Obamacare: Nothing to Brag About

The president’s health-care law increasingly does less and costs more.

During last week’s State of the Union address, one item curiously went almost unmentioned. We heard all about President Obama’s past triumphs and future plans, but his health-care-reform law was strangely missing. Sure, there was one throwaway line about how Obamacare was reducing health-care costs, but the seminal achievement of the president’s first term was almost ignored.

Perhaps that is because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has brought little good news of late.

Insurance premiums are set to explode. Already health insurers, citing the increased cost of various Obamacare provisions, are seeking and winning double-digit premium hikes. For example, California health insurers are proposing increases for some customers of 20 percent or more: 26 percent by Blue Cross, 22 percent by Aetna, and 20 percent by Blue Shield.

Young people are especially likely to face higher premiums. Obamacare’s “community rating” provisions prohibit changing premiums based on health status and limit the degree to which insurers can charge based on age. Thus, premiums will rise more slowly for older and sicker individuals, but will shoot up for young people. According to a survey by the American Action Forum, healthy young people in the individual or small-group insurance markets can look forward to rate increases averaging 169 percent.

Further, a study in the American Academy of Actuaries’ magazine found that 80 percent of young adults aged 18–29 not eligible for Medicaid will face higher costs, and that 20- to 29-year-olds on the individual market not eligible for subsidies will see their premiums increase 42 percent.

New federal subsidies will offset rising premiums to some degree. But that will only further drive up the law’s already rising price tag. The cost of the average exchange subsidy per person is now projected to be $5,510 in 2014, $700 more than it was projected to be last year.

And those subsidies might not exactly make exchange plans affordable. The IRS recently estimated that in 2016, for a family of five, a policy available through the exchange would cost roughly $20,000. At the same time, the IRS has decided that subsidy eligibility will be based whether one’s employer offers an “affordable” individual plan (meaning the employee-paid premium is less than 9.5 percent of his income), whatever the cost of a family plan might be.

That’s become a theme for Obamacare: costs more, does less.

For example, the Congressional Budget Office has again lowered its estimate for the number of people who will gain insurance coverage as a result of Obamacare. Just 27 million more Americans will be covered by 2023 than would be otherwise, leaving 30 million Americans still uninsured. And roughly 12 million of the 27 million newly insured won’t actually get a real health-insurance plan but will simply be dumped into Medicaid.

At the same time, the CBO now estimates that 7 million Americans can expect to lose their current insurance because their employer will decide to pay the penalty/fine/tax rather than provide Obamacare-compliant insurance (this number is up from 4 million). Not only does that belie the president’s oft-stated promise that “if you have health insurance today, and you like it, you can keep it,” it means that as many as 11 million fewer Americans will have private unsubsidized insurance than before Obamacare, making it look more and more like a government takeover of the insurance industry.

Then again, one has to wonder if Obamacare will ever get off the ground at all. For example, the administration once confidently predicted that governors and state lawmakers would quickly fall into line, establishing exchanges and expanding their Medicaid programs. But 26 states have refused to set up exchanges, and seven will require the federal government to operate at least part of the exchanges in their states. (And in at least two states, Idaho and Michigan, state legislators are challenging their governor’s decision to establish exchanges.)

Those exchanges need to be set up by this October if they are to be operational by January 1, 2014, as the law mandates.

Yet there is little evidence that HHS has the money, manpower, or expertise to meet this deadline. While HHS insists that everything is on schedule, they have refused to disclose their plans or release their implementation schedule. Even Democratic Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus is alarmed: He recently ordered detailed accounting of the efforts to set up the federal exchanges by February 26. At the same time, industry groups and others have quietly begun to talk about the possibility that the opening of the exchanges, and therefore the commencement of other key Obamacare provisions, may have to be postponed.

The law’s Medicaid expansion is not going much better. Obamacare advocates were once certain that even Republican governors would not be able to resist the promise of “free” federal money provided by the expansion. Yet, while a handful of high-profile Republicans, such as John Kasich of Ohio, have indeed folded, the vast majority, most recently Wisconsin’s Scott Walker and Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, have resisted the siren song of federal dollars.

Even the president’s one State of the Union mention for Obamacare, boasting of lower health-care costs, is suspect. It is true that health-care costs have risen more slowly over the past couple of years. But the vast majority of health-care economists attribute that to the recession rather than to a law that has barely begun to be implemented. Indeed, the administration’s own actuaries predict that in the future health-care costs will grow faster than they would have in the absence of Obamacare.

No wonder the president had so little to say about Obamacare. It increasingly looks to be nothing to brag about.

