Your Medical Plan $Changes/Increases for 2011?

[moneymaker]

I don’t believe Obama’s health care package does anything to control costs (have not read it, nor will I, just a feeling), so when Nancy Pelosi says it will trim 1.2 Billion from healthcare costs I have to assume she is talking about saving the government that money under one of the many government sponsored health care programs offered to the elderly, disabled, or those on welfare(yes I’m calling it what it is!). I haven’t got my reenrollment package yet, but I am afraid. One thing I’ve learned is that most doctors/hospitals have no idea what your co-pay actually is. So hang onto those old cards and just pluck it on the counter then you can keep paying your same old co-pay. My wife says hers has nearly doubled, Yikes!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=air_ogi][quote=bearishgurl]I have an individual policy and my premium went up 20% October 1 to compensate my ins. co. for now having to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions after the passage of the HCRA. [/quote]

That provision doesn’t come in effect until January 1, 2014.[/quote]

[quote=meadandale]Well, I’m clearly not in the need category as I pay for my own health insurance (self employed) and won’t qualify for government subsidized care.

However, I can say without qualification that the health care changes have only negatively affected my ability to afford healthcare, or in general.

To whit:

1) In spite of the claims that this would reduce health care costs my premiums have risen almost 20% since this legislation passed. . . [/quote]

Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The “form letter” I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the “option” of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my “grandfathered” benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be “reworked” to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.

As an aside here, I do contract work for a few very small businesses (law firms) who have stated that it would cost them $535 (basic HMO) to $1520 mo for a comprehensive health plan (low ded. and copays) for an employee in my age group (depending on their state of health). Their rates are virtually the same as an individual plan and many required first qualifying (for ages 50-65) before HCRA was passed.

The TRUTH is, the baby-boomer crowd is expensive to insure for a variety of reasons. No matter how smart and/or qualified we are, no small biz that can’t get a group rate wants to pay it. This issue literally HAS to be addressed at the initial job interview (i.e. applicant is already covered) because if it ISN’T, the applicant will never hear from the employer again except to possibly get a rejection letter.

Unfortunately, my biz is mostly comprised of small firms who can’t get competitive “group rates.”

I’ve also had the convo on a second interview (before I had indiv. coverage) as to how much LESS I would take than the “going rate” (i.e. what younger counterpart in firm was making for same or similar job) in order to offer me comparable health coverage to that employee. The firm partner actually had a calculator in front of him during the interview and and was trying to determine how much I would cost to retain . . . in total. Not sure he does/did this with younger applicants but it is what it is. Not sure if this practice is actually illegal. The Piggs running businesses who posted here are telling the truth. The cost of health care puts a severe crimp on their business expenses, making it more cost-effective for them to contract out work rather than hire.

Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.

I think instead of the wholesale overhaul of the health insurance industry, the HCRA could have been structured differently (like high-risk auto ins) and just affected the state-run high risk pools. The Feds could have just subsidized the state run pools to provide “affordable” premiums to them only and leave the rest of the plans untouched.

For instance, no insurance company (for ANY price – even a $1500 mo. premium) wants to take a recent cancer survivor . . . for good reason. And this statement is coming from someone who has lost several close relatives to cancer.

air_ogi, SOMEBODY has to subsidize the premiums of the frequent health-care users and the sick who will all soon be “covered.” This $$ will come off the backs of employers, employees and individual policy holders. There will be no more rewards (in the form of a low premium) for taking care of oneself and using exercise and alternative therapies (out-of-pocket) instead of running to the doctor constantly. Health insurance won’t work like other forms of insurance anymore.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=air_ogi][quote=bearishgurl]I have an individual policy and my premium went up 20% October 1 to compensate my ins. co. for now having to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions after the passage of the HCRA. [/quote]

That provision doesn’t come in effect until January 1, 2014.[/quote]

[quote=meadandale]Well, I’m clearly not in the need category as I pay for my own health insurance (self employed) and won’t qualify for government subsidized care.

However, I can say without qualification that the health care changes have only negatively affected my ability to afford healthcare, or in general.

