<p>GP - Forget ACA. If the premium is 13k, what did ACA have to do anything with it? It was a very common number before ACA.</p>
<p>A few years ago I insured someone who was pregnant and it came out to be $800 per month. Person under 30 and it translated to almost 10k per year.</p>
<p>GP, the average household income in the US is less than $65,000.</p>
<p>I am sure you’re right, texaspg, that some people paid these premiums under the current system, but in my case I am going from $8,000 a year to $13,000 with pretty much the same deductible.</p>
<p>dstark, you would have to admit a couple at this income level living in your area would experience significant financial stress.</p>
<p>“hope” is not a strategy for success. </p>
<p>Actually with change it is. When things are stagnant, there is little reason to hope for things to get better. When there is change and that change includes a dynamic process, then there is a lot of hope, and time to look for where to make the changes. I’m no fan of this Act. But I have hope that it changes some things into the right direction, and I see the possibilities. But as with all change, the bugs have to be taken out, the exceptions, the pitfalls addressed. It wasn’t working before. Nothing happening. Now we see some changes possible.</p>
<p>GP, how many couples are there in my area with that income that dont have employer backed insurance or medicare?</p>
<p>You seem desperate to find people that fit a profile. Not your own personal profile…:)</p>
<p>But GP, your net income is way above that $65K range, plus it is self-employment income. So you have to pose a hypothetical about a couple earning way less in order to even frame an argument. (As someone who is self-employed, if your income was even close to subsidy-qualifying level, I’m pretty sure you could figure out a way to invest a little more $$ into your business to reduce your net.)</p>
<p>I don’t know where DStark lives, but I think that a couple with a $62K income in my neighborhood area would be comfortable. There are a lot of older people and retirees around here who I assume are living on much less. </p>
<p>Your comments about financial distress lead me to believe that your problem may be an overly expensive lifestyle.</p>
<p>Median household income in California is under that $62K mark-- see: <a href=“http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html[/url]”>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html</a> - that’s with an average household size of 2.91</p>
<p>GP - Little birdie told me you probably make much more than 65k though. :p</p>
<p>Your plan has changed, your State does not want to listen to the President to give your plan back. However, even if they listened, it would be a one year reprieve. </p>
<p>The paradigm of healthcare has shifted and no one on CC can do a darn thing about reversing any of it. All we are trying to do here is to see if people have better alternatives than those they are presented with or are considering. </p>
<p>I have a cross section of friends and I was polling a few people running their own businesses last night at a dinner party. Interestingly enough out of three, not one seems to think their premiums went up and couple have not heard of ACA. Must be a Texas thing. </p>
<p>One of them moved from CA about 8 years ago and claimed he has copay of $5 with BCBS no matter whether he is doing a routine check or having children (they had 2 in CA). He was absolutely certain his company premiums did not go up for 2014 and they do employ several people. He has never changed insurance company and so it is possible he is grandfathered.</p>
<p>I was confused enough to look-
When I enter a couple, total income $62040, into my state’s exchange, by age/income, versus direct purchase from BCBS, based on age, silver starts at:</p>
<p>Age 33
Exch: 455 after 59 credit
BCBS 512</p>
<p>Age 45
Exch $ 447 after 172 subsidy
BCBS $617/mo. </p>
<p>Age 58
Exch $413 after 679 subsidy.<br>
BC $1089.</p>
<p>60
Exch: 409 after 755 subs
BC 1160</p>
<ul>
<li>Maybe this is just my state. Maybe I am missing something. But:</li>
<li>Why wouldn’t they buy through the exchange? If they don’t have a qualifying employer plan.</li>
</ul>
<p>It is true I can afford the increase (not happily) but there must be plenty of people out there who are not as fortunate as me. My problem as is well-known by now 
is the networks.</p>
<p>LF - what size is your family? A two person family with 62k AGI is exactly at 400% and so you should try 64k and see what happens.</p>
<p>“It is true I can afford the increase”. Lol</p>
<p>So all those earlier posts of yours were full of baloney. What a surprise.</p>
<p>Call Anthem tomorrow to confirm that the UCs are in your network. Or maybe you already did?</p>
<p>Thanks for the entertainment. :)</p>
<p>There are 35 million uninsured people that coulld use some empathy.</p>
<p>Calmom, do you know if the drug formularies are the same for grandfathered plans and ACA-compliant plans? Have not thought to ask this question yet.</p>
<p>dstark, when did I say I couldn’t afford it? And just because I can afford it doesn’t mean I have to like it.</p>
<p>Regardless of what you can afford, when your premiums goes up $5,000 in one year, it is a shock.</p>
<p>You implied it. </p>
<p>Not that there were too many believers. ;)</p>
<p>BTW, even when you thought I couldn’t afford it, I never got any empathy from you. :)</p>
<p>I knew you were full of crap. :)</p>
<p>Did you call Anthem?</p>
<p>I have enjoyed your posts. You have a good sense of humor.</p>
<p>Texas,
Since it’s bugging me-
Age 60, income 80k: Exch 1163, BC 1160
Age 60, income 120k: Exch 1163, BC 1160</p>
<p>I used GP’s example of a couple.
I think iirc the 2 person run at $63k or 65k was $619, no subsidy, roughly same for BCBS–as you can see (incl above) the pre-subsidy numbers add to roughly what buying from BCBS seems to run.</p>
<p>I didn’t come close to 15k/year costs til you get much older.
Or wealthier.</p>
<p>ymmv.</p>
<p>Lookingforward, the issue is that at an income slightly above $62K, the subsidy eligibility for a couple cuts off. Re-run the same numbers, with an income of $63K instead. </p>
<p>Don’t look at the starting figure for Silver – then the numbers seem arbitrary – you should look at the subsidy for the 2nd lowest price Silver plan – then you will see the maximum subsidy is consistent. Basically the maximum that a couple with income of $62,000 would pay for insurance is around $491/month – but at $63K, I’m guessing that you’ll see the 60 year old couple in your state paying around $1245 a month for that 2nd lowest cost Silver. So that’s a jump of $750+/month for a hypothetical increase of income of less than $1000.</p>
<p>But the point is there are other things that the older couple can do to keep their AGI within limits – deductions from their income that are available simply by banking money in tax-sheltered accounts. So it’s not as steep of a drop off as it looks.</p>
<p>Also, it isn’t as if that 60 year old couple could have gone out and bought an equivalent policy on the individual market for $491/month before. It’s possible that the ACA rate has gone up because of the changes in the risk pool or elimination of policy caps – but there were many single people being quoted rates of $1250 or more in the past because of their health histories. </p>
<p>So we are going to a system where some people had cheap insurance and others couldn’t afford insurance – but no one over poverty level got any sort of government help – to a system where some people have cheap insurance and other have to pay more, but the government is giving financial help to the lower end of the middle class. </p>
<p>We can debate whether that is a good approach or not, but the bottom line is that more people will end up with insurance, because with the new system is set up so that the ones who are facing higher ende premiums are also the ones who are financially strongest, and thus more able to shoulder the higher cost. Not that it will be easy for everyone – just that people with more money in general have more financially flexibility than people with less money.</p>