Original article: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341074/obamacare-nothing-brag-about-michael-tanner
— Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Insurance Providers Not Buying Into ObamaCare

How insurance providers' reluctance to support the Affordable Care Act could have an impact on you and your health care

 

View NOW: http://video.foxnews.com/v/2178948941001/

Rate Shock: How ObamaCare Is Causing A Surge In Insurance Premiums

• 
  
  

Over the past couple of weeks, many insurance companies have provided guidance in their investor calls that premiums for insurance plans being sold in the individual market could go up as much as 50 percent on average.

One has to wonder how this is even possible when ObamaCare was passed under the promise of affordability and access. While some may argue that “rate shock” has become a mechanism for insurance companies to scare the market, the reality is that economics really leave the insurance market with no other choice.

ObamaCare requires insurers to offer benefit plans on the new exchanges that are relatively generous and would include coverage for maternity, prescription drugs and treatment of mental illness. These are clearly important areas to cover.

In order to get this level of coverage, however, many people in their 20s, who are used to buying basic coverage, will now be required to pay more for these required benefits in the exchanges. In fact, it is expected that more than 75-85 percent of individuals in this age group could end up spending more for insurance in these exchanges than they do currently.

Some argue that the annual price tag of $1,600 to $2,000 for an insurance plan is still an attractive deal, but if the penalty for not having coverage can be as low as $95 per year, the question remains whether many people will decide to opt out until they absolutely need insurance.

A key reason why insurance premiums are going up is because insurance companies will no longer be able to turn away or charge people more with pre-existing conditions. Even more significant is that these companies would only be able to charge its oldest customers three times as much as their youngest.

If younger individuals decide to wait until they get sick enough to require health insurance, this will obviously skew the insurance market where the sickest individuals will be the ones who are in the system, thus raising rates for everyone else. Many insurance companies are pushing the government to regulations that would charge higher rates for individuals who don’t sign up for insurance within a certain timeframe.
 
What many people also fail to recognize is the income they earn this year will impact the amount of subsidy and/or penalty that will be calculated for 2014. A recent survey indicated more than 70 to 80 percent of Americans had no idea how this year’s income reporting will impact the calculation of their benefits for next year, and as much as 40 percent of people between the ages of 18 to 34 were unaware that there was even a penalty for not having coverage.
  
Supporters of the law have downplayed the notion of rate increases with the idea that the new competitive markets will force insurers to provide competitive rates. History will tell us, however, that in the days of managed care it is very difficult to ultimately contain costs in the long-term, especially when you factor in community rating and guaranteed issue.

The other complicating factor in the equation is that, as of Friday, February 15, 2013, only about half of the states have agreed to proceed with setting up the insurance exchanges, while the other half is deferring to the federal government. What remains to be seen is how effective this dichotomy of market places will be in driving competitive advantage, and how insurance premiums will vary between these two systems.

The Congressional Budget Office indicated in its estimates that insurance premiums for those buying coverage in the marketplaces would probably be 10 to 13 percent in 2016 because the health plans would be more comprehensive. The likely outcome from the current effects of ObamaCare is that while rates come down for older people, they may increase for consumers in their 20s, which could leave an older, sicker population now, and an even sicker population down the road.

The idea that federal subsidies will help shelter the cost of those individuals who need to find affordable coverage is worrisome in light of recent findings. Several high-risk pools were established to provide assistance for those individuals with pre-existing conditions who needed help in finding coverage. As recent as last week, it was reported these high-risk pools were running out of money and are underfunded.

The harsh reality is with an aging population that has a growing need for care of their chronic conditions, the cost for providing adequate coverage will not be cheap, and the biggest fear among employers, states, insurance companies, providers and the consumer is how we will afford the price tag to provide for what has been proposed.

As premiums continue to rise out of control, the jury is still out as to whether the promises of ObamaCare will actually be able to reel these trends in, or whether it is a balloon that continues to drift away.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/19/rate-shock-how-obamacare-is-causing-surge-in-insurance-premiums/#ixzz2LY6l1NNo

HHS Leaves Autism Hot Potato In State Hands

Kathleen Sebelius (AP photo/Charles Dharapak)

A state can decide for itself how it wants its official "essential health benefits" (EHB) package to handle services for children with developmental disorders.

A state also will have at least two options for deciding how it wants to handle pediatric dental and vision benefits in the EHB package.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has confirmed that it will be taking that approach to running the EHB program in an advance version of a new final rule, "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Standards Related to Essential Health Benefits, Actuarial Value, and Accreditation" (CMS-9980-F).

The final rule is set to appear in the Federal Register Feb. 25. The rule will take effect 60 days after the publication date.

PPACA

PPACA opponents are still trying to repeal PPACA or block implementation of the law, and HHS or other departments could postpone implementation of parts of the law. If the law takes effect on schedule and works as expected, it will create a new system of exchanges, or Web-based health insurance supermarkets, starting Oct. 1.

In an effort to help consumers shop for coverage on an apples-to-apples basis, PPACA will require all non-grandfathered individual or small group insurance plans to cover the EHB package.

