Skip to main content

about insurance premiums, pre and post-ACA?

I'm very interested in this and am trying to learn more about it.

My pre-ACA premiums for a silver plan equivalent here in Massachusetts for myself and my wife are $1,041/month.

I'm now choosing between two Gold plans, same insurer, same network, for either $639/month or $602/month.

So I'm seeing a 40% reduction...and that's with no subsidy. I've been fortunate and will not qualify for one.

It's impossible to get an honest reading in the discussions on many sites, because any discussion will immediately be hammered by someone screaming about 50% increases...

I went around with one guy on a site who was livid that his costs were going up $12,000.

When I prodded and probed a bit, it turns out that was for 12 employees - his premiums were going up $80/month per employee. I can't remember the last time I saw as little as $80 increases year-to-year pre-ACA!

In other cases, it turns out that the people screaming were getting insurance from their employer, and were told they'd be paying more - that's another issue altogether.

Now I'm hearing from people saying they're getting a 50% increase, and then, on further discussion, they say they were paying $175/month 9middle aged). How the heck does a middle-aged person get insurance for that price? Even with his increase, he's well below my new rates.

So can we honestly share experiences here at this site?

For those who were already on the individual insurance market, what were your costs and what will your costs now be, pre-and-post subsidy?

Does anyone have any clear information on this?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  pre aca 500/mo COBRA policy (8+ / 0-)

    under aca, 200/mo or so, and that is w/out subsidies

    in general, the costs are lower for most on the individual market, i think, unless you were really healthy with a totally bare bones policy

    •  There may also be an adjustment up for women (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FloridaSNMOM, flatford39, Tonedevil, Pluto

      between prices before any of the ACA came into effect and 2014 prices, particularly in the independent market, because of the 'no, we don't cover pregnancy' issue which is something the insurance companies are no longer allowed to pull.

      It looks like my price may be a bit higher, but the things that are being added by the ACA are things I was worrying about AND that's a pre-credit comparison. Post, it should be less.

      There's also the issue that a lot of people in my area weren't covered before. My state isn't part of the Medicaid expansion, but even just the fact more people will become aware they were already eligible for unexpanded Medicaid may get rid of some of the 'care you'll probably not be paid for or get paid for in monthly installments for a year' stress on local providers. And the ban on refusing care payment for pre-existing conditions is going to help A LOT of people here waiting out the 2 years until SS Disability means Medicare eligibility or managing long term health conditions costing them more per month than the premiums would (out of pocket maximums, yay).

  •  Yes, I would love to have this: (4+ / 0-)
    Can we have an honest discussion
    But that can't happen until after January 1 or even later for those who have signed up for the ACA.

    Cheaper premiums, with or without subsidies, doesn't mean having better choices to get healthcare with the networks being smaller.

    I'm happy for you that your network is the same.  From what I've read, that's not the case for all.

    However, for those who could never afford to purchase "insurance" before, it really won't matter how small their network is as long as they can have easy and affordable access to healthcare, which is a great thing -- access.  

  •  Here's an interesting article on "rate shock" (10+ / 0-)
    One Tweet That Shows Why You Shouldn't Complain About Obamacare 'Rate Shock'

    There are, broadly, two ways that individual market health insurance could work. One is the situation we have now in most states, where it works more or less like homeowners' insurance: The insurer evaluates how many claims you're likely to make and sets your premium at expected claims plus a profit margin. If you have diabetes, you'll pay more, just like you'd pay more for homeowner's insurance if you lived on the beach.[...]

    The other way you can price health insurance: mandate that insurers charge the same price to everyone, regardless of health risk. The ACA does this, with the caveat that insurers are allowed a limited degree of age-based premium variation. Under ACA rules, the insurer wouldn't be allowed to raise Rosner's premium over a c-section.

    But because insurers know they'll have to write a lot of policies to sick people at a loss, they're going to raise premiums across the board to make up the difference.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/...

    That being said, I have been taking anecdotal stories of extreme rate hikes and anecdotal stories from insurers about the extent of backend problems, with a grain of salt.

    I want to see proof and hard numbers for claims being made.

