Obamacare, or, I might be up a creek w/o a paddle

[frugalone]

I never paid much attention to the whole Affordable Health Care thing, because we have an "OK" plan through BC/BS that is kind of bare-bones, but has been alright so far. My employer offers insurance, but it would be a real stretch to be able to afford it.

Well, yesterday we got a letter from BC/BS with the bad news: They are dropping our special program. And there are five brochures full of info about their "new plans"--with outrageous prices (funnily enough, they are only listing prices for individuals, not couples or families) and ridiculous deductibles. I realize we need to talk directly to our insurer to get a clear picture, but I am having a very rough time trying not to flip out/panic over this. Financially, I just can't take another hit. As I said in another thread, what good does tax credit do if you can't pay the premiums in the first place?

I also realize this is a giant piece of propaganda. I mean, our government is threatening to shut down over this whole Obamacare thing. And also, could there be better plans out there? Won't the insurance companies all be competing for business? Shouldn't this bring the cost of insurance down?

Am I the only one who feels this way? Maybe I'm getting the wrong picture here...but I thought the whole point was Affordable Health Care! Not sock it to the already working poor.

Sorry for the little rant. It's just been very rough for me lately.

[Alan]

The problem is, the Affordable Care Act doesn't allow 'bare bones' coverage. It sets a minimum standard which everyone must purchase in order to spread the costs around. A perfect example of the old adage, "be careful what you wish for".

[frugalone]

Alan, I didn't know that. I thought the idea was just to provide everyone with SOME sort of coverage, rather than having a large amount of uninsured. I seem to fall somewhere in the middle. Our household income is too high for us to get any kind of public "relief" and it's too low for me to comfortably afford the premiums. I'm lucky that my employer does offer some sort of insurance. But it's quite clear from the large leap in price that I can see on the forms at work that they do NOT want to pay for family members. They're more than happy to just cover the employee--but add a family member (or two or three) and the price skyrockets.

[redfox]

And the perfect argument for universal coverage & single payer. I too am facing a hefty premium increase, and got some details from my insurer (I am currently private pay). There are 10 required to cover items, including maternity and pediatric dental & vision. I don't need either! But I do understand the necessity under this design to create a huge pool to spread costs around, as Alan said. It is a very conservative, Republican plan, which preserves the huge profits for insurance companies at the expense of individuals. I am glad that coverage cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions. Health care needs to be taken out of the for-profit commodities market -- there are many things appropriate to this market, but not basic human needs.

I have hopefully solved my dilemma as a private pay individual. I have a job offer on the table, which I'll finalize tomorrow. It is at less than half my usual salary, but comes with good health insurance with my current providers, which, if one has been in treatment for cancer & finds good providers, is immeasurably valuable. I am taking the position for the health insurance... and the promise that after Jan. 1, the job will change upwards with a concomitant pay increase.

[frugalone]

Wow, this is more complicated than I thought. If it's a conservative plan, why are the Republicans arguing against it? It's not "socialistic" at all.
And I use those terms loosely, of course.

[ApatheticNoMore]

The bare bones plans were never that great to begin with IMO. The majority of people filing for medical bankruptcy have insurance, wonder how much bare bones plans have to do with that.

But anyway, Obamacare, not a fan, but just to give actual advice: as I understand it you can go on the exchange(s) and look at the prices that other insurance companies are charging, plus unless your income is too high, you probably qualify for a subsidy to purchase that insurance. Yes, you're probably better off if you happen to be in a blue state as they are kind trying to make this work. But in short: do the research to make sure you fully understand what your options actually are, part of Obamacare was hiring people to help people navigate it (yea I know why do we have people to help people navigate the Obamacare maze rather than Medicare for all, that everyone could understand easily - don't ask me - I'm just saying how to make the best use you can of the system, such as it is, even if it's not a good system). And yea you may find your employer provided insurance is the best bet, it often is if they're picking up some of the cost. I don't actually know if you can get both the employer subsidy and an Obamacare subsidy at the same time.