To whit:

1) In spite of the claims that this would reduce health care costs my premiums have risen almost 20% since this legislation passed. . . [/quote]

Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The “form letter” I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the “option” of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my “grandfathered” benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be “reworked” to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.

As an aside here, I do contract work for a few very small businesses (law firms) who have stated that it would cost them $535 (basic HMO) to $1520 mo for a comprehensive health plan (low ded. and copays) for an employee in my age group (depending on their state of health). Their rates are virtually the same as an individual plan and many required first qualifying (for ages 50-65) before HCRA was passed.

The TRUTH is, the baby-boomer crowd is expensive to insure for a variety of reasons. No matter how smart and/or qualified we are, no small biz that can’t get a group rate wants to pay it. This issue literally HAS to be addressed at the initial job interview (i.e. applicant is already covered) because if it ISN’T, the applicant will never hear from the employer again except to possibly get a rejection letter.

Unfortunately, my biz is mostly comprised of small firms who can’t get competitive “group rates.”

I’ve also had the convo on a second interview (before I had indiv. coverage) as to how much LESS I would take than the “going rate” (i.e. what younger counterpart in firm was making for same or similar job) in order to offer me comparable health coverage to that employee. The firm partner actually had a calculator in front of him during the interview and and was trying to determine how much I would cost to retain . . . in total. Not sure he does/did this with younger applicants but it is what it is. Not sure if this practice is actually illegal. The Piggs running businesses who posted here are telling the truth. The cost of health care puts a severe crimp on their business expenses, making it more cost-effective for them to contract out work rather than hire.

Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.

I think instead of the wholesale overhaul of the health insurance industry, the HCRA could have been structured differently (like high-risk auto ins) and just affected the state-run high risk pools. The Feds could have just subsidized the state run pools to provide “affordable” premiums to them only and leave the rest of the plans untouched.

For instance, no insurance company (for ANY price – even a $1500 mo. premium) wants to take a recent cancer survivor . . . for good reason. And this statement is coming from someone who has lost several close relatives to cancer.

air_ogi, SOMEBODY has to subsidize the premiums of the frequent health-care users and the sick who will all soon be “covered.” This $$ will come off the backs of employers, employees and individual policy holders. There will be no more rewards (in the form of a low premium) for taking care of oneself and using exercise and alternative therapies (out-of-pocket) instead of running to the doctor constantly. Health insurance won’t work like other forms of insurance anymore.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=air_ogi][quote=bearishgurl]I have an individual policy and my premium went up 20% October 1 to compensate my ins. co. for now having to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions after the passage of the HCRA. [/quote]

That provision doesn’t come in effect until January 1, 2014.[/quote]

[quote=meadandale]Well, I’m clearly not in the need category as I pay for my own health insurance (self employed) and won’t qualify for government subsidized care.

However, I can say without qualification that the health care changes have only negatively affected my ability to afford healthcare, or in general.

To whit:

1) In spite of the claims that this would reduce health care costs my premiums have risen almost 20% since this legislation passed. . . [/quote]

Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The “form letter” I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the “option” of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my “grandfathered” benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be “reworked” to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.

As an aside here, I do contract work for a few very small businesses (law firms) who have stated that it would cost them $535 (basic HMO) to $1520 mo for a comprehensive health plan (low ded. and copays) for an employee in my age group (depending on their state of health). Their rates are virtually the same as an individual plan and many required first qualifying (for ages 50-65) before HCRA was passed.

The TRUTH is, the baby-boomer crowd is expensive to insure for a variety of reasons. No matter how smart and/or qualified we are, no small biz that can’t get a group rate wants to pay it. This issue literally HAS to be addressed at the initial job interview (i.e. applicant is already covered) because if it ISN’T, the applicant will never hear from the employer again except to possibly get a rejection letter.

Unfortunately, my biz is mostly comprised of small firms who can’t get competitive “group rates.”

