<p>Anyone who’s looking at ACA for an explanation of what is happening is barking at the wrong tree.</p>
<p>In 2000 Mrs. T. started working for a major pharma company, and our monthly contribution for a family of four was $15.00. No kidding. (thru my employer was $250/month).</p>
<p>Fast forward to 2011 when she left. We were paying $300/month for the same coverage (admittedly good). Thru my employer it would have been $400/month for a lousy plan.</p>
<p>Her current employer charges $350/month for four but the coverage again is pretty good. They do not mind covering me, but requested to find if I can get insurance elsewhere (but did not reject me). My own employer will not cover a spouse if he/she has coverage elsewhere, no matter how lousy. And this has been the rule for many years before ACA.</p>
<p>Two things are happening - one, employers are milking the opportunity to drop people and two, insurers are using the opportunity to milk the system by hiking prices.</p>
<p>The basic eye exam at an opthalmoligist (same one) doubled in ten years… All before ACA. Dental is thru the roof (so much for free market) with most procedures having doubled or more in the same period.</p>
<p>My employer (10,000 employees) started charging a $100 a month up charge for spouses who were employed and were eligible to purchase their own employer’s health care plan but chose to stay on our plan. </p>
<p>The reason - why shouldn’t the expense be spread among the various employers? Those employers who offer generous health plan end up with a disproportionate share of dependents while the less generous employer gets off scot-free.</p>
<p>I have no problem paying higher contrib rate for my spouse to be covered on my health plan.<br>
My employer does not base their decision to cover him on whether he has his own employer coverage (which he does not).</p>
<p>When I say ‘up charge’ I mean in addition to the standard employee + dependent rates. </p>
<p>So for example, Employee A has family coverage with a spouse who doesn’t have access to their own employer health plan and pays $300 a month.</p>
<p>Employee B has family coverage with a spouse who does have access to their own employer health plan but chooses instead to enroll in Employee B’s plan. They would pay $400 a month.</p>
<p>This is a slightly oversimplified example because, in reality, my choices as an employee are :1) enroll only myself or 2) myself and children or 3) the entire family- at increasing higher rates for each category. Only choice 3 would pay an up charge and only if the spouse doesn’t have access to their own employer plan.</p>
<p>For the 23 years DH has been with the State we have always been charged more for having family coverage versus individual coverage. If only DH was being insurance his cost would be $30/month - instead we pay $340/month. Still a bargain imo. </p>
<p>The cost has also gone up every year which is why I find people blaming the increases in the cost of their coverage the last few years on ACA so silly. </p>
<p>I worked in human resources in the mid 80’s and every time our health insurance coverage needed to be negotiated (about every 3 years) the companies costs went up. The only way to keep the costs reasonable was to switch insurance companies and even that didn’t keep costs down - they just didn’t increase as dramatically as the would have if we simply renewed a contract. That is the reason businesses are always switching insurance companies.</p>
<p>Thanks, you said it more succinctly than I did. </p>
<p>Anyone whose employer is dropping coverage this year, or reducing benefits – the ACA excuse is bogus.</p>
<p>And emilybee, you’re also right. Those of us who pay for individual insurance know there’s nothing extraordinary about annual double-digit increases. In more than 20 years, the ONLY time Blue Cross kept our premium hikes under 10% was in the early 90s when they felt threatened by Hillary Care – “See? We can behave, we really, really can!” Of course, as soon as that was past, they quickly went back to 15-25% increases.</p>
<p>DH gets his health insurance for a song. Those of us added to his plan pay a pretty penny. Still…it’s less expensive to be part of his group than to get equivalent individual plans for DD and me.</p>
<p>My husband’s union has just started charging $50 a month for spouse coverage, and $50 a month for child coverage. Even though I have excellent insurance through my work, we opted to pay it because it has a few features that mine doesn’t (his insurance paid for my wig after chemotherapy, but mine wouldn’t). Also we go to an out-of-network dentist, and between the two insurances the dental costs are covered 100%. After reading from some of you who don’t have dental coverage, I feel very fortunate. Some years our dental bills have been higher than the medical bills.
However, if they raise this monthly fee, I probably wouldn’t bother paying it, as they seem to always deny my medical claims. It took me a year to get reimbursed for that wig. The coordination of benefits must be a nightmare for providers. I am also lucky under my current contract, when I retire, I will be covered by my insurance until age 68. Hopefully that won’t change.</p>
<p>None of us can be sure that our retirement health benefits will remain in place. Nearly all companies are free to change what benefits they promised.</p>
<p>Neither of our employers offer retirement healthcare benefits. IMO, that’s a luxury only unionized employees still get.</p>
<p>I believe many small businesses will be cutting healthcare to save costs in the coming year, once guaranteed coverage is available to all. They will pay the penalty and still come out ahead. It may not be politically the best option if they have any visibility in the community, but it looks like reality.</p>
<p>In this state, there are teachers who have never contributed to SS or Medicare…and are therefore not eligible for SS or Medicare when they retire.</p>
<p>Retiree health care! Hahaha! Many folks think I have free health insurance for life as a retired teacher. I get $110 a month towards health insurance IF I purchase it at FULL COST ($8000 a year for me only) from my former school district. I cannot use the $110 a month to offset the payment for insurance for me that we pay my husbands company.</p>
<p>We will be covered after DH retires and it will cost very little, if anything, as DH can use his accrued sick days to pay for it and he has never used one in 23+ years of service (unless something happens and he becomes very ill before he retires.) It will become our secondary insurance once we are eligible for medicare. </p>
<p>DH is not in a union but management/confidential employees with the State get whatever the unions and the State agree to.</p>
<p>“In this state, there are teachers who have never contributed to SS or Medicare…and are therefore not eligible for SS or Medicare when they retire.”</p>
<p>But that is only in a few states. My mom started teaching in CT but did most of her years in NY and gets not only SS & Medicare but a pension and health insurance. If it costs anything it’s very inexpensive and she has fabulous coverage after medicare.</p>
<p>IF I could retire today, I would have inexpensive retiree health coverage for myself and be able to purchase (more costly) coverage for DH.
This is a grandfathered provision for employees up till about 20 yrs ago in my company who retire after age 55.
Problem is that I can’t financially retire yet and have to hope they don’t eliminate the option before I can…</p>