    "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." (From "You Said a Mouthful" by Bishop Desmond Tutu - South African bishop & activist, b.1931)

    by FiredUpInCA on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 03:51:19 PM PST

  •  This first year's prices are meaningless... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    murrayewv, falconer520

    There are many contrary variables at work.  Insurers are willing to give lower prices to gain initial customers, since inertia will have many of them remain rather than shop around.   Also, for the first year or two, if insurers take a loss, they will be partially reimbursed by the government, so these will tend to make the rate artificially low.

    Also this is a new market, so there is no reliable history of the usage, cost to insurers, for these policies.  They are, in effect, testing this new base of customers.  Once they decide to enter this market, and many major companies are not doing it,  having high rates would not even provide gains, as the profit is limited to 15% of gross.

    There have been comments that this 2600 page act has been augmented by regulations many times this size that make substantive changes.  I think Pelosi's famous comment has to be amended,  it may take years to see how the rates shape up, and if they are too high, how much the government is willing to subsidize this program.

    This is very much like a roll out of a new commercial product.  We don't know yet whether it will be an Iphone or Pepsi Classic.  Unlike most government programs, this one requires the public to be the ultimate judge.

    •  Agree about basic point, but a few facts: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      murrayewv, Ellid

      - The pdf of the Act is 906 pages, not 2600. 2600 is a rightwing talking point. Yes, it is complicated -- an inevitable result of the choice to go with a private market approach.
      - The medical loss ratio for the individual market (the main focus of the diary) is 80/20, not 85/15. In neither case is the smaller number "profit."
      - Some insurers may be lowballing their prices to gain customers, though I've seen no evidence of that. There is evidence that some (e.g., Kaiser) are overpricing to limit their exposure in this uncertain market.

      •  facts are complex..... (0+ / 0-)

        Here's a link to a version of the bill that I researched and wrote several articles on, Line 25 of pp 1154 of total 2409 pps of a site hosted by Housing and Human Resources.   Note last line requiring cognitive assessment in Medicare,

        You may want to consider your describing something as a "right wing talking point." as this tends to make a discussion less substantive.  As you note this legislation was in several versions including one well over 2000 web pages.   I used the number to indicate it was multifaceted and not adequately digested by legislators or the news media.  

        This one line I point out, still unknown to the pubic,  has potential adverse consequences that I have elaborated on in this article.

  •  Isn't it funny (10+ / 0-)

    How rates were sky rocketing for the prior decades, and coverage was dropping, but nobody talked about it.  And now that finally pre-existing conditions are illegal, now it's all a problem.

    Frankly, I don't give a shit if somebody's rates go up compared to last year.

    And I have a hard time believing most people's rates are going up to start with.  And if so, tough shit, quit being a small minded selfish twit.

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 04:09:26 PM PST

  •  Some are paid to prevent honest discussion. (5+ / 0-)

    I refer to your last diary, 3.8%, to show their motives.

    So when people are shrieking about how Obamacare is jacking their rates up, my question is this. What's green and used as a substitute for grass on athletic fields?

  •  Here's a different angle on it...I am presently (20+ / 0-)

    insured by my employer. He covers both me and my wife. We never had children and are in our early sixties. Medicare is still a few years away. I work in the construction industry. We are a union company although I nor my wife are union members. I work in management in the office. One of the unions that represent our union employees opened up there insurance program to the non union employees. Yes that's right we got to join the same enormous pool of union workers to help keep our rates down. The first year this happened my policy went from around $12,000.00 per year to under $8,000.00 per year for the same coverage. Actually it was better coverage as it included eye care.

    Over the last 4 years the rates have increased incrementally but not like they did before we were in the huge union pool.

    We were informed this year that our rates were actually going down. This has never happened in the 40 plus years I have worked in this industry.

    To me personally, I save $40.00 dollars a week or $2,080.00 per year. I do pretty well financially but that $2K savings is substantial to me. I can apply it to my retirement fund.

    The deal I have with my employer is that I pay 20% of the premium. Pretty standard fare out there in the work place. Just think about how much my employer is saving if my annual savings is $2K on 20%. What's his on 80% and then multiply that by 25 non union employees in the program. It's a win for all of us.

