Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had high hopes for the affordable care act. Now it appears that the early coverage of all children and other incentives were just a bait and switch. For us, 2 adults aged 62, our coverage cost would be from $1,200 to $1,500 monthly. Mind you this is with 5k to 10k deductibles copays of $45 to $65 for primary and specialist.
It is simply foolish to suggest that anyone switch from an employer based plan. We make about $100k and up and live comfortably but frugally. I am profoundly (and once again) disappointed by a government run off the rails by insurance companies. An early advocate for the plans, now I see what it actually is. A subsidized insurance coverage for those who did not work, cannot work or won't work. $1500.00 per month for far less coverage.
My advice
Do what you can to get medicare rolling when you can.
Reduce your income so as to qualify for a plan which is less expensive.
Pay cash to your doctors and get the catastrophic plan should something happen.
Location: Prescott Valley,az summer/east valley Az winter
2,060 posts, read 4,146,081 times
Reputation: 8190
in 2001 when I looked into health care costs for our business BCBS was going to cost us 3 owners $1700/ month each with $5000 deductibles and 20% copays. If you are over 60 and getting away with less than $2500/ month costs you are doing great. I guess I didn't realize ACA was doing so well at keeping costs down. Welcome to the 60+ cost of buy it yourself healthcare, its been there for years.
Yes, I'm sorry to say that insurance costs were absolutely prohibitive for many over 60 adults prior to ACA. Large employee group plans were more reasonable by far than individual plans with less coverage. I was always self employed. I was forced into taking a very restrictive HMO plan to keep my costs down, but I was still at around $600 for myself, and this was ten years ago. Had I selected a PPO like I wanted, I was looking at over $850 a mo. for a less than premium plan.
But most people who have actively engaged in talk about health insurance on another board I frequent were most often in the $1,000-$1,200 a month per person once hitting the magic 60 yr. mark. in more recent years. Think how that played out for couples trying to live on $35,000 a year.
Are you comparing costs of an employer group plan to purchasing individual plans? Because if that is the case, then there have always (and still are to a lesser degree) a significant difference in costs between the two. Insurance companies do not feel compelled to cut individuals purchasing insurance any breaks and always have charged more for lesser coverage.
I am in no way defending our high costs. The only affordable part with the ACA is for those people who were not fortunate enough to be making $100,000 a year, and could not possibly afford our insurance (especially after turning 60) where insurance companies were allowed to jack up rates for them five fold.
I just checked, and it appears Alaska is considerably higher than most of the lower states by about $300 a month. Even San Diago, an expensive area to live is cheaper than Alaska. But it appears that for those with higher incomes (no subsidies) that the only cure to these high health care costs is going to be a complete overhaul to our current fee based system, and aggressive government negotiations on all fronts.
Also, the new ACA policies require more things to be covered that were not covered in past policies, except the more expensive ones. Many people object to this, but for others, it's a god send. Just depends whose shoes you happen to be walking in.
Last edited by modhatter; 07-31-2014 at 08:57 AM..
I've had to pay out of pocket for my own healthcare for the last 30 years. The AFC was more expensive than my Wellmark (Iowa) policy, so guess what I kept? Glad it wasn't cut.
Yes I get that it was expensive prior. My point is how much of a disaster the ACA was not a solution but just another problem. Quite disappointed.
Unfortunately it depends on what your income bracket is. For some there was little change, and for many there was a big change for the better. But I do wish we could have done it with out costing anyone more.
Actually it's just another welfare program for the people who did not earn a lot, work a lot or work at all paid for by the people who worked hard. In addition those companies who actually have very good plans now must pay millions to the government to keep those good plans. This had nothing to do with health care. This was a payer shift from gov't and insurance to the private person and their employers who are doing well.
Well, to some extent, it does have to do with health care - if you are talking to those who were previously unable to get coverage and those who have now found much less expensive and more comprehensive coverage through the ACA. Many callers on C-Span from all over the country saying what a godsend the ACA has been. Those who are angry - the minority, from what I can tell - are those whose premiums have increased. That said, given the income/wealth disparity in this country, it isn't surprising the disadvantaged would be benefitted and those who are better off negatively affected. The ACA was redistributive, to be sure.
Well, to some extent, it does have to do with health care - if you are talking to those who were previously unable to get coverage and those who have now found much less expensive and more comprehensive coverage through the ACA. Many callers on C-Span from all over the country saying what a godsend the ACA has been. Those who are angry - the minority, from what I can tell - are those whose premiums have increased. That said, given the income/wealth disparity in this country, it isn't surprising the disadvantaged would be benefitted and those who are better off negatively affected. The ACA was redistributive, to be sure.
I think that the language we choose is central to making a cogent point. Redistributive means taking money from those who were successful and giving it to people who were not. So it is a social welfare program and while in it's infancy it has done little to solve the actual health of people as many civilized countries do by placing doctors and nurses in neighborhoods. This was simply a cost savings program for gov't and the insurance companies and called health care. Teaching health is now a side effect of the economic burden. It's kinda like being required to give a dollar to the person on the street corner who never really wanted to work. Major employers who now cover their employees are paying millions to the government to maintain adequate plans. By any stretch this is just taking from one to pay another. Redistributive? Where I was raised we call it simple theft.
I had high hopes for the affordable care act. Now it appears that the early coverage of all children and other incentives were just a bait and switch. For us, 2 adults aged 62, our coverage cost would be from $1,200 to $1,500 monthly. Mind you this is with 5k to 10k deductibles copays of $45 to $65 for primary and specialist.
It is simply foolish to suggest that anyone switch from an employer based plan. We make about $100k and up and live comfortably but frugally. I am profoundly (and once again) disappointed by a government run off the rails by insurance companies. An early advocate for the plans, now I see what it actually is. A subsidized insurance coverage for those who did not work, cannot work or won't work. $1500.00 per month for far less coverage.
My advice
Do what you can to get medicare rolling when you can.
Reduce your income so as to qualify for a plan which is less expensive.
Pay cash to your doctors and get the catastrophic plan should something happen.
It is ridiculous. What a sham.
You make about twice what we bring in and our premiums are now $1,100 and some change with an $11,000 deductible. We are the same age...creeping towards Medicare...if it still exists. We still insure our 25 year old son while he gets through school. I miss the $600 a month premium we paid before. I would not suggest to anyone to make less money to get a subsidized plan because in many states now the subsidies are going to vanish...and I feel strongly that the subsidies will be reduced or go away in a few short years. How can the USA possibly cover all the millions of illegals coming into the country now...this will destroy what is left of our health care system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
