Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which cost is "quite high" and compared to what? Come on now, be specific! We like hard specifics.
Re your citing national Dems, I don't really care what they think. I am not Harry Reid. I am not Nancy Pelosi. I am not Barack Obama. Sometimes I agree with them. Sometimes I don't. I vote Democratic out of pragmatism, as I find the Tea Party-infested, southern leaning, moderate-purging GOP to be an absolutely repellent alternative, and since we lack a serious social democratic party, the Democrats are the next best thing on the national stage.
Over $700 a month for a silver plan for a family, plus what is the deductible and out of pocket cost? It's hard to find that on the Missouri cite, other places I've seen a $3000 deductible with a $6000 oop max.
SO, for a family of four that earns above 400% of the poverty limit, it does cost $700/month. But you are being more than a little dishonest, because the price is on a sliding scale per a family's income:
If the family only makes $50,000, the $700 silver plan premium should go down to about $400 a month. I would call that a huge improvement.
If the family makes $35,000, the premium drops even farther, to about $275 a month for said plan.
Why can't you just admit that the prices are great, and the coverage is exceptional compared to what the $50k and $35k family would have to pay today for significantly weaker coverage? What is so hard about that?
SO, for a family of four that earns above 400% of the poverty limit, it does cost $700/month. But you are being more than a little dishonest, because the price is on a sliding scale per a family's income:
If the family only makes $50,000, the $700 silver plan premium should go down to about $400 a month. I would call that a huge improvement.
If the family makes $35,000, the premium drops even farther, to about $275 a month for said plan.
Why can't you just admit that the prices are great, and the coverage is exceptional compared to what the $50k and $35k family would have to pay today for significantly weaker coverage? What is so hard about that?
On your calculator, the average monthly premium for family coverage for a silver plan (70% coinsurance) is $751.48. That's over $9,000 per year. I still can't definitively find anything that says what the family deductible and out of pocket maximums would be with that plan, but with a $3000 deductible and $5000 out of pocket maximum, a family would be looking at $17k out of pocket. Using the Kaiser calculator, if this family with 2 adults and 4 kids earned $75k per year, the cost would drop on a silver plan to $5707 in premium. Depending on deductible and out of pocket max, you're still looking at about $14 k per year.
On einsurance, they give quotes they say are for ACA compliant policies beginning in 2014 that are super expensive:
UnitedHealthcare
Select SaverSM
Catastrophic
Featured Plan
Compare
First 3 visits: $0 Copay,visit 4+: 0% Coinsurance after deductible
Find Doctors $6,350 (individual) $12,700 (family) $887.47 Apply Details
Humana Insurance Company
Humana National Preferred Bronze 4850/6350...
Bronze
Featured Plan
Compare
For the first 3 visits, $55 Copay. Then 20% Coinsurance after deductible.
Find Doctors $4,850 (individual) $9,700 (family) $1,133.62 Apply Details
Save $35.00 with a health care package
UnitedHealthcare
Bronze HSA 100®
Bronze
Featured Plan
Compare
No Charge after deductible
Find Doctors $6,350 (individual) $12,700 (family) $1,012.77 Apply Details
UnitedHealthcare
Silver HSA 100®
Silver
Featured Plan
Compare
No Charge after deductible
Find Doctors $3,650 (individual) $7,300 (family) $1,230.12 Apply Details
Humana Insurance Company
Humana National Preferred Silver 4250/6250...
Silver
Featured Plan
Compare
$35
Find Doctors $4,250 (individual) $8,500 (family) $1,185.43
And you have to factor in subsidies for families earning less than 400% of the federal poverty limit, which are not accounted for in the raw price. While it says $751, it only gets cheaper as you earn less. If you make $50k a year and your family has four people in it, you will pay $400 per month.
That is an extremely important fact.
Then you have to contrast that with the kind of coverage a family of four earning $50k can get today for $400/mo.
In light of how the ACA limits insurers' latitude to restrict coverage for a variety of conditions and situations, the new policies, with their subsidy-adjusted prices, which are most certainly comparable to the old barely-insurance policies, are a smoking hot deal.
