My new crap health insurance

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

My company is switching to a new healthcare plan effective Jan. 1, and I just received the materials outlining the changes. I'm not pleased.

My current plan is a BCBS PPO. I pretty much pay a $20 at doctor visits, and that's it. I pay about $150/month for my spouse and me.

The first negative is that we're switching from BCBS to Aetna, which I hear has horrible claims service. My new monthly premium will be $400/month for 2 people, with a $2,000 annual deductible and a 20% coinsurance wth a $3,500 cap. It appears that the only service not subject to the coinsurance is an annual physical, regardless of whether you are in-network.

#######!? I am really pissed and considering starting to look for a new job.

The problem is we ever connected health care to employment in the first place. During WW2 with a loss of manpower to the military and a big demand for the remaining MANpower, companies started paying higher and higher wages for the remaining available men. Te Democrats in control then, fearing higher prices for war material, and generally opposed to the creation of wealth in general, imposed salary caps and wage increase caps (the only thing worse than a government MINIMUM wage is a government MAXIMUM wage) so the companies, as companies will always do in a capitalist market, found another way to attract men. Health insurance, paid vacation, automobile allowances etc. all came into being at this time to avoid the government imposed maximum wage.

Byt the itme the war was over and we were establishing a new economy, these items became competitively necessary to attract employees. As medical care costs rose because no one paid attention to this anymore, insurance companies began to look for ways to cut costs (the same way government healthcare would) and the only way to cut costs is things that impact the client...YOU. Higer premiums, higher deductibles, etc. States came along and regulated what things must be covered and many insurance companies with small, but profitable, pieces of the market bailed out of certain states where they simply couldn't absorb the cost of the new regulations, leaving some states with only one or two companies providing insurance for that state, which is great for the lone insurance compnay, but really sucks for you.

The first try at medical care reform should be to de-regulate or standardize regulations and allow insurance companies to compete freely within states. Employers should drop health care isnurance altogether, refund the portion of premium they pay now to you in the way of wage increases and let you buy your own medical insurance in a freely competitive, nationwide market forevermore. They same way we buy car insurance. Car insurance premiums are kept relatively low by open and broad competition in the market AND the fact that we do not expect car companies to pay for oil changes, tire rotations and normal wear and tear. Imagine what car insurance would cost if it covered wiper blades!!!!!!!

Government is not the answer. Government will come and cut costs and services like you never saw before and YOU will pay the price.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I know you're right - my urge to move is more out of the feeling that I should make some kind of point, not that they would care.

I quit a job in early 07 because they were going to give us mandatory 2k paycuts. I am happy I did because I ended up better off but I know I didn't make a point to anyone who matters. My immediate manager knew why, but so what.. the 2k paycut wasn't his call anyway. He got it too.

One of the pitfalls of working for a large corporation. Your name becomes E657431.

[KarenCee 3]

The first try at medical care reform should be to de-regulate or standardize regulations and allow insurance companies to compete freely within states. Employers should drop health care isnurance altogether, refund the portion of premium they pay now to you in the way of wage increases and let you buy your own medical insurance in a freely competitive, nationwide market forevermore. They same way we buy car insurance. Car insurance premiums are kept relatively low by open and broad competition in the market AND the fact that we do not expect car companies to pay for oil changes, tire rotations and normal wear and tear. Imagine what car insurance would cost if it covered wiper blades!!!!!!!

Government is not the answer. Government will come and cut costs and services like you never saw before and YOU will pay the price.

But what happens to those of us who have conditions such as diabetes, which automatically disqualifies us from obtaining any sort of private insurance (been there already...was turned down)? Do you think that will change if what you suggest becomes policy?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The first try at medical care reform should be to de-regulate or standardize regulations and allow insurance companies to compete freely within states. Employers should drop health care isnurance altogether, refund the portion of premium they pay now to you in the way of wage increases and let you buy your own medical insurance in a freely competitive, nationwide market forevermore. They same way we buy car insurance. Car insurance premiums are kept relatively low by open and broad competition in the market AND the fact that we do not expect car companies to pay for oil changes, tire rotations and normal wear and tear. Imagine what car insurance would cost if it covered wiper blades!!!!!!!

