<p>Ever since health insurance reform was proposed, the insurance companies have been threatening draconian premium increases if it passed (which never made sense to me; wouldn’t a mandate bring them boatloads of new customers and new profits?). But:</p>
<p>Just this week I got my monthly newsletter from Anthem which included a very good explanation of the need for reform in general and the mandate in particular.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anthem is a salesperson for the ACA? And lowering premiums? Insurers now saying that the law is “a step forward” and would be “too much trouble to roll back”? Something strange is going on, and somehow I just doubt that it’s going to benefit subscribers.</p>
<p>"Starting Sunday, about 101,000 Anthem Blue Cross small-group customers will see their premiums go up an average of 13.8 percent but as high as 20.5 percent. At the same time, more than 16,000 small businesses covered by Aetna will receive hikes averaging 3.7 percent. While a few will see decreases, others will get hit with increases of more than 20 percent.</p>
<p>Some of these increases may not reach the nosebleed levels they have in recent years when many consumers faced raised rates of nearly 40 percent and a few experienced hikes higher than 75 percent. But for those who have experienced increases year after year, this latest round is still tough to manage."</p>
<p>I have friends who refuse to shop at stores in which the sales people are on commission because they’re afraid they won’t get an honest opinion or they will feel pressured to buy. I ask them why it doesn’t bother them that their doctors are on commission.</p>
<p>I think this is the last gasp of private insurers trying to squeeze the final profits out of the health insurance industry. I think within 10 years, perhaps earlier, the health insurance industry will disappear because the new legislation will make rapacious profits impossible.</p>
<p>qdogpa, that’s nice. But for fifty million uninsured, and many millions more underinsured, and millions of personal bankruptcies due to medical bills – the status quo doesn’t “work” at all. How should we address that?</p>
<p>I’m very much looking forward to my crack at socialized medicine, and I just wish we could give it to everyone! (Actually, it’s “socialized” now - for the insurance companies.)</p>
<p>Someday I will figure out why my parents, in their 70’s, are paying about 1000/mth for medicare? They must have some amazing extra coverages. Is there a medicare plan that is actually free when you get old, and if so does it actually cover anything?</p>
<p>^^ Medicare is amazing coverage, which is why so many of us are just trying to hang on till we get there. My mid-80s parents pay something like $300 each, and what’s not covered by Medicare is covered by their secondary insurance at $200 each. So yes, they pay about $1000 per month in premiums. In return, they pay virtually nothing out-of-pocket for their medical care, and they’re high users. $1000 is a screamin deal for them.</p>
<p>I took my son to the pediatrician this week for his annual checkup. I handed the receptionist my credit card and she said, “Oh, you don’t owe anything - physicals are covered under the new health law.” Oh, hooray, I save $30 times 5 for the year, but pay an extra $120 a month in premiums! What a deal!</p>
<p>There are several different plans. One of them (part A) is free if you’ve worked enough quarters (I believe it’s 40 quarters in your lifetime that contributed to Medicare). Here is more about premiums for Medicare. [2012</a> Medicare Costs, Medicare.gov - the Official U.S. Government Site for Medicare](<a href=“http://www.medicare.gov/cost/]2012”>http://www.medicare.gov/cost/).</p>
<p>For folks who have pretty good coverage (including Rx), they may only need parts A and B. If they don’t have good coverage, they may choose to opt to buy some of the other coverages for additional premium as well.</p>
<p>Looking at the link by HImom,My parents get to pay an arm and a leg from medicare because my Dad (age 75) still works, has to take mandatory retirement distributions and collects social security.</p>
<p>Penalized over and over for working hard to provide for yourself. They have paid so much into medicare and now get to pay higher premiums because he is still working. They are forced to take out their retirement money and pay taxes on it, even though they don’t need to use it. What sense is that? I think that should be changed.</p>
<p>Yea, it doesn’t make much sense to me either that folks who are still working have to take mandatory minimum distributions. My dad is 87 & still working, but he also has to take minimum distributions.</p>
<p>If you are still working AND get adequate healthcare, you DON’T have to start Medicare Part B, if you don’t want to. I know others who are 69+ & still working who haven’t signed up yet for Medicare Part B & will wait until they retire to do so without incurring any penalty because their jobs provide excellent insurance.</p>
<p>The deal with IRAs was that you got to defer paying taxes on the money, but the government eventually expects to get its cut primarily during your lifetime – thus required minimum distributions. My guess is that the percentage of 87-year-old men still working is pretty small. IRAs were never intended as an estate planning vehicle. </p>
<p>My MIL complained about paying more for Medicare because of her pension income, but she was always first in line to encourage expansion of government-provided services. I don’t see how people expect to get it both ways. Someone earning $100K a year (from pensions, employment, or other sources) surely ought to be paying more for Medicare than someone trying to get by on $15K a year.</p>
<p>Yea, but the government could say that if you’re still working, you don’t need to take MDR & pay taxes at death if you die while still working. I agree that 87-year-olds still working are not that common, but people 70+ still working are not so uncommon. That’s the age at which MDRs start.</p>
<p>Folks with pensions are indeed fortunate and rarer all the time. Our state still does NOT tax pensions, since so many here received federal, state or county pensions.</p>