How does the ACA affect you?

ZaneRockfist wrote:

The healthcare.gov girl with dark hair is pretty hot, so she helped any erectile dysfunction I might have had. Hooray ACA!

70 pages of great feminist discourse, and then this. Bleargh.

Despite being a grandfathered plan, my premiums went up again, this time 25% - and that was for a plan with a ridiculously high deductible. That's what I get for being middle-aged, healthy, and not submitting any claims ever. I'll be canceling for next year, and saving the money instead.

Our plan is staying flat, though some of the plans offered may have (negative) changes to deductibles, out-of-pocket, etc.. not clear yet whether we'll be effected with ours.

Seth wrote:
ZaneRockfist wrote:

The healthcare.gov girl with dark hair is pretty hot, so she helped any erectile dysfunction I might have had. Hooray ACA!

70 pages of great feminist discourse, and then this. Bleargh.

Because this is the feminist thread, right?

For myself, I received an update from my company on our healthcare costs for 2014. Surprise! They're going up. But how much? It's a two part answer.

Part 1: Cost. Not that much. My company offers two levels of insurance, and if I stay in the basic plan I'm on now (falls between Silver and Gold in the Obamacare scale), my costs are going up... $210 a year, or about $280 a month to about $300 a month for my family. Our premier plans, which fall between Gold and Platinum, will rise $285 a year, to about $550 a month for a family. Company contributes the same amount to both plans, about $10k a year.

Part 2: Plans are changing! So here's a bit of a caveat. While my cost for the basic plan doesn't change much, the plan itself is changing a lot. Instead of a standard PPO deal with a $600 per individual deductible per individual and $4k out of pocket max, it's becoming a High Deductible Health Plan + HSA with a $3000 family deductible and $10k out of pocket max. 80% coverage up to the max remains the same. On the plus side we get an HSA that my company will drop $500 in once we deposit $500 ourselves, and match $$s up to another $1,000. The money we deposit directly is pre-tax, and any we add later may be tax deductible when tax time comes around.

It kinda sucks for me because I can't go to physical therapy anymore, unless I want to pay the full negotiated price up to the deductible, but it would take like 25 visits to hit $3000, rather than a $25 copay each time.

These changes have been in the works for a couple years now, so I don't know what ACA has to do with it, if anything. Actually what I've heard is that these changes are due to the inherently sexist nature of our healthcare system: our employees are mostly women, and the more kids they have, the more our yearly insurance rates increase. Single-payer can't come fast enough.

ZaneRockfist wrote:
Seth wrote:
ZaneRockfist wrote:

The healthcare.gov girl with dark hair is pretty hot, so she helped any erectile dysfunction I might have had. Hooray ACA!

70 pages of great feminist discourse, and then this. Bleargh.

Because this is the feminist thread, right?

I think his point is hope that a greater understanding of feminist issues and discourse on appropriate behavior in the feminist thread might have stopped this kind of immature comment.

I can't stand PC crap like that.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

I can't stand PC crap like that.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

I can't stand PC crap like that.

And many of us can't stand marginalizing, immature junk like what you posted.

Oh, poor you, being FORCED by society to act like an adult, rather than a thirteen year old boy.

I'm relatively new to this community, but one of the things that's been most refreshing about it is that, by and large, it seems to be a welcoming place with a high level of discourse. If your comment was in the first thread I perused on this forum, I'm not sure I would have continued much farther. It would have just made this seem like yet another online gaming community plagued by entitled misogynistic brats.

Please be aware I'm not calling you an entitled misogynistic brat - but your comment doesn't cast you in the best light. How hard it is to look at your own comment and just say "my bad, that is a little immature" and move on? Why do you feel the need to start railing on political correctness? PC-ness has nothing to do with it - what you said was dumb.

Apologies for the off topic rant, but this sort of thing really gets under my skin. As a gamer, I want gamer culture to be open, welcoming, and well regarded even by people outside of it. The stereotype about us is that we're all a bunch of immature misogynists. This means we need to have an extra level of self awareness and do our best to NOT come off that way.

Wah, wah, wah. I don't really care.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

Wah, wah, wah. I don't really care.

Well, you cared enough to throw away some of your integrity right there.

