Florida woman's insurance rate increases from $54 to $591 under Obamacare (cost, compared, financial)

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Sure there is. My example is no stretch. We have seen example after example after example of this.

The lady works for employer A. They subsidize part of her health care as a part of her employment package. Her share is $54.

Yea, "employer A" is amazing. I wish they actually existed.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

One Florida woman is going from paying $54 a month to $591 under Obamacare,

What kind of sub prime insurance did this 56 year old have for $54/mo? Was this all she could afford or is she one of the many who believed all insurance was alike.

Using the Kaiser calculator for Florida, it showed a monthly premium of $174-215 per month for the Bronze or Silver Plans. Perhaps the $591 was for the Platinum Plan.

The reporter did make clear at the end that this woman would be eligible for a subsidy but she does not know how much. In absence of a functioning ACA portal, The Kaiser calculator could help her figure that out, too.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

[11thHour]

I believe she could have had such insurance. Up until a five years ago, my employer paid 100% of our health insurance premiums, no matter our age, but only for the employee. The employee still had to contribute if it was a family plan. But yes, to find such a place now is certainly rare.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Sure sounds like some of these stories are just made up. There is no such thing as health plan for $54 for 50+ yr old people.

She's 56 and I cannot fathom what the heck she bought for $54 a month.

It also sounds like she and/or the media is comparing the lousiest healthcare policy in the nation with an ACA compliant Platinum Plan.

Her premiums for the bronze or silver plans would be $174-215/mo*. pre subsidy which the reporter said the woman was eligible for.

* per the Kaiser calculator

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Yea, "employer A" is amazing. I wish they actually existed.

I posted an example that did exist. I think you just want to hide your head in the sand.

Trader Joe's provided health care for their part time employee's. Now they aren't. So their costs go from $0 to whatever it is. Whatever it is they can't afford it.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Sure there is. My example is no stretch. We have seen example after example after example of this.

The lady works for employer A. They subsidize part of her health care as a part of her employment package. Her share is $54. With the new regulations in place the company decides that this is no longer feasible for them and they drop the health care benefits.

She is now stuck paying nearly $600.

Trader Joe's To Drop Health Coverage For Part-Time Workers Under Obamacare: Memo

^ is a possibility. I wonder what the net cost will be after the subsidy.
If she is lucky enough to be a Trader Joe's employee, the company will be paying her a stipend to cover what they would have, had they not cut benefits.

If this woman is comparing a subsidized large group plan to any individual plan, pre or post ACA she was in for sticker shock.
If that were the case, shame on CBS for cherry-picking the story to fit the intent.

There are going to be plenty of sad stories of the folk who will fall through the donut hole. No need to manufacture stories.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

^ is a possibility. I wonder what the net cost will be after the subsidy.

Let's go with that. So what we might have is instead of her employer paying most of her health care benefits, taxpayers will be. How is this anything but counter productive?

If she is lucky enough to be a Trader Joe's employee, the company will be paying her a stipend to cover what they would have had they not cut benefits.

Yes, and they are never going to get insurance elsewhere for $500 a year. If Trader Joe's can do it, why can't the government? High deductibles and co-pays? From everything I've read, that defines Obamacare.

[greywar]

Yes I am sure Trader Joes cost to insure these people was 500/year. Lets be honest here, this is trader joes looking for a way to enhance profits by reducing costs, and blaming someone else.

[Little-Acorn]

Funniest thing about this whole episode, is that so many people are discovering FOR THE FIRST TIME that socialist "services" cost more and deliver less.

This woman is just the latest one to find that out.

With many, many more to come.

Pelosi was right. We had to pass it to find out what was in it. Now people are finding out.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Yes, and they are never going to get insurance elsewhere for $500 a year. If Trader Joe's can do it, why can't the government? High deductibles and co-pays? From everything I've read, that defines Obamacare.

Let's run with the Trader Joe theory because it's the only one that makes sense...

TJ's estimated that 70% of its small PT workforce will pay less for comparable insurance via the exchange than they do through the company-sponsored program.

Those PT employees with other sources of household income will pay more.

Trader Joe’s cut health benefits last week. Here’s its side of the story.