The plans will have to cover the EHB package whether the plans are sold through an exchange or outside the exchange system.

The EHB package requirements will not apply to grandfathered plans, self-insured plans or large group plans.

HHS is giving each state some ability to adjust its EHB requirements, by creating a state EHB benchmark based on the list of benefits offered by a popular plan sold in that state. But a state's EHB benchmark also must meet PPACA guidelines. PPACA requires each EHB package to include 10 classes of benefits.

Consultants at Milliman found that most EHB benchmark candidate plans offer similar benefits, and benefits similar to those required by PPACA, with three major exceptions: pediatric vision benefits, pediatric dental benefits, and "habilitative benefits," or rehabilitative benefits for children or adults with developmental delays who may need help with acquiring basic life skills.

The sponsors of many benchmark candidate plans have offered pediatric dental and pediatric vision benefits through separate insurance policies, analysts have found.

States, insurers, employers and groups representing parents of children facing developmental delays have spent years fighting emotional battles over whether states should mandate that plans provide coverage for expensive habilitative services, such as applied behavioral analysis (ABA) for people with autism. ABA therapy and similar types of therapy can cost $30,000 a year or more.

EHB

In an EHB bulletin issued in December 2011, and in documents released in January 2012, February 2012 and July 2012, HHS suggested that it would let states decide to handle habilitative services for themselves.

HHS has proposed letting states handle gaps in a proposed benchmark plan's pediatric and vision benefits by adopting either the benefits that federal employees who pay for dental and vision coverage get, or the dental and vision benefits that the state's Children's Health Insurance Plan program provides.

HHS received about 11,000 comments on the proposals.

Many commenters asked HHS to use a state's Medicaid plan as the benchmark for habilitation, pediatric dental and pediatric vision benefits.

"In order to maintain the states’ role in defining required benefits in their markets, we will finalize the regulations to provide for state flexibility in determining how to define habilitation services and to offer other options for supplementing based-benchmark plans that do not include coverage for pediatric dental and vision services," officials said.

If the EHB benchmark plan a state chooses does not cover habilitative services, the state can use the Medicaid definition of habilitative services or the National Association of Insurance Commissioners definition.

If a state chooses not to define habilitative benefits, the issuers can choose how to define the term, officials said.

"This is a transitional policy," officials said. "HHS intends to monitor available data regarding coverage of habilitative services."

Mental parity

In another section, officials have stated that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will use PPACA authority to require that any insurance plan subject to the EHB requirements must meet the mental health and substance abuse treatment parity standards included in the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA).

MHPAEA itself applies only to employers with 50 or more employees that choose to offer mental health or substance abuse benefits. If an employer offers mental health care benefits, the coverage rules can be no more restrictive than the typical requirements for other types of care.
PPACA will require states that impose extra benefits mandates to cover any costs associated with providing the extra mandated benefits. Some PPACA watchers have speculated that states that required individual and small group plans to comply with MHPAEA to cover the cost of MHPAEA compliance.

"Because compliance with EHB would requirement compliance with the parity standards, states would not have to defray any costs associated with bringing plans into compliance, because any benefits added to ensure parity would be considered part of the EHB package," officials said.

Actuarial Value

The EHB program is just one of many parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA).

In addition to the section on the EHB program, the upcoming final rule also includes regulations on calculating a plan's minimum value and actuarial value.

PPACA will require large employers to offer a health plan that covers a minimum percentage of the value of the EHB or else pay a penalty.

Issuers that sell individual or small group coverage will have to classify their plans in one of four "metal levels" -- bronze, silver, gold or platinum -- based on actuarial value, or the percentage of the EHB that the plan covers.

HHS released a preliminary version of an actuarial value calculator months ago,
HHS said in the preamble to the new final rule that it has tried to use technical comments on an actuarial value calculator it created to improve the calculator. If the calculator does not accommodate a plan's cost-sharing structure, the plan can use another method along with actuarial certification of the results, officials said.

HHS also reported that it has developed the long-awaited minimum value calculator.

 

The minimum value calculator is similar to the actuarial value calculator, but issuers cannot simply use the actuarial value calculator to determine minimum value, because the actuarial calculator is based on individual and small group claims data, and the minimum value calculator is based on employer-sponsored plan claims data, officials said.

In a discussion of the value regulations, officials noted that HHS, the U.S. Labor Department and the U.S. Treasury Department believe that self-insured plans are exempt from a new PPACA limit on deductibles.

But the departments believe self-insured plans do have to comply with a new PPACA annual limit on total cost-sharing amounts, or the total cost of the deductibles, co-payments and coinsurance amounts that enrollees must pay.

"The departments are concerned about the operational and timing issues raised by commenters, and find that some transitional relief is appropriate," officials said in a preamble to the final rule.