I also realize this is a giant piece of propaganda. I mean, our government is threatening to shut down over this whole Obamacare thing.

Could be. Maybe blue cross wasn't one of the insurance companies in on the Obamacare discussions (insurance companies were definitely part of the drafting of Obamacare), or even if they were, honor among theives you know.

And also, could there be better plans out there? Won't the insurance companies all be competing for business? Shouldn't this bring the cost of insurance down?

I dont' know, it's kinda doubtful private insurance can work at all, or the at least on the for profit model (plus with our ridiculously inflated hospitalization and pharma costs).

Am I the only one who feels this way? Maybe I'm getting the wrong picture here...but I thought the whole point was Affordable Health Care! Not sock it to the already working poor.

there seems to be people it benefits and people it hurts (and many people whom it probably doesn't affect much one way or other). It definitely hurts people who say had really good union plans. Those are no more, and those were really enviable plans that actually got the whole healthcare thing right, probably in one of the few ways it could be gotten right short of socialized medicine. But most people weren't one of those lucky ones.

[redfox]

Wow, this is more complicated than I thought. If it's a conservative plan, why are the Republicans arguing against it? It's not "socialistic" at all.
And I use those terms loosely, of course.

Well, what a good question! Since it was modeled on Romney's plan, the GOP nominee, it doesn't seem to be about the plan itself. I am beginning to suspect it's simply because That Black Dude in the White House put it forth. It is definitely not "socialistic"! (One of the sillier words to come about lately, too.)

[ApatheticNoMore]

I thought the idea was just to provide everyone with SOME sort of coverage, rather than having a large amount of uninsured.

The projections for Obamacare are and pretty much always have been: there will still be uninsured, but the number of uninsured is predicted to be less than it would be otherwise. The uninsured are not going away though. In addition many people will be under-insured (insured but with junky policies).

I seem to fall somewhere in the middle. Our household income is too high for us to get any kind of public "relief" and it's too low for me to comfortably afford the premiums. I'm lucky that my employer does offer some sort of insurance.

The income to qualify for some kind of subsidy goes pretty high in most parts of the country (it doesn't work out so favorably in high cost of living areas of course).

"Anyone earning up to 400% of the poverty line will be eligible for a subsidy, which is up to $45,960 for an individual and $94,200 for a family of four."

But yea earning 50k in say California would not make one rich, and if one was also older the full cost of premiums could run over 1k a month. In that situation it might not be a bad decision if one earned too much to get a job paying just under the subsidy limit so at least your premium would be capped at some $300 a month, rather than having no caps at all.

But it's quite clear from the large leap in price that I can see on the forms at work that they do NOT want to pay for family members. They're more than happy to just cover the employee--but add a family member (or two or three) and the price skyrockets.

oh yea that's always been what I've seen from employer provided insurance pricing. And I'm always just: ok how does anyone actually afford to live with kids (and especially with a non-working spouse). Haha, if that was me, I'd me I'd tell the spouse: get a job with health insurance or get out of the house! And then I'd tell the kids the same thing! Ok I'm kidding about the kids . But while it's obvious to me how I can afford to live as a single, it's not clear to me how anyone can afford their health insurance paying for a whole family.

Wow, this is more complicated than I thought. If it's a conservative plan, why are the Republicans arguing against it? It's not "socialistic" at all.
And I use those terms loosely, of course.

Isn't it the Heritage center (conservative think tank) plan originally? It's also Romneycare. They're playing politics.

[Simpler at Fifty]

The problem is, the Affordable Care Act doesn't allow 'bare bones' coverage. It sets a minimum standard which everyone must purchase in order to spread the costs around. A perfect example of the old adage, "be careful what you wish for".

+1000

[frugalone]

Been doing some reading online.
Yeah, I think we're screwed in my household.

I see how this works. As long as my (and that's MY) coverage isn't more than 9.5% of my salary, then that's supposedly cool. However, when you add in my spouse, that makes it unaffordable.

Yeah, I do wonder how people with kids manage to pay for it. Even WITH a working spouse, it's still tough.