    I am convinced that this only happened because of the ACA. Without it the small business that I work for would still be seeing 20 to 30% increases every year. And at my age in the work place probably would have been replaced by a younger worker.

    Long live the ACA and President Obama.

    Joe Biden was right... This is a BFD.

    UID 35,098 Nov. 12, 2004. Seems like yesterday.

    by flatford39 on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 04:19:01 PM PST

  •  Nope (10+ / 0-)

    I had never had insurance before so I've got nothing to compare.

    However, I was exceptionally pleased with my premium, and even more pleased with some of the details.  On my plan (and this may be universal - thank you ACA) certain preventive things are covered even before the deductible is met.  Color me impressed!

  •  Can anyone top this? (7+ / 0-)

    A few years ago, I was in the Texas Risk Pool, insured by Blue Cross.  A 64-year-old non-smoking man living in Houston with a deductible of $1,000 had a monthly premium of around $1,750 or $21,000 annually.  I don’t know what the cost would be under the ACA, since I am now on Medicare.

  •  My physician the other day... (5+ / 0-)

    ...when I was in for my yearly checkup was telling me how his insurance for him and his family was cancelled and about how now to get the same policy it's going to cost him $1200. I just looked at him and let him tell his little story, all the while not believing a bit of it. It was then also weird to hear him state support for a single-payer system.

    As for the doubling of a >$200, there was a caller on Stephanie Miller this week that trotted out that number, saying he's now going to have to pay twice as much. He let it slip though that what he was previously paying for was disaster coverage only, not actual health coverage.

  •  I'm saving about $100/month with a bronze plan (7+ / 0-)

    But my co-pays are much much higher.  Hopefully I'll stay healthy.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 05:11:28 PM PST

  •  I have a grandfathered 80/20 PPO plan (9+ / 0-)

    with no lifetime or annual cap, $1,000 deductible, and $2500 or $3500 OOP limit. It is not ACA-compliant, but is not just catastrophic and it is far from junk. E.g., it has paid out on a major hospital claim and associated costs due to a car accident without triggering cancellation. (We had an out-of-network/emergency fight, but I prevailed.) I have no major medical conditions -- presumably they would have found a way to boot me if I developed one -- but am old enough that it would not be surprising to develop one.

    Replacing it with a gold (i.e., 80/20) EPO exchange plan with my current insurer (Anthem BC Calif - no gold PPO offered) would nearly triple my current premiums and significantly narrow my choice of providers. It would increase my OOP to $6350 but eliminate the deductible. Blue Shield offers something similar for a bit less, but with a deductible. Still comparing on copays. To date, I have found exactly none of the doctors I want in any of the plans, except for a specialist I don't currently need.

    Or I can merely slightly more than double my current premiums, double my current deductible, and increase my share of costs to 30% with a Blue Shield silver PPO plan.

    Or I can go the Kaiser HMO route which is not horrible here unless you get cancer, in which case you're shipped off 60-70 miles on an early morning bus for each session of chemo, which would kind of suck. Maybe they've got nice barf bags on the buses, I don't know. But Kaiser is pricing its plans high here to start with, apparently to avoid being swamped, and that would be $70 or so more than the Blue Shield PPO, so I probably won't start with Kaiser.

    The only substantial (to me) benefits that a non-grandfathered plan will add to my current plan -- other than the very important non-rescission/guaranteed issue changes -- is prescription drug coverage and perhaps moderately more preventive care -- I'd have to check on the latter but haven't bothered because I'm shopping anyway. Lack of Rx coverage is why I was planning to shop for a new plan, but realistically, it would take some significant medical changes for my annual Rx costs to offset the increases in premiums and OOP. If the new plans increase mental health benefits above my current 50% that might be another thing -- unlike pregnancy, I can never be sure when that might become relevant. (Not sure if parity is going to be required in grandfathered plans or not -- presumably premiums will be increased if so, so call it a wash in that case.)