And you have to factor in subsidies for families earning less than 400% of the federal poverty limit, which are not accounted for in the raw price. While it says $751, it only gets cheaper as you earn less. If you make $50k a year and your family has four people in it, you will pay $400 per month.
That is an extremely important fact.
Then you have to contrast that with the kind of coverage a family of four earning $50k can get today for $400/mo.
In light of how the ACA limits insurers' latitude to restrict coverage for a variety of conditions and situations, the new policies, with their subsidy-adjusted prices, which are most certainly comparable to the old barely-insurance policies, are a smoking hot deal.
That's why so few people have signed up and so many have complained about the cost of what they are being force into that the President had to create an administrative "fix" for the law today to allow people to keep their plans (until after the 2014 mid-terms).
On einsurance, they give quotes they say are for ACA compliant policies beginning in 2014 that are super expensive:
eInsurance is not an exchange. The prices they quote are significantly higher than the prices on the Missouri exchange, and that list isn't even the policies available on the exchange.
The catastrophic family plan prices on the MO exchange, BEFORE subsidies, range from $450 to $650. That is a far cry from $887.
The bronze and silver policies in your list of non-exchange (third party site) policies all cost as much as the GOLD policies available ON the exchange, before SUBSIDIES.
Why do you insist on spreading lies and misinformation? It does not matter what eInsurance or any other third party site says; they are not the exchanges. Are you really so lazy (typical conservative "waahhhh, I haven't done this before so I won't try") that you can't click on the links I provided to the actual exchanges themselves?
eInsurance is not an exchange. The prices they quote are significantly higher than the prices on the Missouri exchange, and that list isn't even the policies available on the exchange.
The catastrophic family plan prices on the MO exchange, BEFORE subsidies, range from $450 to $650. That is a far cry from $887.
The bronze and silver policies in your list of non-exchange (third party site) policies all cost as much as the GOLD policies available ON the exchange, before SUBSIDIES.
Why do you insist on spreading lies and misinformation? It does not matter what eInsurance or any other third party site says; they are not the exchanges. Are you really so lazy (typical conservative "waahhhh, I haven't done this before so I won't try") that you can't click on the links I provided to the actual exchanges themselves?
I did. As I previously stated, a silver plan in Missouri, factoring in the deductibles and out of pocket maximums will cost about $19k a year for a family of four. If that family of four makes $75k, with subsidies it will cost about $14k total. Most families of 4 making $75k will find that very expensive. That's assuming the meet the deductible and out of pocket max, which is very likely for a family of four (2 adults and 2 kids).
"The Obama administration has directly conceded for the first time that 'in many cases,' health insurance plans offered through government exchanges are more expensive than plans consumers bought before the Affordable Care Act became law – even when government subsidies are figured in.
In a letter to state insurance commissioners, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight director Gary Cohen wrote on Thursday that one reason for the new Obamacare measures the president announced Thursday is that millions of consumers receiving cancellation letters from their insurers are learning the Affordable Care Act options are in fact less affordable.
'Although affected individuals and small businesses may access quality health insurance coverage through the new Health Insurance Marketplaces,' Cohen wrote, 'in many cases with federal subsidies, some of them are finding that such coverage would be more expensive than their current coverage, and thus they may [be] dissuaded from immediately transitioning to such coverage.'"
When exactly was the last time you hit your maximum?
Again, you are being really disingenuous in your responses. The annual cost is not $14k. It is $751 times 12, minus the subsidy, which is based on income and family size. So the annual cost is $9k or less. Since much preventive care is included, it will not be significantly higher than that for most people. Honestly, when was the last time you used up your oop max?
As you said above, with a family of 6, and income of $75k, you're only on the hook for $5700. Try to find any remotely okay coverage for that price on the open market. Just try.
