[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by SoHoVe

Your rates never increased?

What rate? I pay zero. My co-pays may as well be zero. I simply do not worry about healthcare.

[Tornado Baby]

That is how all of us should be able to live. I am fortunate to have great insurance. Fortunate. Won the crap shoot at least so far. We should not need to worry about paying to be sick as well as being sick. There is no logical repudiation to this.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by qingguy

... Didn't someone say on national TV that I'd be able to keep my current plan?

If I recall correctly, someone said you'd be able to keep your doctor, not your insurance plan.

[oeccscclhjhn]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

If I recall correctly, someone said you'd be able to keep your doctor, not your insurance plan.

obama: If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold, politifact.com/, June 6, 2009

WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Outlines Goals for Health Care Reform, whitehouse.gov/

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

The ACA does not affect me (a Strip casino worker) in the least. I plan on STAYING a Strip casino worker for the duration that I am here in Las Vegas because the healthcare plan is basically the same that a US Senator receives.

I do not worry one bit about healthcare. That's an excellent perk -- piece of mind and decent healthcare. Everyone in America should have the same kind of plan that I have. I mean this most sincerely. It is a national embarrassment that people don't have the kind of healthcare plan that my wife and I enjoy.

Originally Posted by SoHoVe

Your rates never increased?

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

What rate? I pay zero. My co-pays may as well be zero. I simply do not worry about healthcare.

Most employers pay workers a combination of wages and benefits, the most important of which is health coverage. Economic theory says that when employers’ costs for benefits like health coverage rise, they will hold back on salary increases to keep total compensation costs in check. That’s exactly what seems to have happened: Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that from June 2004 to June 2014 compensation increased by 28% while employer health-insurance costs rose by 51%. Consequently, average wages grew by just 24%.

But here’s what the news headlines miss: Rising health costs don’t affect every employee the same. An average family health policy today costs employers nearly $12,000 per year, up from only $4,200 in 1999. Had employer premiums not risen, average salaries today would be around $7,800 higher. For a lower-income worker who today makes $30,000, that could have meant a 26% salary increase. By contrast, a “one percenter” making $250,000 today would have seen his earnings rise only by 3.1%. Health costs are a bigger share of total compensation for lower-wage workers, and so rising health costs hit their salaries the most. The result is higher income inequality.

There is no free lunch - because of the increase in health insurance costs, everyone is getting a lower pay raise in their paycheck. It hurts all of us, but it hurts different people differently.

We're paying $25,000 per year to cover the two of us - we're paying retiree rates from a previous Fortune 50 employer. That employer is self-insured, as are many major employers, paying Cigna or UNH or Aetna or whomever to administer the claims on behalf of the company. It sux, but at least we have access to insurance.

[oeccscclhjhn]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Most employers pay workers a combination of wages and benefits, the most important of which is health coverage. Economic theory says that when employers’ costs for benefits like health coverage rise, they will hold back on salary increases to keep total compensation costs in check. That’s exactly what seems to have happened: Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that from June 2004 to June 2014 compensation increased by 28% while employer health-insurance costs rose by 51%. Consequently, average wages grew by just 24%.

But here’s what the news headlines miss: Rising health costs don’t affect every employee the same. An average family health policy today costs employers nearly $12,000 per year, up from only $4,200 in 1999. Had employer premiums not risen, average salaries today would be around $7,800 higher. For a lower-income worker who today makes $30,000, that could have meant a 26% salary increase. By contrast, a “one percenter” making $250,000 today would have seen his earnings rise only by 3.1%. Health costs are a bigger share of total compensation for lower-wage workers, and so rising health costs hit their salaries the most. The result is higher income inequality.

There is no free lunch - because of the increase in health insurance costs, everyone is getting a lower pay raise in their paycheck. It hurts all of us, but it hurts different people differently.

We're paying $25,000 per year to cover the two of us - we're paying retiree rates from a previous Fortune 50 employer. That employer is self-insured, as are many major employers, paying Cigna or UNH or Aetna or whomever to administer the claims on behalf of the company. It sux, but at least we have access to insurance.

You're absolutely right. No such thing as a free lunch.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by qingguy

Ha! No kidding. I forgot to mention that not only has my premium gone-up close to 60% my deductible went-up 10 times. Now that's affordable LOL!

The basic idea is there is only way to reduce the costs of health care, and that is to consume less health care.

For the past decades, our system has been more of an "all you can eat buffet" of health care - the costs of going to the doctor have been almost zero (a 10 or 20 dollar co-pay) and the costs of medical tests such as blood tests, x-rays, and the like have similarly been almost zero. Surprise, surprise, when the marginal cost of consuming medical care is very low, people consume a lot.

By moving to a high deductible scenario, each of us will think twice about running to the doctor for minor ailments.

I'm not a doctor, but if I were, I'd be pissed because fewer customers means less revenue for my business. That in turn forces more and more doctors into becoming employees of larger organizations such as hospital groups. Next step after that: my personal forecast is we'll see doctors unionizing to protect their interests, but that is another topic altogether.

[qingguy]

Originally Posted by Tornado Baby

The junk policies that those who feel ripped off had have disappeared because the policies did not meet the standard of actually taking care of sick people. That actually means that sick people can't be turned away. If paying less for junk policies means that one still loses their house to pay for cancer treatments, then the conclusion is that something has been lost. Are we not above that?

I understand what you're saying. However, in my opinion, the catastrophic plans that were offered were typically geared towards people who could afford general care, however, if something catastrophic happened insurance would cover a large percentage so you weren't financially destroyed. For instance, when I had my heart attack I had one of these plans, I think my total out of pocket was under $10,000.

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

What rate? I pay zero. My co-pays may as well be zero. I simply do not worry about healthcare.

Should talk my wife into going back to work on the strip. Even if she was making minimum wage, if you added $14,560 a year from annual healthcare savings (what I'll be paying in 2015) it would be worth it, combined wages and healthcare savings would be around $30,000 annually. Does anyone know if these benefits are offered to part-time employees?

[qingguy]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

I'm not a doctor, but if I were, I'd be pissed because fewer customers means less revenue for my business. That in turn forces more and more doctors into becoming employees of larger organizations such as hospital groups. Next step after that: my personal forecast is we'll see doctors unionizing to protect their interests, but that is another topic altogether.

Ah, forgot to mention, our doctor went to a concierge physician and I believe this could be the reason. He's limiting his practice to 600 patients and to be in his practice there's an annual fee of about $1,500 per person (I think there's a family rate as well). With this rate he promises more time with the Dr., shorter wait times, access to his email and cell phone. Does not include any care. The letter we received claimed the move was due to the ACA. We opted not to participate in this service and found a new Dr.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by qingguy

Does anyone know if these benefits are offered to part-time employees?

The minimum for benefits where I work is 32 hours per week. Otherwise the benefits must be purchased, and it isn't cheap.