    Rate shock is real if you're even a dollar over the income limit. I'm not complaining, because I support the broader effort of pooling risks and extending coverage to those who've never had it, but it would be nice if commenters in a diary asking for "honest discussion" didn't preemptively call me a liar or a shill. The percentage of people in my category (over 50, decent individual plan, not eligible for subsidy, in a high-cost market) may be low, but knowing that really doesn't help me pay the premium.  

    •  Your experience is different (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Villanova Rhodes

      than the experiences I have been reading about, but I don't doubt that it is your experience.  At first I thought, "Oh, he's probably one of the younger people who find higher costs," but you say you are old enough that health issues wouldn't be surprising.  Then I thought maybe you were looking at ACA-complient insurance outside the exchanges since some companies are offering the same policies outside the exchanges for a higher cost.  But the comparisons you have done look like they are between policies within the exchange.  

      The only reason I can think of that you  are seeing such an increase in premiums may be your location.  I have read that some of the less populous states have fewer companies competing and therefore higher premiums for those policies that are available.

      I don't think you are a liar or a shill. Many of us are feeling bruised and defensive about the ACA.  We worked so long and so hard to get some sort of healthcare coverage, and we're a little nervous that we might see it snatched away now, at the last minute.  We don't want to hear the bad news.  But it is important to know what the problems are so we can address them.  Your experience is real, and it is important to understand why this is happening to you and others so we can mitigate it as much as possible.

      The past 50 years we: -Ended Jim Crow. -Enacted the Voting Rights Act. -Attained reproductive rights (contraceptive & abortion). -Moved toward pay equity. Republicans want to take our country back. I WON'T GO BACK!

      by petesmom on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 07:35:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I appreciate your response very much. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        murrayewv, guyeda

        I too have tried hard here to defend the ACA, and will probably continue to do so. I was not blindsided by the fact that premiums would be higher, because I read the analyses long before it went into effect, and this was predicted. The amount of the increase is pretty stunning, but that's life. (Yes, these are all exchange plans.) The premiums aren't that unreasonable compared to some other areas of the country; I've just been lucky to be fairly healthy and to have found myself in a fairly healthy pool.  

        There is reasonable competition here -- Southern California -- several insurers, and the state did a good job of making them compete. But it is a high cost area, which carries a double whammy: premiums are higher because of high medical costs, and the premium support trigger is too low given the local cost of living. Ideally, there would be geographical adjustments to account for that as there are for, say, federal salaries. Politically, that's a non-starter.

        The people who yap about the "if you like it you can keep it" broken promise aren't arguing in good faith, or aren't familiar with real life in the individual market. Nobody I know "likes" their individual insurance plan -- heaven knows I don't like mine, though it served my needs at a reasonable price for several years. But it's undeniably true that I have avoided using medical services that I should be availing myself of, including fully covered preventive services, for fear of the company's ability to dump me and my inability to get any coverage if something were to be found. Fixing that is worth more than a little money to me, but I'm still going to pay a lot more (proportionally) to get that advantage than most of the population.  

        The problem is well documented, but not a reason to attack the entire ACA by any means. It applies to a small segment of the population, but a segment likely to be more vocal and potentially influential than the larger set of losers under the law -- low income people in states that didn't expand Medicaid. You won't see me competing in a misery Olympics with them.

        My view, in short (ha!):

        ACA supporters need to argue not that these people don't exist or that their circumstances only changed because of greedy insurance companies; they need to argue that their losses are more than offset by the gains of the sick and uninsured who will get better and more affordable coverage under the law.
        Five big reasons for premium changes
    •  This is an excellent analysis. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Villanova Rhodes, murrayewv, guyeda

      Some of these non-ACA plans are quite good.

      They have a very select demographic, I believe.  45 to 60 year olds who are generally healthy.

      I think it's good that you research. The ACA networks are going to widen quite a bit over the next year. Luckily, you have time to wait. Eventually your insurer will fold your plan as people in your group age and get sicker -- but you'll be well prepared and will have more choices that are available now.

      •  Thanks, Pluto. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto, guyeda

        I suspect you're right about the networks, at least in CA. There's been a lot of confusion about who's in and who's not until recently, and I'm not sure it's even settled for this coming year. It's been the major flaw in an otherwise good state website.

