I am paying just under $800 a month

I just got notice of my premium increase for next year.

I was happy to see that I will be only be paying $1,156 a month for the same coverage. What is that-a 14% increase 2014 to 2015 and a 44% increase next year.

Yep-Obamacare sure is bending the cost curve down for me isn't it?

This is NOT meant to be neener-neener, only to show there is another side to the story. I am sorry your costs are increasing.

My costs have gone way down in the past three years - I pay $16/paycheck with a high-ish deductible, but they give us $500 toward that, so it overall it is a lot less.

It's just anecdotal, but I like to get the good anecdotes out into the world, too.

Spock also didn't mention the federal tax credit subsidies that he may qualify for. For 2016, a family of four in the continental US making under $97,000 qualifies for a subsidy. For a family of five the number is $113,640. That's the number of people in the household, not the number covered under an Obamacare policy. I don't mean to pry into Spock's finances, but I would venture that a lot of families his size in his neck of the woods will qualify for subsidies that offset a good portion of that figure.

silverscreenselect wrote:Spock also didn't mention the federal tax credit subsidies that he may qualify for. For 2016, a family of four in the continental US making under $97,000 qualifies for a subsidy. For a family of five the number is $113,640. That's the number of people in the household, not the number covered under an Obamacare policy. I don't mean to pry into Spock's finances, but I would venture that a lot of families his size in his neck of the woods will qualify for subsidies that offset a good portion of that figure.

What part of "I will be only be paying" do you not understand?

Do you really think he wouldn't mention or doesn't know about any subsidy for which he may qualify?

Estonut wrote: Do you really think he wouldn't mention or doesn't know about any subsidy for which he may qualify?

I don't know what he knows or what he would mention. I do know that those opposed to Obamacare often like to play with numbers and semantics to make things look as bad as possible. Whether that's the case with Spock or not, I don't know, I also don't know what other options might be available. Obamacare does allow comparison pricing and switching to other plans and carriers each year.

And regardless of whether he qualifies for a subsidy or not, a lot of families the same size as his do.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote: Do you really think he wouldn't mention or doesn't know about any subsidy for which he may qualify?

I don't know what he knows or what he would mention. I do know that those opposed to Obamacare often like to play with numbers and semantics to make things look as bad as possible. Whether that's the case with Spock or not, I don't know,

And regardless of whether he qualifies for a subsidy or not, a lot of families the same size as his do.

You conveniently left off the half of my post where I pointed out that he said, "I will be only be paying".

There is no tricky semantics nor playing with numbers there. It can't be any clearer.

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote: Do you really think he wouldn't mention or doesn't know about any subsidy for which he may qualify?

I don't know what he knows or what he would mention. I do know that those opposed to Obamacare often like to play with numbers and semantics to make things look as bad as possible. Whether that's the case with Spock or not, I don't know,

And regardless of whether he qualifies for a subsidy or not, a lot of families the same size as his do.

You conveniently left off the half of my post where I pointed out that he said, "I will be only be paying".

There is no tricky semantics nor playing with numbers there. It can't be any clearer.

He'll be paying whether he qualifies for the tax subsidy or not. The issue is whether some of it gets rebated as part of his taxes. --Bob

And IF he gets subsidies it only means I get to pay more in taxes to fund them. I'm sure Spock is with me when I ask "Why should I work an extra couple hours a week to pay some of his healthcare? If he is not working 60+ hours a week and is getting some of my money to support his living then something is wrong".

silverscreenselect wrote:I do know that those opposed to/in favor of [insert any debatable issue here] often like to play with numbers and semantics to make things look as bad/good as possible.

Fixed that for you...

lb13

Ritterskoop wrote:This is NOT meant to be neener-neener, only to show there is another side to the story. I am sorry your costs are increasing.

My costs have gone way down in the past three years - I pay $16/paycheck with a high-ish deductible, but they give us $500 toward that, so it overall it is a lot less.

It's just anecdotal, but I like to get the good anecdotes out into the world, too.

Based on the little bit I had seen prior-I was expecting roughly the amount of increase that I saw, but I was hoping to be wrong. From what I had seen=self-employed people are taking it in the shorts.