I’ve also had the convo on a second interview (before I had indiv. coverage) as to how much LESS I would take than the “going rate” (i.e. what younger counterpart in firm was making for same or similar job) in order to offer me comparable health coverage to that employee. The firm partner actually had a calculator in front of him during the interview and and was trying to determine how much I would cost to retain . . . in total. Not sure he does/did this with younger applicants but it is what it is. Not sure if this practice is actually illegal. The Piggs running businesses who posted here are telling the truth. The cost of health care puts a severe crimp on their business expenses, making it more cost-effective for them to contract out work rather than hire.

Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.

I think instead of the wholesale overhaul of the health insurance industry, the HCRA could have been structured differently (like high-risk auto ins) and just affected the state-run high risk pools. The Feds could have just subsidized the state run pools to provide “affordable” premiums to them only and leave the rest of the plans untouched.

For instance, no insurance company (for ANY price – even a $1500 mo. premium) wants to take a recent cancer survivor . . . for good reason. And this statement is coming from someone who has lost several close relatives to cancer.

air_ogi, SOMEBODY has to subsidize the premiums of the frequent health-care users and the sick who will all soon be “covered.” This $$ will come off the backs of employers, employees and individual policy holders. There will be no more rewards (in the form of a low premium) for taking care of oneself and using exercise and alternative therapies (out-of-pocket) instead of running to the doctor constantly. Health insurance won’t work like other forms of insurance anymore.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=air_ogi][quote=bearishgurl]I have an individual policy and my premium went up 20% October 1 to compensate my ins. co. for now having to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions after the passage of the HCRA. [/quote]

That provision doesn’t come in effect until January 1, 2014.[/quote]

[quote=meadandale]Well, I’m clearly not in the need category as I pay for my own health insurance (self employed) and won’t qualify for government subsidized care.

However, I can say without qualification that the health care changes have only negatively affected my ability to afford healthcare, or in general.

To whit:

1) In spite of the claims that this would reduce health care costs my premiums have risen almost 20% since this legislation passed. . . [/quote]

Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The “form letter” I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the “option” of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my “grandfathered” benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be “reworked” to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.

As an aside here, I do contract work for a few very small businesses (law firms) who have stated that it would cost them $535 (basic HMO) to $1520 mo for a comprehensive health plan (low ded. and copays) for an employee in my age group (depending on their state of health). Their rates are virtually the same as an individual plan and many required first qualifying (for ages 50-65) before HCRA was passed.

The TRUTH is, the baby-boomer crowd is expensive to insure for a variety of reasons. No matter how smart and/or qualified we are, no small biz that can’t get a group rate wants to pay it. This issue literally HAS to be addressed at the initial job interview (i.e. applicant is already covered) because if it ISN’T, the applicant will never hear from the employer again except to possibly get a rejection letter.

Unfortunately, my biz is mostly comprised of small firms who can’t get competitive “group rates.”

I’ve also had the convo on a second interview (before I had indiv. coverage) as to how much LESS I would take than the “going rate” (i.e. what younger counterpart in firm was making for same or similar job) in order to offer me comparable health coverage to that employee. The firm partner actually had a calculator in front of him during the interview and and was trying to determine how much I would cost to retain . . . in total. Not sure he does/did this with younger applicants but it is what it is. Not sure if this practice is actually illegal. The Piggs running businesses who posted here are telling the truth. The cost of health care puts a severe crimp on their business expenses, making it more cost-effective for them to contract out work rather than hire.

Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.

I think instead of the wholesale overhaul of the health insurance industry, the HCRA could have been structured differently (like high-risk auto ins) and just affected the state-run high risk pools. The Feds could have just subsidized the state run pools to provide “affordable” premiums to them only and leave the rest of the plans untouched.

For instance, no insurance company (for ANY price – even a $1500 mo. premium) wants to take a recent cancer survivor . . . for good reason. And this statement is coming from someone who has lost several close relatives to cancer.

air_ogi, SOMEBODY has to subsidize the premiums of the frequent health-care users and the sick who will all soon be “covered.” This $$ will come off the backs of employers, employees and individual policy holders. There will be no more rewards (in the form of a low premium) for taking care of oneself and using exercise and alternative therapies (out-of-pocket) instead of running to the doctor constantly. Health insurance won’t work like other forms of insurance anymore.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=air_ogi][quote=bearishgurl]I have an individual policy and my premium went up 20% October 1 to compensate my ins. co. for now having to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions after the passage of the HCRA. [/quote]

That provision doesn’t come in effect until January 1, 2014.[/quote]

[quote=meadandale]Well, I’m clearly not in the need category as I pay for my own health insurance (self employed) and won’t qualify for government subsidized care.

