In Alberta medical expenses and user fees are covered through oil revenues but even if you are ina province where you pay premiums they are not onerous and there are no ridiculous deductibles.
I have employer provided insurance but my coverage will change. The current options I have selected don't meet the requirements of the ACA so my cost will probably go up. If I did have to go to the exchange, there is currently only one plan in the part of the state I live in, and it is the costliest plan in the state for its level of coverage. $600/month for a 56 year old male. But I did hear on the news this evening that another company has decided to come in with a couple of plans.
We have met the enemy and they is us.
The website, Covered California, is a little clunky. It died on me last week halfway through the session. Luckily I'd saved the information and was able to start where I'd left off.
My $639/mo savings takes my employer's contribution into account. If I enroll on Covered California, I'll end up paying about $150-200 more per month than I pay now. I'm retiring in a few months so the employer contribution will end in March 2014 anyways.
Thanks for all your responses and staying mostly on track to prevent this being moved to P&R.
She will make a trip to the local help center to have them help her through the process. I'll report back then.
2003 Interloc Impala2003 Interloc Impala2007 ParkPre Image C62003 Interloc Impala2004 Specialized Rockhopper
I don't know where your daughter lives, but has she looked into a Community Health Center as a treatment option? I do some risk management work for some of these facilities, and they do some fine work. Many of them offer medical, dental, behavioral health and pharmacy services, often on sliding scales if the patient has no or poor insurance.
Snohomish County, Washington USA
Of course someone has to pay.
Young healthy folks have to pay more so older folks and poorer folks and folks with pre existing conditions can have health care.
President Obama has been fairly clear on this- the young healthy and affluent folks have to pay more than they will consume.
It is a progressive tax in some senses.
No free lunch-but the very affluent-who are "job creators"(usually jobs in china india etc)- have really been benefiting from the current economy.We are being turned into South America with HUGE income disparity.Much of it is income transfer via credit cards-that "bank money" goes to the very affluent.They aren't "creating" any jobs here- they invest in low wage countries-not here.
The middle class is being drained by banks-credit cards. They aren't benefiting from the credit cards-
They are being scammed-simple as that-credit does them ZERO good.
-yes the young and healthy and wealthy are paying for health care for the older unhealthy and not wealthy-progressive tax.
Percent Increase = [ (Final – Initial) / initial ] × 100
= [(x - 0) / 0] × 100
= ( x / 0 ) × 100
= ( undefined ) × 100
Now, if you were previously payiong $1, and it rose to $100:
= [(100 - 1) / 1] × 100
= ( 99 / 1 ) × 100
= 99 × 100
= 9,900% increase
Last edited by haplorrhine; 10-31-13 at 12:25 PM.
In other words, the government taxes us instead of our employers, so long as those employers use the tax-break to give us insurance?
In other words, we're paying for employer-provided insurance whether we're recieving it or not? Or does the government give a special tax to those recieving the benefit?
Using your figures let me illustrate
ACA quote $620 (or $400 more than your current employer)
Employer : $120 your 'cost' + $400 employer contribution (unknow, so hypothetical) = $620 (COBRA would give you a good idea of what that contribution is if employer doesn't tell you)
That is what I meant by "apples to apples" comparison as it includes all factors, and in this example, the insurance cost was the same $620.
The only way for the insurance to go up $400 as you perceived, is to leave the employer where you then become responsible for that portion that the employer was contributing.
2008 Jamis Dakota Sport
Bring back the Sig Test!
I think if we bottom line things it is clear that healthcare is the United States is frighteningly expensive, that a good part of this expense is driven by insurers and the medical establishment, and that the ACA legislation and implementation is a mess.
Many other countries do a much better job of providing healthcare at lower costs and see much better outcomes.
Texas is one of those anti-ACA states that have refused to set up their own exchange and are instead using the one run by the feds that's been beset by technical issues. As others pointed out, a medical discount plan isn't really insurance, which is why those are no longer being offered, as they don't meet ACA requirements. The ACA mandates that preexisting conditions be covered, which is one of the chief benefits of the law, so that will no longer be an issue.
I think, long term, one of the upsides of the ACA in addition to benefits will be that people will finally begin to understand how the health system they think is so great really operates. It is a good system if you've got money and/or good coverage, but if you don't make a lot of money or don't have good insurance, it's never really been a great system. Many of the things that are wrong with our system, like preexisting conditions, only affect people who are either uninsured or aren't in large group plans where they're not an issue. But when things go wrong in their situations, it can cost them -- and often us all -- more money because everyone's rates are raised to account for that.