Government is not the answer. Government will come and cut costs and services like you never saw before and YOU will pay the price.

But what happens to those of us who have conditions such as diabetes, which automatically disqualifies us from obtaining any sort of private insurance (been there already...was turned down)? Do you think that will change if what you suggest becomes policy?

The problem with letting insurance companies compete across state lines is that regulations are set by the states. If you allow that, then there will be no reason for insurance companies to operate out of states with strong consumer protections. This will hurt the consumer.

Of course, people who want competition across state lines know this. They don't care. They don't care about people, they only care about insurance industry profits.

In other words, they're evil. Pure evil.

[peejay 327]

The big question is how to administer quality care at an affordable price without bankrupting the private system or bankrupting the country with a public system.

Why is protecting a private industry that tries to gouge us at every turn such a priority?

Ever price COBRA continuation of coverage if you get unemployed? You can't do that for very long.

You're supposed to save your money while you work, homeboy. COBRA won't seem so expensive then

Just the usual flippant answers I would expect from you Gupt. I expected no more...no less.

[KarenCee 3]

Well...he does have a valid point about COBRA. It IS expensive. Have you priced it lately? I couldn't afford it...not even for a couple of months!!!

[Marilyn. 340]

last year hubby switched jobs for a few months.. the health insurance with the new job wouldn't start for 90 days.. and the old job sent us info about Cobra.. it was going to cost about 800 bucks a month no way in heck could we afford that.. so we went without insurance for 90 days

actually now he is back at the old job again... a few months ago they switched from United Healthcare to Cigna... but everything stayed the same.. our premiums only went up a few bucks...

I know we are very lucky to have a good insurance.. they cover 100 percent of everything except emergency room visits and hospital stays.. they only cover those 90%.. although I am sure this is going to change next year..

[trailmix 77]

Byt the itme the war was over and we were establishing a new economy, these items became competitively necessary to attract employees. As medical care costs rose because no one paid attention to this anymore, insurance companies began to look for ways to cut costs (the same way government healthcare would) and the only way to cut costs is things that impact the client...YOU. Higer premiums, higher deductibles, etc. States came along and regulated what things must be covered and many insurance companies with small, but profitable, pieces of the market bailed out of certain states where they simply couldn't absorb the cost of the new regulations, leaving some states with only one or two companies providing insurance for that state, which is great for the lone insurance compnay, but really sucks for you.

One key thing about your point here - insurance companies provide that insurance at profit, government run health care is not for profit.

It just kind of sounds like the poor insurance companies had to scramble to cut costs, which unfortunately (and i'm sure they were crying all the way to the board/bank) means cuts to coverage/higher premiums for the consumer.

Just doesn't seem right, they are greedy, their profits are above and beyond reasonable - THAT is another reason why a government run system is preferable.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My company is switching to a new healthcare plan effective Jan. 1, and I just received the materials outlining the changes. I'm not pleased.

My current plan is a BCBS PPO. I pretty much pay a $20 at doctor visits, and that's it. I pay about $150/month for my spouse and me.

The first negative is that we're switching from BCBS to Aetna, which I hear has horrible claims service. My new monthly premium will be $400/month for 2 people, with a $2,000 annual deductible and a 20% coinsurance wth a $3,500 cap. It appears that the only service not subject to the coinsurance is an annual physical, regardless of whether you are in-network.

#######!? I am really pissed and considering starting to look for a new job.

Wow...what is your employer's explanation for such a drastic difference between plans? Sorry to hear that....will this affect your delivery?

Edited September 27, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The first try at medical care reform should be to de-regulate or standardize regulations and allow insurance companies to compete freely within states. Employers should drop health care isnurance altogether, refund the portion of premium they pay now to you in the way of wage increases and let you buy your own medical insurance in a freely competitive, nationwide market forevermore. They same way we buy car insurance. Car insurance premiums are kept relatively low by open and broad competition in the market AND the fact that we do not expect car companies to pay for oil changes, tire rotations and normal wear and tear. Imagine what car insurance would cost if it covered wiper blades!!!!!!!