All that said, $50k is roughly the median hh income in MO. So my example is probably more useful, and more descriptive of the people that will benefit from this law. If you make $75k, there's a good shot that your employer is picking up a big chunk of the premium. If you're making $20-$30k, and paid by the hour like the middle 50% of Missourians probably are, you may or may not have employer provided coverage. And in that case, a median MO family of 4 pays $4800 after subsidies.
I am happy to hear over the weekend that many states refuse to make changes to the law. Washington state's insurance commissioner is dead on when he says allowing people to keep existing policies that do not meet the minimum requirements of the ACA would distort the pool of insured and cause price swings that defeat the law's purpose.
Like a typical conservative, you seem to take an "I've got mine, f you" approach to this problem. Aside from some preventable conditions like tobacco and type 2 diabetes, people don't always have a lot of control over their health outcomes. And that person could be you. You could find yourself unemployed, and with a very expensive health condition.
And this gets at the heart of the problem. We have great technology, but poor outcomes and expensive compare, especially when we line ourselves up against the rest of the west. The only other solution I can see is simply expanding Medicare so everyone is eligible for it. Then there is no more job lock, no more dealing with 80 insurers' rules, no more variability in what is and isn't covered. We could make a standard set of benefits available to everyone, and then like in Canada (where only 0.5% of the population seek coverage in the U.S., and often because they are traveling and get sick), allow people to purchase supplemental coverage on the private market for an added cost.
What is the conservative alternative? I have yet to hear it. And the old model is not the answer, so don't even go there. Nor is unpredictable and demeaning charity. Anyway, I continue to win this debate.
Last edited by STLviaMSP; 11-18-2013 at 10:13 AM..
When exactly was the last time you hit your maximum?
Again, you are being really disingenuous in your responses. The annual cost is not $14k. It is $751 times 12, minus the subsidy, which is based on income and family size. So the annual cost is $9k or less. Since much preventive care is included, it will not be significantly higher than that for most people. Honestly, when was the last time you used up your oop max?
As you said above, with a family of 6, and income of $75k, you're only on the hook for $5700. Try to find any remotely okay coverage for that price on the open market. Just try.
All that said, $50k is roughly the median hh income in MO. So my example is probably more useful, and more descriptive of the people that will benefit from this law. If you make $75k, there's a good shot that your employer is picking up a big chunk of the premium. If you're making $20-$30k, and paid by the hour like the middle 50% of Missourians probably are, you may or may not have employer provided coverage. And in that case, a median MO family of 4 pays $4800 after subsidies.
I am happy to hear over the weekend that many states refuse to make changes to the law. Washington state's insurance commissioner is dead on when he says allowing people to keep existing policies that do not meet the minimum requirements of the ACA would distort the pool of insured and cause price swings that defeat the law's purpose.
Like a typical conservative, you seem to take an "I've got mine, f you" approach to this problem. Aside from some preventable conditions like tobacco and type 2 diabetes, people don't always have a lot of control over their health outcomes. And that person could be you. You could find yourself unemployed, and with a very expensive health condition.
And this gets at the heart of the problem. We have great technology, but poor outcomes and expensive compare, especially when we line ourselves up against the rest of the west. The only other solution I can see is simply expanding Medicare so everyone is eligible for it. Then there is no more job lock, no more dealing with 80 insurers' rules, no more variability in what is and isn't covered. We could make a standard set of benefits available to everyone, and then like in Canada (where only 0.5% of the population seek coverage in the U.S., and often because they are traveling and get sick), allow people to purchase supplemental coverage on the private market for an added cost.
What is the conservative alternative? I have yet to hear it. And the old model is not the answer, so don't even go there. Nor is unpredictable and demeaning charity. Anyway, I continue to win this debate.
You don't have kids I presume? hitting the out of pocket maximum is not uncommon if you have a family you are providing for.
The outcomes is a red herring. That is largely driven by poor diet in a small segment of our society and has little to do with access to healthcare.
You can claim victory on a message board all you want but the ACA is floundering right now in the real world because people are being forced off plans they currently have into more expensive plans many can't afford.
The fact of the matter is the old system worked better for most americans than the ACA.
Last edited by MUTGR; 11-18-2013 at 11:09 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