However, I can say without qualification that the health care changes have only negatively affected my ability to afford healthcare, or in general.

To whit:

1) In spite of the claims that this would reduce health care costs my premiums have risen almost 20% since this legislation passed. . . [/quote]

Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The “form letter” I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the “option” of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my “grandfathered” benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be “reworked” to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.

As an aside here, I do contract work for a few very small businesses (law firms) who have stated that it would cost them $535 (basic HMO) to $1520 mo for a comprehensive health plan (low ded. and copays) for an employee in my age group (depending on their state of health). Their rates are virtually the same as an individual plan and many required first qualifying (for ages 50-65) before HCRA was passed.

The TRUTH is, the baby-boomer crowd is expensive to insure for a variety of reasons. No matter how smart and/or qualified we are, no small biz that can’t get a group rate wants to pay it. This issue literally HAS to be addressed at the initial job interview (i.e. applicant is already covered) because if it ISN’T, the applicant will never hear from the employer again except to possibly get a rejection letter.

Unfortunately, my biz is mostly comprised of small firms who can’t get competitive “group rates.”

I’ve also had the convo on a second interview (before I had indiv. coverage) as to how much LESS I would take than the “going rate” (i.e. what younger counterpart in firm was making for same or similar job) in order to offer me comparable health coverage to that employee. The firm partner actually had a calculator in front of him during the interview and and was trying to determine how much I would cost to retain . . . in total. Not sure he does/did this with younger applicants but it is what it is. Not sure if this practice is actually illegal. The Piggs running businesses who posted here are telling the truth. The cost of health care puts a severe crimp on their business expenses, making it more cost-effective for them to contract out work rather than hire.

Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.

I think instead of the wholesale overhaul of the health insurance industry, the HCRA could have been structured differently (like high-risk auto ins) and just affected the state-run high risk pools. The Feds could have just subsidized the state run pools to provide “affordable” premiums to them only and leave the rest of the plans untouched.

For instance, no insurance company (for ANY price – even a $1500 mo. premium) wants to take a recent cancer survivor . . . for good reason. And this statement is coming from someone who has lost several close relatives to cancer.

air_ogi, SOMEBODY has to subsidize the premiums of the frequent health-care users and the sick who will all soon be “covered.” This $$ will come off the backs of employers, employees and individual policy holders. There will be no more rewards (in the form of a low premium) for taking care of oneself and using exercise and alternative therapies (out-of-pocket) instead of running to the doctor constantly. Health insurance won’t work like other forms of insurance anymore.

[enron_by_the_sea]

As it stands now – the future is HSA+HDHP for everyone. Some will get there earlier, some will get there later. But eventually that is where we all will be! That is all we can afford as a society.

I am not sure if following cost lowering alternatives were ever considered.

[1] Offer catastrophic only coverage at affordable rates through govt. for uninsured.
Not sure why everyone is so fixated on covering every single illness to the uninsured on taxpayer dime.

[2] If you ever use a ER without paying for it – govt. will reimburse the hospital at medicare rate and records it with IRS as a debt to be collected from your SSN.

[enron_by_the_sea]

As it stands now – the future is HSA+HDHP for everyone. Some will get there earlier, some will get there later. But eventually that is where we all will be! That is all we can afford as a society.

I am not sure if following cost lowering alternatives were ever considered.

[1] Offer catastrophic only coverage at affordable rates through govt. for uninsured.
Not sure why everyone is so fixated on covering every single illness to the uninsured on taxpayer dime.

[2] If you ever use a ER without paying for it – govt. will reimburse the hospital at medicare rate and records it with IRS as a debt to be collected from your SSN.

