General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI have a question about ACA
I work for a very large company, and we are in the "choose your health care benefits" time of year.
We had a conference call today about changes for 2014, and one of these changes, according to the presentation, is that there will be some increases because of ACA. This was stated specifically.
Is this true?
I admit that I am not very knowledgeable about ACA because I have been insured by my company, but my reaction to it has been that it is wonderful for those who have had no insurance in the past. Hence, my avatar.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)But they should add much better coverage, overall.
This isn't a bad thing, it just goes to show how some companies have tried to cut corners and run things on the cheap for so long.
Do you have to pay for your own insurance out-of-pocket?
Response to LAGC (Reply #1)
Grateful for Hope This message was self-deleted by its author.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Many changes such as charging men and women the same, having plan pricing closer between old and young, covering dependents until age 26, no lifetime limits, not charging more or refusing insurance for preexisting conditions all cost money, and are going to cause insurance rates to rise.
You could argue that they are good changes, and worth the extra money, but those who deny the ACA will cause increases are just wrong.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)I think you are right. I do think my company is pretty good in respect to many things. I was just really upset when I saw that there would be increases because of ACA.
Thanks!
Lex
(34,108 posts)didn't have the ACA to blame for it. Now they do.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)So yes the premium could be more expensive.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)See how it works?
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Don't know if you get that with your company plan.
I think companies should be barred from providing health insurance. I think EVERYBODY should buy standardized plans on the exchanges. And the companies will have to attract top workers by providing other benefits and a better workplace, and by being less assholish.
Well, actually I think we should have Single Payer, but we will get there in stages.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)which is excellent, imo.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)STOOPIT. The people with the big bucks are always STOOPIT.
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)but anyway, I don't know how far you have to go back to find a year where there was not an increase in health insurance premiums, even while lowering coverages. Its convenient now to blame it on Obamacare, but it has gone on for decades.
I'm fairly confident that most of the pieces have been put in place now, finally, for a good long-term solution to rising health-care costs. If it costs a bit more now, its still much better in the long run.
Response to bhikkhu (Reply #6)
Grateful for Hope This message was self-deleted by its author.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)seems inaccurate, to be polite.
ETA, or it could be there is more being offered under the plan, as required by the ACA.
Either or both of these could be it. Standard increase. More being offered and hence charged for.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)but, two things that did change were dental and "eyeglass". Those two have become cheaper.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Among all the folks I've asked or help with calculating differences in costs between what they have and the cost for comparable ACA plans, all have been more affordable under ACA.
What I find, however, is that people often make the mistake of comparing an ACA plan to the cost of their contribution to the employer provided plan, rather than the full cost, so of course that specious comparison makes ACA look expensive.
I don't think this is happening in your case, but I do think that if there's going to be a difference in costs, it won't be the fault of ACA.
Among other things, an employer might be planning to shift the burden more toward the employees, or they might be losing a kickback arrangement.
Finally, we've seen rates rise every single year. Who's to say that "ACA caused" rises would be higher or lower than the pace with which rates would inevitably rise without ACA?
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)Azathoth
(4,610 posts)Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)exactly what I fear.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)for all the preceding years??? Every year, the prices went up way beyond the rate of inflation, and there was no such thing as the ACA. Any excuse, I suppose, and this time the insurance industry has a scapegoat.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,577 posts)the Insurance companies set the rates (sometimes companies can negotiate deals based on number of claims and total $ paid out by the Insurance co. etc) and then your company turns to you and either negotiates (if you are in a union) your share or assigns you a share ($ what you pay each month to be covered whether you use it or not). Because the ACA no longer allows exemptions due to pre-existing conditions, cannot charge women more than men, cannot cap the total $ spent on care it stands to reason the Insurance companies will try to recoup some of that money by raising the premium. However the ACA says that 80% of the premium dollars must be spent on care. So they can't jack up the rate and put the money in their pocket.
I think the ACA will expose how predatory insurance companies are and pave the way for single payer. We can't get to single payer without going through ACA first...........