        I think the best prediction is that about 80% of CA providers will eventually be on the plans -- some high cost doctors will opt out, and some hospitals like Cedars Sinai. But it's not like there hasn't been a lot of rotation of providers in the individual market all along.

    •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Villanova Rhodes

      This is what I've been hearing - and from people who really don't sound like they're on the take from the Kochs.

      I'm beginning to think that region and demographic and luck of the (healthy) draw are hugely important in this, and mostly for people 50-ish.

      I live in Mass - I don't remember the last time I paid under $1,000/month for insurance. The state doesn't have the kind of plans you describe.

  •  Its not apples to apples (8+ / 0-)

    I have employer provided health insurance.  I am in a state that uses the Federal exchange (Utah).  My employer provided insurance premium is roughly $250 month, with my employer chipping in about $800 a month - it is what I would describe as a platinum plan - It covers just about everything, out of pocket max is $2000 a year with a $20 co-pay for non-preventative care Dr. appointments, $35 for urgent care visits, and $150 for emergency room visits - waived if you're admitted.  Hospitalization and durable medical devices are covered 100%, prescriptions have a $10/$20/$40 copay schedule.  

    I looked on the exchange and the best plan I could get (Gold) covers about the same (except $3000 out of pocket max and only 90% for hospitalization and durable medical devices.  prescription plan is roughly the same) for $605 month.  I too have been fortunate and will not qualify for subsidies.

    If I were to go to the individual market and get insurance the Gold plan would be cheaper (without the employer contribution).  However, I feel like I am getting a steal with the employer provided plan and short of leaving my job have no reason to change.

  •  My dental insurance (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, Odysseus, Villanova Rhodes

    Went down $3/month, which doesn't sound like much but it makes a difference.

    Don't know what my company health insurance will be, but it hasn't budged in a couple of years, and it's a decent BC/BS plan.

    This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

    by Ellid on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 06:00:01 PM PST

  •  So, why a significant change in Massachusetts? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    viral, tardis10, Odysseus, Pluto, guyeda

    Since RomneyCare expanded the risk pool a few years back, I would have expected Massachusetts customers to see very little change.  What am I missing?

  •  Always been employer or naked. (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry, but I got nothing.

    -7.75 -4.67

    "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

    There are no Christians in foxholes.

    by Odysseus on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 06:47:56 PM PST

  •  I think come next year, there will be major (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Villanova Rhodes, murrayewv

    discussions about rates.

    One reason large employers get better rates is because they keep adding new (read younger) employees. These employees are expected to keep costs down, while the retiring employees get shifted to different kinds of insurance or onto Medicare.

    And, another factor, unions don't just represent workers. Many times there is a symbiotic relationship with large employers where they actually pay employers for services. Such as collecting dues and transferring them to the union, etc.

    Plus employers are getting tax benefits from offering and paying part of the group insurance premium, leaving the employee with just a small part to pay. All this is definitely something we would need to talk about, because it could impact on how universal care health costs could also stay low.

  •  Didn't have any before, so far won't have any (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, Pluto, Villanova Rhodes

    after. Too poor and TN didn't accept extended Medicaid.

    I did read today that they are in the undecided category. They haven't rejected it outright, so there may be a chance...

    Tracy B Ann - technically that is my signature. If I had Bill Gates money, I'd buy Detroit.

    by ZenTrainer on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 07:26:35 PM PST

  •  I'd like to see this, too. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Villanova Rhodes

    I just wish that folks who haven't been struggling in the individual market for years would STFU. Whatever they have to say is just noise.

    •  To be clear (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Villanova Rhodes

      ...I'm reading comments regarding this whopping 5 percent of individually insured Americans across the Internet.

      It's crazy out there with the lies and bullshit.

      It would be so nice to hear the good and the bad news from trusted folks with genuine experiences.

  •  An honest discussion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Naniboujou

    does not just include costs.  An honest discussion has to include benefits as well.  There are some mandated changes that we all benefit from compared to pre-ACA policies.  No pre-existing conditions, no life time caps, etc.  In terms of risk insurance these have real value to us.  Also there are then the no-cost preventive measures.  For some of us, those will have enormous value as well.  For some they may not yet have much value.