And I do have a very high deductible-probably just have to see about increasing the deductible again.

silverscreenselect wrote:Spock also didn't mention the federal tax credit subsidies that he may qualify for. For 2016, a family of four in the continental US making under $97,000 qualifies for a subsidy. For a family of five the number is $113,640. That's the number of people in the household, not the number covered under an Obamacare policy. I don't mean to pry into Spock's finances, but I would venture that a lot of families his size in his neck of the woods will qualify for subsidies that offset a good portion of that figure.

Just spoke with my agent. My 2015 deductible is $6,300 for the $800 a month and the 2016 deductible is $8,000 for $1,156 a month.

I am not eligible for tax credits because I am not in the government plan (MNSURE, in my case.) He is MNSURE certified and said that the amount of tax credits can vary even for the same income people-two people with, for example, $90,000 income-one might get $200 (big Whoop) and another might get ($500) -there is simply no way to know until you sign up for the government plan.

The big weakness of MNSure for a farmer is that our incomes vary a lot year to year. One year you can make a lot and the next you might show a loss. The second you show an income loss-your kids get put on Medical Assistance. There is no asset test-just an income test-so you have multi-millionaires with their kids on Medical Assistance. Even a very small farmer now is usually a millionaire because of the increase in land prices.

He said a few of his clients did not understand that and signed up for MNSure and that happened to them they are pissed about it. I definitely don't want to put my kids on Medical Assistance just because of a fluctuating income stream.

Staying away from MNSURE is also a matter of principle for me. Avoid boarding the government trains as much as you can-they usually don't lead to a very good place.

Spock wrote:Just spoke with my agent. My 2015 deductible is $6,300 for the $800 a month and the 2016 deductible is $8,000 for $1,156 a month.

I am not eligible for tax credits because I am not in the government plan (MNSURE, in my case.) He is MNSURE certified and said that the amount of tax credits can vary even for the same income people-two people with, for example, $90,000 income-one might get $200 (big Whoop) and another might get ($500) -there is simply no way to know until you sign up for the government plan.

The big weakness of MNSure for a farmer is that our incomes vary a lot year to year. One year you can make a lot and the next you might show a loss. The second you show an income loss-your kids get put on Medical Assistance. There is no asset test-just an income test-so you have multi-millionaires with their kids on Medical Assistance. Even a very small farmer now is usually a millionaire because of the increase in land prices.

He said a few of his clients did not understand that and signed up for MNSure and that happened to them they are pissed about it. I definitely don't want to put my kids on Medical Assistance just because of a fluctuating income stream.

Staying away from MNSURE is also a matter of principle for me. Avoid boarding the government trains as much as you can-they usually don't lead to a very good place.

Some states have asset tests for Medical Assistance. But then folks with little or no income but large assets (like a family farm) can't get Medical Assistance when they really need it. There's no obvious solution.

Many places have a health insurance program for kids that isn't Medical Assistance. It's called CHIP in Pennsylvania, and from what I've heard, users are pleased with it.

All these problems existed before Obamacare, and Obamacare didn't fix them. Except for outlawing some despised practices (like charging women higher premiums than men) Obamacare didn't change most people's insurance.

Being self-employed really brings home exactly how much insurance costs. In our small business, our expenses are #1 - Materials, #2 - Payroll and #3 - Insurance. We looked into the details of O-care when it came out. Between it not being a better deal to begin with, a lot of vagueness as to what would happen in the future and possible tax credits that were a joke in comparison to the program cost, we decided that it just wasn't worth it. Mrs. Jaybee keeps on top of stuff like this so we were able to swap things around earlier in the year to miss some of the massive 45% increase from BCBS.

jarnon wrote:Except for outlawing some despised practices (like charging women higher premiums than men)

And it's hunky dorey to charge young males more for auto insurance!?!?!?

If you provide more risk/higher costs, you should pay more.... period.

lb13

Jarnon>>>All these problems existed before Obamacare, and Obamacare didn't fix them. Except for outlawing some despised practices (like charging women higher premiums than men) Obamacare didn't change most people's insurance.<<<

I have been self-insured for decades now. I have never seen anything close to a 14% increase followed by a 44% increase-with the large increase also including a much higher deductible.