Government is not the answer. Government will come and cut costs and services like you never saw before and YOU will pay the price.

But what happens to those of us who have conditions such as diabetes, which automatically disqualifies us from obtaining any sort of private insurance (been there already...was turned down)? Do you think that will change if what you suggest becomes policy?

Yes, because it is in the law. Pre-existing conditions would be covered (oh ,you mean you didn't know there was another law proposed, you think only Obama thinks of these things?)

Insurers have signed on to it. IF the insurance company can spread the risk among a larger population (the whole country rather than a few states) they are more amenable to taking on pre-existing conditions. When state laws limit the number of people they can cover and demand they cover more expenses it simply becomes unfeasible for any company (or government) to take the risk at anything resembling a reasonable price. The idea of government health care can only be imagined if we throw out the rules currently limiting private insurers. If we throw out those risks (frivilous lawsuits, defensive medicine and limited access to clients) then it is more feasible for the private insurers also. It is comparing apples to oranges.

The government has no intent of operating under the same rules as private insurers. They KNOW they can't. So why not change those rules and let the free market settle out? We have to change the rules anyway, let's just see if that does the trick.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Byt the itme the war was over and we were establishing a new economy, these items became competitively necessary to attract employees. As medical care costs rose because no one paid attention to this anymore, insurance companies began to look for ways to cut costs (the same way government healthcare would) and the only way to cut costs is things that impact the client...YOU. Higer premiums, higher deductibles, etc. States came along and regulated what things must be covered and many insurance companies with small, but profitable, pieces of the market bailed out of certain states where they simply couldn't absorb the cost of the new regulations, leaving some states with only one or two companies providing insurance for that state, which is great for the lone insurance compnay, but really sucks for you.

One key thing about your point here - insurance companies provide that insurance at profit, government run health care is not for profit.

It just kind of sounds like the poor insurance companies had to scramble to cut costs, which unfortunately (and i'm sure they were crying all the way to the board/bank) means cuts to coverage/higher premiums for the consumer.

Just doesn't seem right, they are greedy, their profits are above and beyond reasonable - THAT is another reason why a government run system is preferable.

Then we need o bring it under control, the government CAN'T. Allow fair and free competition and the price will come down, just as it does with everything in a free market. Allow any insurance company to offer health insurance in any state under basic guidelines, insurance compnaies will pressure suppliers to cut costs. Discontinue coverage for routine things, let consumers pressure the providers with competition for this. We all buy insurance for many things, and when we have a free market we have lower costs.

Vermont has a similar program. If you do not get insurance from your employer, you can buy into the state insurance program, the same as state employees. If you cannot afford it, the premium is subsidized, or even free, depending on your income. The state does not control who you see, what treatment you get. They provide an insurance option NOT related to your employment. I am suggesting to expound on that, offer MANY insurance options not based on employement, in fact take it away from the employement entirely. If a person's income is low, they can apply for governemnt assistance, but keep the government OUT of the medical business. I have no problem with assisting those that need it, it will be lots cheaper than trying to assist everyone when only 10% need it.

[rebeccajo 14]

Byt the itme the war was over and we were establishing a new economy, these items became competitively necessary to attract employees. As medical care costs rose because no one paid attention to this anymore, insurance companies began to look for ways to cut costs (the same way government healthcare would) and the only way to cut costs is things that impact the client...YOU. Higer premiums, higher deductibles, etc. States came along and regulated what things must be covered and many insurance companies with small, but profitable, pieces of the market bailed out of certain states where they simply couldn't absorb the cost of the new regulations, leaving some states with only one or two companies providing insurance for that state, which is great for the lone insurance compnay, but really sucks for you.

One key thing about your point here - insurance companies provide that insurance at profit, government run health care is not for profit.

It just kind of sounds like the poor insurance companies had to scramble to cut costs, which unfortunately (and i'm sure they were crying all the way to the board/bank) means cuts to coverage/higher premiums for the consumer.

Just doesn't seem right, they are greedy, their profits are above and beyond reasonable - THAT is another reason why a government run system is preferable.

