No. of Recommendations: 24
Insurance rates for the State health care exchange have just been released, with monthly premiums averaging $276/month -- well below insurance actuaries' predictions of $450/month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/23/c...

The Congressional Budget Office predicted back in November 2009 that a medium-cost plan on the health exchange – known as a “silver plan” – would have an annual premium of $5,200. A separate report from actuarial firm Milliman projected that, in California, the average silver plan would have a $450 monthly premium.

Now we have California’s rates, and they appear to be significantly less expensive than what forecasters expected.

On average, the most affordable “silver plan” – which covers 70 percent of the average subscriber’s medical costs – comes with a $276 monthly premium. For the 2.6 million Californians who will receive federal subsidies, the price is a good deal less expensive, the amount noted in green below.

</snip>


Good news for retirees without health coverage from a former employer.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Of course that is based on industry estimates of future claims under the new plan.

The rubber hits the road next year when they have actual numbers based on experience.

Cross your fingers. Let's hope the good numbers continue.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Estimates may be well below what was forecasted, but it is still going to be more than double the current price for 25-40 year olds.

Per Forbes, in California 40 year old was $121/month, new rate under Obamacare is $261/month.

For 25 year olds, price was $92/month, under Obamacare between $184-$205/month.

So for younger 25-40 year olds who are relatively healthy and purchase insurance on there own.. they will see a substantial increase.

So for relatively healthy younger early retirees, rates will increase by a large amount, unless your income drops low enough into the "low income" category. Then you get discounts off the published rates.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-sh...

--
whyohwhyoh
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
whyohwhyoh posts,

Estimates may be well below what was forecasted, but it is still going to be more than double the current price for 25-40 year olds.

Per Forbes, in California 40 year old was $121/month, new rate under Obamacare is $261/month.

For 25 year olds, price was $92/month, under Obamacare between $184-$205/month.

So for younger 25-40 year olds who are relatively healthy and purchase insurance on there own.. they will see a substantial increase.

So for relatively healthy younger early retirees, rates will increase by a large amount, unless your income drops low enough into the "low income" category. Then you get discounts off the published rates.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-sh......

</snip>


That Forbes column by Avik Roy has already be debunked. He uses a low-ball ehealthinsurance premium that only a small portion of 25-40 year olds qualify for and compares it to an Obamacare premium available to 100% of the 25-40 year old population. Apples vs. Oranges comparison.

I concede that if you have the health & fitness of an astronaut, you might get a better price under the current system.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 34
Unfortunately once trusted publications like Forbes and the Wall Street Journal have become political tools of their owners.

Malcolm Forbes certainly had a politcal view but the magazine was a success because he kept it factual. Steve Forbes, who no one would have heard of were it not for his inherited wealth, has no hesitation about compromising the integrity of the magazine.

Same with the Journal. The former owners kept a Chinese wall between the news and the editorial page. Since Murdock bought the Journal he's been chipping away at that wall at an increasing pace. After more than 40 years as a Journal subscriber I finally gave up on it. Not trustworthy and not worth the exorbitant price they now demand.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yeah. I'm in CA. My employer pays my premium ; I cover my wife. At 40, last year, her premium went up to over $500/mo. I don't want to guess what my boss pays for me @ 50 years age...

Byron
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 29
I'm in California, too. The Writers Guild has provided my insurance for 23 years, provided I made the Guild minimum every year, or had a big earning year and so got coverage for the next year plus one or two extra points to bank for future years when my earnings didn't quite make it. My partner had been self employed for many years and covered her own insurance. When her annual premium reached 12000 about 7 years ago, I was able to put her on my WGA insurance as my domestic partner. My other married (and straight) writer friends had to make no additional payment to cover their spouse because the government recognized their marriages. Being gay, and because of DOMA and various other laws, the insurance she received as my partner is considered income to me, so I pay roughly 4000 a year in taxes on that "Income". Don't get me wrong... I'm grateful that I can have her on my insurance as my partner. But it infuriates me that unlike most everyone else who is allowed to insure their spouses for free, I have to pay for mine. Over the last 7 years, that has cost me almost $30,000. I'm hoping the Supreme Court knocks down DOMA this week, as well as the Prop8 case in CA so we can be married and then hopefully soon, not have to pay that discriminatory tax. Just think... I'd have so much more to invest!

Please keep your fingers crossed for me... Oh yeah, and the millions just like me. :-)

Vivienne
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Viv,

I emailed you earlier, but wanted to post here as well.

Today is a good day for liberty!

Jason H
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Vividness, (gotta love how my Ipad renamed you! Won't fix it)

Perhaps you didn't read my post, or perhaps you don't know how most of us (sexual preference notwithstanding) have to finance health care. I am a straight man married to a straight woman. She doesn't work. I pay over $6000/yr plus per year for her medical insurance. If my employer supplied this as a benefit, I would GLADLY pay income tax on it. As it is, this comes out of my gross income - I am still taxed on it. This issue transcends (poor choice of words?) gender.

Byron

P.S. Gotta love the recent Supreme Court rulings! Still waiting for full equality for my gay friends, but the plaster is beginning to crack.
Print the post Back To Top