The cynic in me thinks that it is likely that the self-employed demographic probably leans significantly to the right of the political spectrum and is essentially not a favored demographic for the Obamacare administrators. There is likely a pretty big target on our backs.

littlebeast13 wrote:

jarnon wrote:Except for outlawing some despised practices (like charging women higher premiums than men)

And it's hunky dorey to charge young males more for auto insurance!?!?!?

If you provide more risk/higher costs, you should pay more.... period.

lb13

I dunno about other states, but that is not the case in Colorado. All drivers under 25 pay the same amount extra to start off. Even though most young women I know are just like I was at that age, perfect angels . . .

After a while, the gender gap widens. Rates for most of those perfect angels don't increase as they get older, and rates drop significantly when they hit 25, while many young men start driving those Dodge Rams into a ditch or hitting trees or other cars, and their individual rates increase commensurately.

SportsFan68 wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:

jarnon wrote:Except for outlawing some despised practices (like charging women higher premiums than men)

And it's hunky dorey to charge young males more for auto insurance!?!?!?

If you provide more risk/higher costs, you should pay more.... period.

lb13

I dunno about other states, but that is not the case in Colorado. All drivers under 25 pay the same amount extra to start off. Even though most young women I know are just like I was at that age, perfect angels . . .

After a while, the gender gap widens. Rates for most of those perfect angels don't increase as they get older, and rates drop significantly when they hit 25, while many young men start driving those Dodge Rams into a ditch or hitting trees or other cars, and their individual rates increase commensurately.

I never had a single accident before I turned 25...

35 on the other hand........................

lb13

Spock wrote:Jarnon>>>All these problems existed before Obamacare, and Obamacare didn't fix them. Except for outlawing some despised practices (like charging women higher premiums than men) Obamacare didn't change most people's insurance.<<<

I have been self-insured for decades now. I have never seen anything close to a 14% increase followed by a 44% increase-with the large increase also including a much higher deductible.

The cynic in me thinks that it is likely that the self-employed demographic probably leans significantly to the right of the political spectrum and is essentially not a favored demographic for the Obamacare administrators. There is likely a pretty big target on our backs.

"Obamacare" doesn't set the rates, the insurance companies do. You say you use an insurance agent; have you tried looking for insurance online? You just might find much lower rates with less deductible.

Insurance is nothing more than legalized gambling.

For cars, insurance should be pay by the mile--the more a car is driven, the more likely it is to be involved in an accident (to a certain extent). Cars are registered annually, many states have inspection where the mileage is reported. x amount per mile gets everyone full coverage. No uninsured/underinsured motorists. Of course there would be some minor details to work out for states without inspections, etc. but this is not impossible to do.

For medical, it should simply be banned. 2/3 of the cost of healthcare in the US is due to insurance. Without it, doctors would have to drop their rates to be competitive. The classic argument against this is technology wouldn't move forward in treatments, but to that I say bull-sheet. Just look at LASIK. No insurance would allow it 20 years ago, so doctors became competitive with costs and the price kept coming down while the technology moved forward. No insurance would also lower the prices of prescription drugs as they would only cost as much as the market can bear.

After that, tax all income equally and specify a percentage of that tax to cover all citizens with a SSN for hospitalization. If you want to travel outside the US, you can buy some medical insurance for that.

It will never happen, insurance companies pay politicians way too much to get voted against.

Spock wrote:Jarnon>>>All these problems existed before Obamacare, and Obamacare didn't fix them. Except for outlawing some despised practices (like charging women higher premiums than men) Obamacare didn't change most people's insurance.<<<

I have been self-insured for decades now. I have never seen anything close to a 14% increase followed by a 44% increase-with the large increase also including a much higher deductible.

The cynic in me thinks that it is likely that the self-employed demographic probably leans significantly to the right of the political spectrum and is essentially not a favored demographic for the Obamacare administrators. There is likely a pretty big target on our backs.

Sounds like you're in a demographic that was hard hit by Obamacare. Your insurance company now has to cover patients with pre-existing conditions, so they pass the costs to their healthier customers. Large employers and government insurance programs covered pre-existing conditions even before Obamacare. And you're not using an Obamacare exchange, so you don't get a subsidy. Plus, your taxes pay for other people's government insurance programs and subsidies.

