2014 Healthcare a Vent!

[johde]

We r also looking into Christian Medical sharing it's exempt from ACA and much more reasonable given our current plans deductible.

I've been looking into them as well. I know several people who are members of Christian healthcare ministries. They all seem satisfied with their decision. It's technically not insurance, and it's not for everyone. But, it may be a viable option for some.

 

[xipotec]

Same here 3300 annual increase for higher copays. The insurance companies are using AHA as an excuse to fleece the American worker. Its all a scam to allow companies to price you out. They do not want to py for your healthcare , it hurts their bottom line......
Healthcare is the next bubble to burst...

 

[wendow]

We are looking into Samaritan's as well. I don't expect the government will stay out of pushing their rules on them forever but at this point, they are exempt from O-care. We are Christians so this is a viable option for us and about the only option I am seeing at this point.

 

[Meshell2002]

What's that?

It is a group of Christians that share medical costs with each other. There are three companies specifically exempt from ACA, in other words if you participate in one of those plans you do not need insurance. Your household share is based on how much oop u r willing to spend before you ask to share costs (similar to a deductible). The marketplace wants to charge us about 1200/month for a 5k per person deduct......with a similar deduct with a sharing ministry our monthly share is 425.......a little cheaper than our current plan. Samaritan ministries, Medishare, and there's another company that starts with Christian and I can't remember the name.....are included in the three.

If you have a lot of expensive treatments it may not be for you, but if you don't need doctors often it's another option.

It's based on the verse in Galatians regarding Christians having everything in common and sharing resources. Does not cover BC...but does have maternity coverage.

 

[mrsklamc]

The insurance companies are using AHA as an excuse to fleece the American worker.

No, they aren't. Their profits were limited by the ACA. They have to cover a lot more, and that costs a lot more.

 

[CloveLeaf]

My cousin's family is reeling from what they heard from their insurance company. They had been paying $850 per month, with a $5000 deductible. They just got a letter from the insurance company saying that in order to maintain a $5000 deductible, their monthly premium will go up to $2300 per month.

This is insane. Do you mind if I ask how old the parents are and how many kids they have?

 

[aprilgail2]

There is a 40% tax on companies that provide their employees with "Cadillac" healthcare plans. In order to avoid paying the tax, companies have had to eliminate those plans from their employee benefits.

If your husband's employer has not notified you that your plan will be changing, it could be because they are willing to pay the tax, OR they are exempt from the tax for now, OR they just haven't put together their healthcare benefits package for next year yet, OR it's possible that while you find that your plan is good for you, it is not what was considered to be a "Cadillac" plan and doesn't need to be eliminated.

So much for "if you like your insurance you can keep it"- he "forgot" to add "and pay through the nose!!" I guess someone has to pay for those not paying their fair share!

 

[mhsjax]

So much for "if you like your insurance you can keep it"- he "forgot" to add "and pay through the nose!!" I guess someone has to pay for those not paying their fair share!

 

[ScottOKW2K]

So much for "if you like your insurance you can keep it"- he "forgot" to add "and pay through the nose!!" I guess someone has to pay for those not paying their fair share!

 

[manning]

Ponder this for a moment: The very people who claim they are sufficiently competent to run health care, which constitutes about one-sixth of the nation’s economy, can’t manage to launch a workable website, even though they had at least three years to set it up. Keep in mind this is also the same government that is having trouble making Medicare and Social Security permanently solvent.

The British have tried to centralize health care. They quickly saw health care costs rise as the quality and availability of qualified medical treatment declined. Obamacare and the single-payer system that will likely follow (perhaps along with rationing) might eventually be available for all, but at a personal and monetary price most Americans will be unwilling to pay.

Take for example the Canadian Supreme Court. Adam Goldenberg of Slate.com reports that the court recently ruled that in Ontario a panel of “adjudicators” appointed by the government may overrule a family’s wishes when it comes to keeping a patient on life support. Death panels, anyone? All inhumanities begin at the extremes, but when a precedent has been established it is difficult to reverse it.


http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?category=11

 

[AndyLL]

Ponder this for a moment: The very people who claim they are sufficiently competent to run health care, which constitutes about one-sixth of the nation’s economy, can’t manage to launch a workable website, even though they had at least three years to set it up. Keep in mind this is also the same government that is having trouble making Medicare and Social Security permanently solvent.

The British have tried to centralize health care. They quickly saw health care costs rise as the quality and availability of qualified medical treatment declined. Obamacare and the single-payer system that will likely follow (perhaps along with rationing) might eventually be available for all, but at a personal and monetary price most Americans will be unwilling to pay.