    There are too many discussions that start from an dishonest assumption constructed like: "well when I compare my old plan with one that has the same deductions and out of pocket expenses, I pay $250/month more".  That is bogus because the quality of the policy product has already changed due to amazing new requirements on policies.

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 08:19:00 PM PST

  •  I'm curious we have had the connector in MA (0+ / 0-)

    Since Romneycare came online 7 or 8 years ago. Were you getting your pre ACA insurance through the connector or were you buying private insurance ?

  •  NC (0+ / 0-)

    For a male, 48, smokes:

    2013: 500/mo
    2014: 520/mo (grandfathered)
    2014: 540/mo (exchange)

    The exchange plan is from the same company, identical network as the grandfathered plan.  All are gold level (80/20, 1000 deductible, 4000 out-of-pocket).  The exchange plan has higher co-pays and a higher out-of-pocket max.  The grandfathered plan does not count rx for out-of-pocket expenses and sets a hard annual cap of 2000 that they will pay, after they've paid 2000, they pay nothing.  The exchange plan counts rx in out-of-pocket so no cap on what they pay and has a 5000 out-of-pocket max.

    For a female, 62, non-smoker:

    2013: 913/mo
    2014: 950/mo (grandfathered)
    2014: 930/mo (exchange)

    The exchange plan is from the same company, identical network as the grandfathered plan.  Grandfathered is gold level (80/20, 1000 deductible, 4000 out-of-pocket).  The exchange plan is platinum, 90/10, lower co-pays, 500 deductible, 1500 out-of-pocket max.  The grandfathered plan does not count rx for out-of-pocket expenses and sets a hard annual cap of 2000 that they will pay, after they've paid 2000, they pay nothing.  The exchange plan counts rx in out-of-pocket so no cap on what they pay.

    so basically, for the male, the premium is a little higher on the exchange and has higher co-pays and out-of-pocket max.  Not as good of deal, although if rx is over 3000/year, the total paid would be lower on the exchange plan.

    For the female, the exchange plan is a better deal across the board.  She is being treated for a major illness with very expensive rx costs, so the exchange plan will save her at least 8500 in out-of-pocket for the year.

    What ticks me off is that the above people are my employees and I've been paying the premiums with pre-tax dollars.  Starting in 2014, I can no longer do so, I have to gross-up salary so the employee is getting the equivalent benefit, meaning it will cost my company approximately 40% more than it did in 2014.  This is for the exchange plans and the grandfathered plans.  It looks like offering a SHOP plan at comparable coverage would cost me about the same, so the company will be paying about 40% more in 2014 no matter what.  

    We are going with the exchange plans, primarily because my female employee is going to be saving so much out-of-pocket and it will make no difference for my other three employees.  One will be on spouses plan, one is on Medicare, and the third has been uninsurable due to a pre-existing condition.  Company costs would have been about the same for the first two, and it is a big plus for the third since he can now get better than a catastrophic plan.  If it weren't for the fact that the company is going to lose money this year and things aren't likely to get much better next year, the fact that the third employee will now be able to get insurance would make the 40% increase worth it.  If things don't get better next year, I will have to consider folding the company.

    Government can't restrict free speech, but corporations can? WTF

    by kyoders on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 09:40:38 PM PST

    •  PS (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      murrayewv

      All of the exchange costs are without subsidies.  I hope to be able to pay everybody enough that they won't qualify.

      And I see Pluto is here.  Now that I've gotten actual numbers, I've decided that overall, the 40% increase is worth it.  I just hope my plans to increase revenue next year will keep the company viable.  Thanks for your input here and on the others threads where we've crossed paths.

      Government can't restrict free speech, but corporations can? WTF

      by kyoders on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 09:59:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  SHOP plans are being sold in California and other (0+ / 0-)

      …states. I don't think the exchange is necessary. The only thing that has been delayed is the marketplace at the Federal level. The plans exist and there are serious tax benefits to small business owners.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site