Then we need o bring it under control, the government CAN'T. Allow faree competition and the price will come down, just as it does with everything in a free market. Allow any insurance company to offer health insurance in any state under basic guidelines, insurance compnaies will pressure suppliers to cut costs. Discontinue coverage for routine things, let consumers pressure the providers with competition for this. We all buy insurance for many things, and when we have a free market we have lower costs.

Vermont has a similar program. If you do not get insurance from your employer, you can buy into the state insurance program, the same as state employees. If you cannot afford it, the premium is subsidized, or even free, depending on your income. The state does not control who you see, what treatment you get. They provide an insurance option NOT related to your employment. I am suggesting to expound on that, offer MANY insurance options not based on employement, in fact take it away from the employement entirely. If a person's income is low, they can apply for governemnt assistance, but keep the government OUT of the medical business. I have no problem with assisting those that need it, it will be lots cheaper than trying to assist everyone when only 10% need it.

Oh right.

Just the same way the price of oil has come down over the last thirty years? The price of housing?

The way millions of jobs have been created since Reagan loosened up the tax rates on jobs creators?

Gotta love that trickle-down healthcare. It works for everything else, you know!

[Heracles 417]

I pay about $400 for two with blue cross blue shield.

Employees should be able to choose providers. I think it's highway robbery that our employer picks which insurance company we use. We should be able to look at a marketplace, similar to the one Obama is proposing and pick our own provider.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Booyah!

[Jenn! 918]

My company is switching to a new healthcare plan effective Jan. 1, and I just received the materials outlining the changes. I'm not pleased.

My current plan is a BCBS PPO. I pretty much pay a $20 at doctor visits, and that's it. I pay about $150/month for my spouse and me.

The first negative is that we're switching from BCBS to Aetna, which I hear has horrible claims service. My new monthly premium will be $400/month for 2 people, with a $2,000 annual deductible and a 20% coinsurance wth a $3,500 cap. It appears that the only service not subject to the coinsurance is an annual physical, regardless of whether you are in-network.

#######!? I am really pissed and considering starting to look for a new job.

Wow...what is your employer's explanation for such a drastic difference between plans? Sorry to hear that....will this affect your delivery?

The timing actually works out ok. The switch isn't until Jan. 1, so my delivery will be covered at 100% just as all of my maternity costs were, thank goodness. They're spinning it as "some people will see an increase in their contributions to their own healthcare, while some will see a decrease." Which is true. If we weren't having a baby, we would have most likely seen a dramatic decrease as long as we went with the highest deductible option. I guess I should look on the bright side in that we now have some choice in how much we want to pay monthly and how much we want to pay as costs are incurred.

[rebeccajo 14]

My company is switching to a new healthcare plan effective Jan. 1, and I just received the materials outlining the changes. I'm not pleased.

My current plan is a BCBS PPO. I pretty much pay a $20 at doctor visits, and that's it. I pay about $150/month for my spouse and me.

The first negative is that we're switching from BCBS to Aetna, which I hear has horrible claims service. My new monthly premium will be $400/month for 2 people, with a $2,000 annual deductible and a 20% coinsurance wth a $3,500 cap. It appears that the only service not subject to the coinsurance is an annual physical, regardless of whether you are in-network.

#######!? I am really pissed and considering starting to look for a new job.

Wow...what is your employer's explanation for such a drastic difference between plans? Sorry to hear that....will this affect your delivery?

The timing actually works out ok. The switch isn't until Jan. 1, so my delivery will be covered at 100% just as all of my maternity costs were, thank goodness. They're spinning it as "some people will see an increase in their contributions to their own healthcare, while some will see a decrease." Which is true. If we weren't having a baby, we would have most likely seen a dramatic decrease as long as we went with the highest deductible option. I guess I should look on the bright side in that we now have some choice in how much we want to pay monthly and how much we want to pay as costs are incurred.

It would be interesting if they would disclose whether or not the premiums charged to them simply increased (thus both you and your employer are paying more for coverage), or if your employer is now paying a smaller percentage of the total premium (and passing the difference on to you).