<p>
But my point is that, without that rule, there would have been nothing to prevent the insurance companies from raising their premiums much more than the amount that they were refunding. There’s no point in raising premiums if they know they are going to have to pay most of the money back. With that rule, it is in their interest to try to make accurate projections – and limit their raises to roughly the same amount that they hope to be able to hang onto.</p>
<p>Well, my insurance premium will exceed my mortgage payment ( I have refinanced a number of times). Calmom, how do you know what your premium would have been if your plan wasn’t terminated? I was told by Blue Shield that they haven’t disclosed what the premiums will be for grandfathered plans in 2014.</p>
<p>My insurance premium is going to exceed my mortgage too. :)</p>
<p>[Catastrophic</a> Health Insurance vs. Bronze–WellBeeFile](<a href=“被狂躁A片视频免费视频,无码高潮少妇多水多毛软件,欧美又粗又大xxxxbbbb疯狂,女女同性女同一区二区三区,四虎永久在线,h视频免费看”>被狂躁A片视频免费视频,无码高潮少妇多水多毛软件,欧美又粗又大xxxxbbbb疯狂,女女同性女同一区二区三区,四虎永久在线,h视频免费看)</p>
<p>"Though cost varies from plan to plan and by state, catastrophic plans are running about 15% cheaper than bronze plans, says Larry Levitt, co-executive director of the Program for the Study of Health Reform and Private Insurance at the Kaiser Family Foundation.</p>
<p>“One big drawback of catastrophic plans is that you can’t use a tax credit in them,” says Levitt. “So many low and middle income folks will find themselves better off in a bronze or silver plan,” he says."</p>
<p>Interesteddad, if you are right about the deductible and out-of-pocket maximum for catastrophic plans, then they are not all that different than the exchange bronze plans. I wonder how much money you can save with one of these plans?</p>
<p>Edit: Just read the link provided by dstark. It says these plans will be about 15% less than exchange plans.</p>
<p>GP, </p>
<p>How did your wife by insurance with a precondition?</p>
<p>Did that condition affect the insurance she could buy?</p>
<p>Calmom, in California insurance companies have to have their numbers reviewed by the Dept of Insurance before they can raise premiums. The department can’t prohibit raises, but they can make sure the projections are accurate.</p>
<p>
I know what it would have been if it hadn’t been terminated and NO rate increase, because I have the rate chart from when it last came up for renewal. So I can look at that chart and see what it said.</p>
<p>I would EXPECT that it would have actually been higher, because the insurance company has increased rates every other year. </p>
<p>I have been TOLD that by insurance agents that the rates for that plan are going to be a LOT higher, but I haven’t seen next years rate sheet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course it did. The savings isn’t so much in the rebate, which is just a measure of how much the insurance company overshot their estimates. The big savings is in the excessive premium which they didn’t charge you in the first place, because ACA told them they’d have to give the excess back.</p>
<p>dstark, she has a murmur that stems from a congenital condition with her heart valve (the condition is somewhat similar to a mitral valve prolapse). Although it is obviously a preexisting condition, apparently she can still be underwritten for health insurance. There is a slight chance she could need heart surgery down the road.</p>
<p>
A review without the power to prohibit is meaningless. </p>
<p>Historically what happened is that companies came in with large increases, they would go to the department and end up with a rate increase smaller than they had originally announced, but still quite substantial. If you think that the companies weren’t deliberately asking for more than than they thought they would get in the first place, then I have a bridge to sell you.</p>
<p>Calmom, this discussion about insurance companies raising premiums reminded me when Anthem of California announced a 33% (somewhere in that neighborhood) average raise across the board just before ACA was voted on by Congress. Of course, it engendered a near explosion of outrage and probably contributed to the momentum that led to passage of the law. What never got reported is at least half of the increase was rolled back because the Dept of Insurance (actually it was one guy who did the work on behalf of the dept) found that the numbers were not accurate.</p>
<p>I also wonder why those same people in 2010 who were so upset with Anthem are not equally outraged with some of the increases were experiencing under ACA?</p>
<p>
Because MOST people are not seeing increases. MOST people in California are eligible for subsidies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not consistent with my own experience. I just plotted my rate of increases over the years. I actually have good pre- and post recession number for my daughter, with high deductible policy I purchased for her in 2006. (I opted to combine the college plan, which only covered up to $5000, with a $5000 deductible plan at home - I figured one plan started where the other left off). When my daughter started college in 2006 the plan was $64 and the premium stayed that way through 2008. In 2009 (post recession), it jumped to $88 (38% increase) – and then in 2010 it went to $113 (51% increase).</p>
