3 ms·

Very healthy individuals who had could get access to insurance before the ACA are paying more.(because of the very popular pre-existing conditions part of the A

Very healthy individuals who had could get access to insurance before the ACA are paying more.(because of the very popular pre-existing conditions part of the ACA) Are you sure they are paying for less coverage? Pretty much all individual health plans pre-ACA paid out more in the median case, and less in the average case, a whole lot less in the worst case. Basically they would pay for check ups, but totally skip town if you got cancer.

tomohawk 10y ago
As one example, a neighbor works for the state gov't. The state gov't pushed all their employees onto the exchange. They now pay quite a bit more in premiums and their deductibles are way higher. They've had to go from a good PPO plan to an HMO plan with greatly diminished value. They're completely against the wall because of this.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Which state is this, that kicked all its employees off group health insurance and into the (very expensive) individual coverage market?
  - tomohawk 10y ago
    Maryland. The group plan prices aren't much different than the exchange. I see the full cost of my group plan with my employer. This year that price is better than the exchange and the plan is better, but not last year. My point would be that the ACA is a fail on this basis alone. They need to end the Depression era idea of employer provided health insurance (introduced to work around the wage controls imposed by FDR) and just let people buy it on their own. They need to move the tax writeoff from the employer to the employee. This whole notion that splitting up the single group that is the US market into smaller 'groups', and that this somehow increases buying power - it's ridiculous. We've been going down this path for 70 years - it's time to try something different.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      You know you can just look up the Maryland public employee health benefits package and see that they directly offer both Blue Cross and United PPOs and do not in fact require their employees to buy insurance on the exchanges in the individual marketplace, right?

tomohawk 10y ago

As one example, a neighbor works for the state gov't. The state gov't pushed all their employees onto the exchange. They now pay quite a bit more in premiums and their deductibles are way higher. They've had to go from a good PPO plan to an HMO plan with greatly diminished value. They're completely against the wall because of this.

tptacek 10y ago
Which state is this, that kicked all its employees off group health insurance and into the (very expensive) individual coverage market?
- tomohawk 10y ago
  Maryland. The group plan prices aren't much different than the exchange. I see the full cost of my group plan with my employer. This year that price is better than the exchange and the plan is better, but not last year. My point would be that the ACA is a fail on this basis alone. They need to end the Depression era idea of employer provided health insurance (introduced to work around the wage controls imposed by FDR) and just let people buy it on their own. They need to move the tax writeoff from the employer to the employee. This whole notion that splitting up the single group that is the US market into smaller 'groups', and that this somehow increases buying power - it's ridiculous. We've been going down this path for 70 years - it's time to try something different.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    You know you can just look up the Maryland public employee health benefits package and see that they directly offer both Blue Cross and United PPOs and do not in fact require their employees to buy insurance on the exchanges in the individual marketplace, right?