[enron_by_the_sea]

As it stands now – the future is HSA+HDHP for everyone. Some will get there earlier, some will get there later. But eventually that is where we all will be! That is all we can afford as a society.

I am not sure if following cost lowering alternatives were ever considered.

[1] Offer catastrophic only coverage at affordable rates through govt. for uninsured.
Not sure why everyone is so fixated on covering every single illness to the uninsured on taxpayer dime.

[2] If you ever use a ER without paying for it – govt. will reimburse the hospital at medicare rate and records it with IRS as a debt to be collected from your SSN.

[enron_by_the_sea]

As it stands now – the future is HSA+HDHP for everyone. Some will get there earlier, some will get there later. But eventually that is where we all will be! That is all we can afford as a society.

I am not sure if following cost lowering alternatives were ever considered.

[1] Offer catastrophic only coverage at affordable rates through govt. for uninsured.
Not sure why everyone is so fixated on covering every single illness to the uninsured on taxpayer dime.

[2] If you ever use a ER without paying for it – govt. will reimburse the hospital at medicare rate and records it with IRS as a debt to be collected from your SSN.

[enron_by_the_sea]

As it stands now – the future is HSA+HDHP for everyone. Some will get there earlier, some will get there later. But eventually that is where we all will be! That is all we can afford as a society.

I am not sure if following cost lowering alternatives were ever considered.

[1] Offer catastrophic only coverage at affordable rates through govt. for uninsured.
Not sure why everyone is so fixated on covering every single illness to the uninsured on taxpayer dime.

[2] If you ever use a ER without paying for it – govt. will reimburse the hospital at medicare rate and records it with IRS as a debt to be collected from your SSN.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]As it stands now – the future is HSA+HDHP for everyone. Some will get there earlier, some will get there later. But eventually that is where we all will be! That is all we can afford as a society.

I am not sure if following cost lowering alternatives were ever considered.

[1] Offer catastrophic only coverage at affordable rates through govt. for uninsured.
Not sure why everyone is so fixated on covering every single illness to the uninsured on taxpayer dime.

[2] If you ever use a ER without paying for it – govt. will reimburse the hospital at medicare rate and records it with IRS as a debt to be collected from your SSN.[/quote]

Good points, enron, esp. #2. Emergency room bills at Medicare rate could be withheld from patients’ Federal tax refunds (even their huge earned income credits)! Even Medi-cal has a low co-pay and covers EVERYTHING including comprehensive dental services! Only the choice of providers is limited. Why do we as taxpayers OWE these services to this group when we can’t afford this level of service ourselves??

I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don’t have “wages” to withold an HSA from). I just don’t think it’s right to raise the premiums of a HDHP (which only has a limited 100% “preventative-care” benefit) to exorbitant levels on an individual policyholder who has never tapped into their post-$8,000 ded. hospital benefit. My ins. co. has been doing nothing but making a sizable profit off me for the last few years. I understand the “age-group” pricing but feel like my record alone should speak for MY current premium and not other insureds’ (or soon-to-be-insureds’) records.

I don’t deserve to pay for others’ health problems (whether intentionally or unintentionally caused) and I can ill afford it. It’s not fair to me and I think health premiums should be based solely upon the record of the individual policyholder, like other forms of insurance.

And yes, even if I was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, I would still have the same opinion.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]As it stands now – the future is HSA+HDHP for everyone. Some will get there earlier, some will get there later. But eventually that is where we all will be! That is all we can afford as a society.

I am not sure if following cost lowering alternatives were ever considered.

[1] Offer catastrophic only coverage at affordable rates through govt. for uninsured.
Not sure why everyone is so fixated on covering every single illness to the uninsured on taxpayer dime.

[2] If you ever use a ER without paying for it – govt. will reimburse the hospital at medicare rate and records it with IRS as a debt to be collected from your SSN.[/quote]

Good points, enron, esp. #2. Emergency room bills at Medicare rate could be withheld from patients’ Federal tax refunds (even their huge earned income credits)! Even Medi-cal has a low co-pay and covers EVERYTHING including comprehensive dental services! Only the choice of providers is limited. Why do we as taxpayers OWE these services to this group when we can’t afford this level of service ourselves??