Take for example the Canadian Supreme Court. Adam Goldenberg of Slate.com reports that the court recently ruled that in Ontario a panel of “adjudicators” appointed by the government may overrule a family’s wishes when it comes to keeping a patient on life support. Death panels, anyone? All inhumanities begin at the extremes, but when a precedent has been established it is difficult to reverse it.


http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?category=11

Got any more talking points?

 

[manning]

Got any more talking points?

Why not?

 

[newtodcl]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-adminis...able-to-keep-insurance--report-222249311.html

 

[AndyLL]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-adminis...able-to-keep-insurance--report-222249311.html

From your link:

The Affordable Care Act states that people who had health insurance prior to March 23, 2010 – the day President Obama signed the bill into law – will be able to keep those policies even if they don't meet the requirements of the new law. However, the Department of Health and Human Services tightened that provision, so that "if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered," NBC News reports

So the ACA did not cause everyone to lose their policies... the insurance companies did deliberately.

Everyone who thinks the insurance companies did this on purpose so they could up their rates and blame the ACA raise their hand.

 

[jrmasm]

From your link:

The Affordable Care Act states that people who had health insurance prior to March 23, 2010 – the day President Obama signed the bill into law – will be able to keep those policies even if they don't meet the requirements of the new law. However, the Department of Health and Human Services tightened that provision, so that "if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered," NBC News reports

So the ACA did not cause everyone to lose their policies... the insurance companies did deliberately.

Everyone who thinks the insurance companies did this on purpose so they could up their rates and blame the ACA raise their hand.

Does a thumb count?

 

[mrsklamc]

From your link:

The Affordable Care Act states that people who had health insurance prior to March 23, 2010 – the day President Obama signed the bill into law – will be able to keep those policies even if they don't meet the requirements of the new law. However, the Department of Health and Human Services tightened that provision, so that "if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered," NBC News reports

So the ACA did not cause everyone to lose their policies... the insurance companies did deliberately.

Everyone who thinks the insurance companies did this on purpose so they could up their rates and blame the ACA raise their hand.

Except that healthcare costs continue to rise, & staying with old policies/premiums would never have been sustainable for them if costs could go up, but they weren't allowed to charge any more.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

From your link:

The Affordable Care Act states that people who had health insurance prior to March 23, 2010 – the day President Obama signed the bill into law – will be able to keep those policies even if they don't meet the requirements of the new law. However, the Department of Health and Human Services tightened that provision, so that "if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered," NBC News reports

So the ACA did not cause everyone to lose their policies... the insurance companies did deliberately.

Everyone who thinks the insurance companies did this on purpose so they could up their rates and blame the ACA raise their hand.

(It took me quite a while to find that one!)

My wife used to be an executive in the health insurance industry, and while she left before the ACA was rolled out (she's now an executive in the far more beloved mortgage industry! ) she is certain that it took the attorneys thirty seconds to figure this one out.

Except that healthcare costs continue to rise, & staying with old policies/premiums would never have been sustainable for them if costs could go up, but they weren't allowed to charge any more.

Premiums can increase, they were simply not allowed to change the benefits, co-pays and deductibles on those policies. I'd bet a month's salary that many insurance companies chose to jam a stick in the proverbial wheel because they wanted to break those policies in order to generate new, more cash-flow positive lines of policies.

 

[mrsklamc]

Premiums can increase, they were simply not allowed to change the benefits, co-pays and deductibles on those policies. I'd bet a month's salary that many insurance companies chose to jam a stick in the proverbial wheel because they wanted to break those policies in order to generate new, more cash-flow positive lines of policies.

But if the old policies were grandfathered in, they would also not have been subject to the profitability percentages of the ACA. So it would have made them more money to raise the premiums of the existing policies and not be subject to the new limits on how profitable they could be.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

But if the old policies were grandfathered in, they would also not have been subject to the profitability percentages of the ACA. So it would have made them more money to raise the premiums of the existing policies and not be subject to the new limits on how profitable they could be.

My reading of the law and the regs (PPACA §1001; 75 Fed. Reg. 74,864-74,934) is that the medical loss ratio, i.e. the profitability calculation, was not excluded from any policy by the grandfathering clause, i.e. the 80%/85% rule (80% on individual plans, 85% on group plans) so I don't think that would apply or be an incentive to the insurers to maintain grandfathered policies. In other words, all policies have to spend at least 80% (if individual) or 85% (if a group) of their collected premiums on claims.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

President Obama is coming to Boston this week to "discuss health care". Stay tuned.