Nomad, why does your wife think her job is in danger due to the ACA? If it's not too personal a question.

I know its easy to get F7 and I confused as we are both pretty outspoken Christians that love the Detroit Lions and have similar opinions on most so social issues, so you get a pass this time.

FSeven wrote:

Wifey works for a Blue Cross/Blue Shield. We pay a ridiculously small amount for family healthcare. So the ACA not only endangers my wife's employment but also our miniscule monthly health insurance premium.

Seth wrote:

Well, you cared enough to throw away some of your integrity right there.

I never really had any, to be honest.

Robear wrote:

Nomad, why does your wife think her job is in danger due to the ACA? If it's not too personal a question.

All the rednecks around here think the ACA is killing jorbs without the slightest inkling that it would have happened either way. ACA is just a convenient cover for businesses to shed workers and cut benefits through deflection even though they would have done it anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I think the ACA is a trainwreck and Obama is a shill for it. The country needs a single-payer system. This is another massive giveaway to big businesses even if it does make some headway in a few areas. It follows the old idiom of 'One step forward, steps steps back.'

And I sometimes lose track of who posts what. No offense intended.

My guess would be either the enforced smaller profit margins on insurance companies or she is in a regulation/compliance type job that is marginalized with the ACA.

However the ACA brings a lot of new regulatory overhead which I think are creating a lot of opportunities for compliance people and the businesses that sell compliance services.

It's possible, I guess. But if there is a large regulatory overhead, then someone doing that today will definitely still have a job tomorrow.

You're in the 80%, then.

Pre-ACA: No health insurance due to being laid off.

Post-ACA: Health insurance at about $44/mo with subsidies for a silver plan through Covered California.

And considering I got laid off RIGHT after being treated for melanomas, this is a HUGE thing for me.

So I got the letter I had been expecting: the "here's how the ACA will impact your existing plan" letter from BCBSTX. Right now I have pretty decent coverage, but I pay for it out of my own pocket. My family history has so many genetic predispositions to horrible things that it's a statistical miracle that I didn't just melt into a pile of organic goo before 30, and I have some medical history with my body due to taking up "practice hitting and being hit in the face and body repeatedly" as a hobby for many years during my formative years. Beyond that, I'm in pretty good shape, so the premium was about 270/month to start with two years ago. Before that, it was cheaper, and it was inching upwards to the tune of 20-30 each year for several years prior to that. They never really cited any medical reasons why, just "well the costs of healthcare are increasing," and I never really thought too much about it. It's at 300/mo right now.

So this letter just let me know I am keeping my plan but it'll go up $14/month due to ACA fees. Cuz fees.

When the website was working somewhat reliably for me a few weeks back (I was not aware right then I was living in a charmed moment filled with rare splendor) it estimated I'd get somewhat better coverage for something like 250/month through the exchange. I had a kneejerk reaction of calling BS on that, but figured I'd get back to it when I had time to fiddle with it more. I'm not entirely sure why there's going to be a roughly $75 difference between what I have and what I could have - my basic thoughts on this are that either the estimate was way off (likely) or that I had "pre-existing conditions" that had more of an impact than the folks at BCBS were telling me. Because, according to them a little while back, the impact was "none".

Sometime next week I'll make some time to riddle this all out.

Bloo Driver wrote:

So I got the letter I had been expecting: the "here's how the ACA will impact your existing plan" letter from BCBSTX. Right now I have pretty decent coverage, but I pay for it out of my own pocket. My family history has so many genetic predispositions to horrible things that it's a statistical miracle that I didn't just melt into a pile of organic goo before 30, and I have some medical history with my body due to taking up "practice hitting and being hit in the face and body repeatedly" as a hobby for many years during my formative years. Beyond that, I'm in pretty good shape, so the premium was about 270/month to start with two years ago. Before that, it was cheaper, and it was inching upwards to the tune of 20-30 each year for several years prior to that. They never really cited any medical reasons why, just "well the costs of healthcare are increasing," and I never really thought too much about it. It's at 300/mo right now.

So this letter just let me know I am keeping my plan but it'll go up $14/month due to ACA fees. Cuz fees.