I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don’t have “wages” to withold an HSA from). I just don’t think it’s right to raise the premiums of a HDHP (which only has a limited 100% “preventative-care” benefit) to exorbitant levels on an individual policyholder who has never tapped into their post-$8,000 ded. hospital benefit. My ins. co. has been doing nothing but making a sizable profit off me for the last few years. I understand the “age-group” pricing but feel like my record alone should speak for MY current premium and not other insureds’ (or soon-to-be-insureds’) records.

I don’t deserve to pay for others’ health problems (whether intentionally or unintentionally caused) and I can ill afford it. It’s not fair to me and I think health premiums should be based solely upon the record of the individual policyholder, like other forms of insurance.

And yes, even if I was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, I would still have the same opinion.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]As it stands now – the future is HSA+HDHP for everyone. Some will get there earlier, some will get there later. But eventually that is where we all will be! That is all we can afford as a society.

I am not sure if following cost lowering alternatives were ever considered.

[1] Offer catastrophic only coverage at affordable rates through govt. for uninsured.
Not sure why everyone is so fixated on covering every single illness to the uninsured on taxpayer dime.

[2] If you ever use a ER without paying for it – govt. will reimburse the hospital at medicare rate and records it with IRS as a debt to be collected from your SSN.[/quote]

Good points, enron, esp. #2. Emergency room bills at Medicare rate could be withheld from patients’ Federal tax refunds (even their huge earned income credits)! Even Medi-cal has a low co-pay and covers EVERYTHING including comprehensive dental services! Only the choice of providers is limited. Why do we as taxpayers OWE these services to this group when we can’t afford this level of service ourselves??

I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don’t have “wages” to withold an HSA from). I just don’t think it’s right to raise the premiums of a HDHP (which only has a limited 100% “preventative-care” benefit) to exorbitant levels on an individual policyholder who has never tapped into their post-$8,000 ded. hospital benefit. My ins. co. has been doing nothing but making a sizable profit off me for the last few years. I understand the “age-group” pricing but feel like my record alone should speak for MY current premium and not other insureds’ (or soon-to-be-insureds’) records.

I don’t deserve to pay for others’ health problems (whether intentionally or unintentionally caused) and I can ill afford it. It’s not fair to me and I think health premiums should be based solely upon the record of the individual policyholder, like other forms of insurance.

And yes, even if I was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, I would still have the same opinion.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]As it stands now – the future is HSA+HDHP for everyone. Some will get there earlier, some will get there later. But eventually that is where we all will be! That is all we can afford as a society.

I am not sure if following cost lowering alternatives were ever considered.

[1] Offer catastrophic only coverage at affordable rates through govt. for uninsured.
Not sure why everyone is so fixated on covering every single illness to the uninsured on taxpayer dime.

[2] If you ever use a ER without paying for it – govt. will reimburse the hospital at medicare rate and records it with IRS as a debt to be collected from your SSN.[/quote]

Good points, enron, esp. #2. Emergency room bills at Medicare rate could be withheld from patients’ Federal tax refunds (even their huge earned income credits)! Even Medi-cal has a low co-pay and covers EVERYTHING including comprehensive dental services! Only the choice of providers is limited. Why do we as taxpayers OWE these services to this group when we can’t afford this level of service ourselves??

I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don’t have “wages” to withold an HSA from). I just don’t think it’s right to raise the premiums of a HDHP (which only has a limited 100% “preventative-care” benefit) to exorbitant levels on an individual policyholder who has never tapped into their post-$8,000 ded. hospital benefit. My ins. co. has been doing nothing but making a sizable profit off me for the last few years. I understand the “age-group” pricing but feel like my record alone should speak for MY current premium and not other insureds’ (or soon-to-be-insureds’) records.

I don’t deserve to pay for others’ health problems (whether intentionally or unintentionally caused) and I can ill afford it. It’s not fair to me and I think health premiums should be based solely upon the record of the individual policyholder, like other forms of insurance.

And yes, even if I was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, I would still have the same opinion.

[Author]

Posts