I doubt anyone in Washington thought, let's screw those right-wing hicks. But when they helped other constituencies, like the working poor and patients with pre-existing conditions, you got the short end of the stick.

My insurance company is dropping its individual coverage.

Here's a success story. A small farmer in Alabama suffered a serious injury when his hands were caught in his hay baler. He had purchased an Obamacare policy at an after-subsidy cost of a little more than $100 per month. Before Obamacare, it would have cost $1200 per month, so he had been uninsured.

Without the insurance, he thinks he'd probably have lost the farm to medical bills.

But he's not out of the woods yet financially. Because of his injury, he'll probably lose some income. And because Alabama is one of the states that has rejected the Medicaid expansion (and the federal money that would pay for it), that means he's at risk of falling into the "Medicaid gap"; too much income to qualify for Medicaid under Alabama state rules, but too little money to qualify for tax subsidies in the Obamacare marketplace. Fortunately, Governor Bentley is apparently taking a hard look at whether to belatedly accept the Medicaid expansion. In the meantime, the small farmer and his wife will do "whatever it takes" to keep their Obamacare policy. --Bob

For what it's worth, the information I've been able to find is that Minnesota did have the highest rate increases this year of any of the 48 contiguous states. However, in part that's due to the fact that earlier rates in Minnesota were considerably lower than the national averages. So, in large part this is reversion to the norm. I know that's not good news for Spock but it's not indicative of the national experience as a whole.

Hi folks! Thought I would delurk and actually get involved in a political thread... flame away.
My experiences with Obamacare have been positive. I was with a medium-sized consulting company in 2010. After they raised my share of the health insurance premiums 50% in 3 years, I welcomed the chance to buy my family coverage on the exchanges in 2014. Here are my actual premiums for a family of 4.
I am confident that my decision to leave the company's plan after 2013 resulted in non-renewal of my contract (not a "team player"), and subsequent period of unemployment. During my jobless time, I was able to take advantage of subsidies, and paid roughly half of what you see above. When I got a full-time job, and asked to pay full freight again, the person at the call center was not sure what to do... he had never fielded that request before! Guess I should have saved the money in an interest-bearing account, and settled up with Uncle Sam on Apr 15.

From 2014 to now, I was with that medium-sized company, unemployed, independent contractor, and now full-time employee of a large company. In the old days, I have had to buy COBRA for more than that $1500/mo until I found a new job, or have no coverage for the wife & kids.

TLDR: Obamacare worked for me.

drjoe1e6 wrote:Hi folks! Thought I would delurk and actually get involved in a political thread... flame away.
My experiences with Obamacare have been positive. I was with a medium-sized consulting company in 2010. After they raised my share of the health insurance premiums 50% in 3 years, I welcomed the chance to buy my family coverage on the exchanges in 2014. Here are my actual premiums for a family of 4.

Code: Select all

Year   Premium   change    Type
               since 2010
2010	1030		     Employer
2011	1327	28.8%	Employer
2012	1270	23.3%	Employer
2013	1546	50.2%	Employer
2014	 823	-20.0%	Exchange
2015	 970	-5.8%	Exchange   -- 18% annual increase in premium
2016	1010	-1.9%	Exchange   -- would be 4% next year

I am confident that my decision to leave the company's plan after 2013 resulted in non-renewal of my contract (not a "team player"), and subsequent period of unemployment. During my jobless time, I was able to take advantage of subsidies, and paid roughly half of what you see above. When I got a full-time job, and asked to pay full freight again, the person at the call center was not sure what to do... he had never fielded that request before! Guess I should have saved the money in an interest-bearing account, and settled up with Uncle Sam on Apr 15.

From 2014 to now, I was with that medium-sized company, unemployed, independent contractor, and now full-time employee of a large company. In the old days, I have had to buy COBRA for more than that $1500/mo until I found a new job, or have no coverage for the wife & kids.

TLDR: Obamacare worked for me.

To be complete, you should mention how the coverage you received varied for the price. If the lower premiums bought you significantly worse coverage, that's important to know. --Bob