When the website was working somewhat reliably for me a few weeks back (I was not aware right then I was living in a charmed moment filled with rare splendor) it estimated I'd get somewhat better coverage for something like 250/month through the exchange. I had a kneejerk reaction of calling BS on that, but figured I'd get back to it when I had time to fiddle with it more. I'm not entirely sure why there's going to be a roughly $75 difference between what I have and what I could have - my basic thoughts on this are that either the estimate was way off (likely) or that I had "pre-existing conditions" that had more of an impact than the folks at BCBS were telling me. Because, according to them a little while back, the impact was "none".

Sometime next week I'll make some time to riddle this all out.

If you've been with the same plan for a while, they increase every year, just because. One thing I learned when I was working at an insurance company, at least for company plans, is they go up, regardless every year. The best way to keep costs down was to switch insurance providers every couple years, and then when you come back you're brought in at the 'new' customer going rates which are generally cheaper to convince the company to choose them.

My god that is dumb.

That's the profit motive in action, Vector.

Pretty much sounds like the crap Canadians put up when it comes to Bell/Rogers. The companies give better terms to new customers while they spend a huge chunk of cash on customer service for retention to try and keep the churn down. So instead of just getting good competitive service you get a system where if you want the best price/product you have to either continually switch or threaten and get a deal.

Thing is Canadians do this song and dance for Internet/Cell/Tv service. Not your ability to actually get reasonable healthcare. I guess your stuck holding the bag if you go to switch and suddenly are not very insurable anymore.

jowner wrote:

Pretty much sounds like the crap Canadians put up when it comes to Bell/Rogers. The companies give better terms to new customers while they spend a huge chunk of cash on customer service for retention to try and keep the churn down. So instead of just getting good competitive service you get a system where if you want the best price/product you have to either continually switch or threaten and get a deal.

Thing is Canadians do this song and dance for Internet/Cell/Tv service. Not your ability to actually get reasonable healthcare. I guess your stuck holding the bag if you go to switch and suddenly are not very insurable anymore.

I was thinking the same thing. It sounds like cable/satellite company pricing.

It's companies exploiting product stickiness. Product stickiness is when it is difficult or painful for a customer stop using one product or service and switch to something else.

When companies know their product is sticky, they will raise prices every year. But they will only raise their prices by an amount that won't piss off customers too much.

Robear wrote:

That's the profit motive in action, Vector.

I understand it. I just...almost every other country understands healthcare.

America seems to specialize in ideological policy decisions with unanticipated outcomes, these days.

Robear wrote:

America seems to specialize in ideological policy decisions with unanticipated outcomes, these days.

FTFY.

My wife was medically retired from the Navy, so everything related to her retirement is covered by the VA, and then she picks up Tricare for us through her pension. I've got no clue what the premiums are, but so far I haven't seen anything one way or the other.

$0 co-pays for regular visits, just post-visit billing after insurance has taken a whack out of the prices. $0 for specialist referrals. Insurance whacks down the price on prescriptions and we pay the difference when we retail, or $0 if we have the insurance company mail-order for us. $0 ER co-pay, just post-visit billing (my 5 stitches last year came out to ~$150, my "heart rate scare" was ~$600 across 5 billing departments, including the bill for $1.88 from the cardiologist that looked at my EKG and said "oh, it's this. He's fine.").

Meanwhile, over at my work, my co-workers have started getting letters stating their coverage will be dropped in May because the small insurance provider that our company has bought coverage through will be "pulling out of the market" in 2014. No one here seems happy with the coverage, something like $50 co-pays for visits, $500 ER co-pays, crappy prescription coverage, and all at the tune of about $400/month for family coverage.

And, like so many other things this company does wrong, instead of sending out a note from HR saying "you'll be getting these letters, don't panic! We're working on selecting a new provider for next year", we've had absolute silence.

Can anyone get this straight for me?

My father-in-law is on Medicare. My mother-in-law will be 64 next year.

My mother-in-law insurance was dropped. They are a household of 2. They made around 55,000 a year AGI last year on their tax return.

Is my mother-in-law eligible for Obamacare subsidies through the exchange? I think yes but not sure.

Her insurance broker told her no, that she made over 46K a year. But I thought since they are in a household of 2 she does get the tax credit which according to the Covered California website is less than 62K a year. It is around 45K for 1 person household and 62K for 2.