<p>I’m guessing that if anything, the recession probably forced an increase because of what the impact it had on insurance company’s cash reserves and their own reinsurance rate -just as college tuitions kept climbing because of the hit that the colleges took on their endowments.</p>
<p>My own policy is a little harder to track because of changes I made along the way to my own deductible – but I can see that I was paying $239 in 2007, $273 in 2008 (14% increase); $349 in 2009 (28% increase). So no recession slow-down there either. Then I switched to higher deductibles, so rates were contained for awhile, but between 2012 and 2013, there was a 12% increase.</p>
<p>Calmom, do you know what percentage of Californians are projected to get subsidies (who don’t have employer-based coverage), and where have you gotten the info? Are you excluding Medicaid?</p>
<p>Also, some of those increases in 2010 and thereafter, I think you should attribute some portion of them to ACA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Blue Cross wanted to raise some subscribers by as much as 39%, and yes, that was the straw that finally broke the camel’s back of public opinion, which gave impetus to the law. If not for that, it may very well be that ACA wouldn’t have passed, and we’d still be at the mercy of the insurance vultures. </p>
<p>It wasn’t the Dept of Insurance which forced the rollback; DOI has no power over rates in California. It was embarrassment. Anthem finally got too greedy for its own good. And if you think this was the first time they make “mistakes” in their calculations, then I’ll join calmom in selling you that bridge.</p>
<p>The larger point of this case is that Anthem et al could do whatever they wanted to their subscribers, and subscribers had no way to fight back. We had no rights or protections against rapacious insurance companies who took advantage of the sick in pursuit of ever-fatter profits. ACA ends that.</p>
<p>Well LasMa, ACA may end some abuses but it doesn’t come without significant drawbacks for millions of people.</p>
<p>
I know the statistics for income distribution in California. Here’s a link: [Distribution</a> of Total Population by Federal Poverty Level | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation](<a href=“http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-fpl/]Distribution”>Distribution of Total Population by Federal Poverty Level | KFF)</p>
<p>It shows that 32% of Californians are above the 400% mark, and 33% are below the 138% mark (the Medi-Cal cutoff). So that’s a fairly neat distribution: 1/3 eligible for Medi-Cal, 1/3 eligible for subsidies, 1/3 above. </p>
<p>But I suspect that a greater percentage are subsidy eligible, because I think there is probably a significantly higher number of people getting employer coverage among the highest earners. Basically, at a certain income level, it’s pretty much expected that the employer will provide insurance, and hard for employers to compete if they don’t.</p>
<p>Here’s a new stat:</p>
<p>
[Exclusive:</a> The feds have made 330,000 Obamacare subsidy calculations](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/26/exclusive-the-feds-have-made-330000-obamacare-eligibility-determinations/]Exclusive:”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/26/exclusive-the-feds-have-made-330000-obamacare-eligibility-determinations/)</p>
<p>This isn’t the stat for people who are just playing around with “what if” calculators on the web sites – its the stats for when a verification call is made via the sites API during the application process. At least on the California site, it doesn’t look like there is a way to go back and retry --though my verification was successful on the first go-round so I don’t know what would have happened if there had been a mismatch of data. (Although I believe from anecdotal reports that the users who can’t pass verification are asked to submit additional data, outside the automated system).</p>
<p>
Why? ACA didn’t make any changes that substantially impacted our high deductible policies in the interim.</p>
<p>In any case, if you look at the numbers I posted, the big increases were all pre-ACA. The post ACA increases were more modest (28% for me between 2008 and 2009 vs 12% between 2012-2013; 38% and then 51% for my daughter in the years from 2008-2010. The 2010 rates for her wer pre-passage of ACA because she graduated from college that year and was covered by her employer on June 1).</p>
<p>Calmom, the only problem with your table is that it includes millions of people who are not eligible for health insurance subsidies.</p>