"Accordingly, the three departments are issuing concurrent sub-regulatory guidance identifying an enforcement safe harbor for large and self-insured group health plans to address those operational concerns."

Other matters

Also in the preamble to the final rule, officials said:

- They will let plans tinker with the EHB by substituting benefits, or sets of benefits, that fit into one of the 10 PPACA EHB categories and are actuarially equivalent to the benefits being replaced.
- A plan with a provider network can exclude out-of-network bills when determining whether an enrollee has reached a PPACA deductible or cost-sharing limit. But a plan can voluntarily establish cost-sharing limits for out-of-network care, and a state can require issuers to do so, officials said.

Read More: Original Article: http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2013/02/20/hhs-leaves-autism-hot-potato-in-state-hands?eNL=5125339aca9f8086530000e3&utm_source=HCRW&utm_medium=eNL&utm_campaign=LifeHealthPro_eNLs&_LID=141697675&t=employee-benefits

BCBS Rate 2-Digit Increases For 2013 In NY, CA, TX, PLUS ...IS TN and MS Next??

Health Insurers Raise Some Rates by Double Digits

 

Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.       

 

Bob Chamberlin/Los Angeles Times

Dave Jones, the California insurance commissioner, said some insurance companies could raise rates as much as they did before the law was enacted.                           

 

Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own.

      

In California, Aetna is proposing rate increases of as much as 22 percent, Anthem Blue Cross 26 percent and Blue Shield of California 20 percent for some of those policy holders, according to the insurers’ filings with the state for 2013. These rate requests are all the more striking after a 39 percent rise sought by Anthem Blue Cross in 2010 helped give impetus to the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, which was passed the same year and will not be fully in effect until 2014.

      

In other states, like Florida and Ohio, insurers have been able to raise rates by at least 20 percent for some policy holders. The rate increases can amount to several hundred dollars a month.

       

The proposed increases compare with about 4 percent for families with employer-based policies.

Under the health care law, regulators are now required to review any request for a rate increase of 10 percent or more; the requests are posted on a federal Web site, healthcare.gov, along with regulators’ evaluations.

      

The review process not only reveals the sharp disparity in the rates themselves, it also demonstrates the striking difference between places like New York, one of the 37 states where legislatures have given regulators some authority to deny or roll back rates deemed excessive, and California, which is among the states that do not have that ability.

      

New York, for example, recently used its sweeping powers to hold rate increases for 2013 in the individual and small group markets to under 10 percent. California can review rate requests for technical errors but cannot deny rate increases.

      

The double-digit requests in some states are being made despite evidence that overall health care costs appear to have slowed in recent years, increasing in the single digits annually as many people put off treatment because of the weak economy. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that costs may increase just 7.5 percent next year, well below the rate increases being sought by some insurers. But the companies counter that medical costs for some policy holders are rising much faster than the average, suggesting they are in a sicker population. Federal regulators contend that premiums would be higher still without the law, which also sets limits on profits and administrative costs and provides for rebates if insurers exceed those limits.

      

Critics, like Dave Jones, the California insurance commissioner and one of two health plan regulators in that state, said that without a federal provision giving all regulators the ability to deny excessive rate increases, some insurance companies can raise rates as much as they did before the law was enacted.

      

“This is business as usual,” Mr. Jones said. “It’s a huge loophole in the Affordable Care Act,” he said.

      

While Mr. Jones has not yet weighed in on the insurers’ most recent requests, he is pushing for a state law that will give him that authority. Without legislative action, the state can only question the basis for the high rates, sometimes resulting in the insurer withdrawing or modifying the proposed rate increase.

      

The California insurers say they have no choice but to raise premiums if their underlying medical costs have increased. “We need these rates to even come reasonably close to covering the expenses of this population,” said Tom Epstein, a spokesman for Blue Shield of California. The insurer is requesting a range of increases, which average about 12 percent for 2013.

      

Although rates paid by employers are more closely tracked than rates for individuals and small businesses, policy experts say the law has probably kept at least some rates lower than they otherwise would have been.

      

“There’s no question that review of rates makes a difference, that it results in lower rates paid by consumers and small businesses,” said Larry Levitt, an executive at the Kaiser Family Foundation, which estimated in an October report that rate review was responsible for lowering premiums for one out of every five filings.

      

Federal officials say the law has resulted in significant savings. “The health care law includes new tools to hold insurers accountable for premium hikes and give rebates to consumers,” said Brian Cook, a spokesman for Medicare, which is helping to oversee the insurance reforms.

      

“Insurers have already paid $1.1 billion in rebates, and rate review programs have helped save consumers an additional $1 billion in lower premiums,” he said. If insurers collect premiums and do not spend at least 80 cents out of every dollar on care for their customers, the law requires them to refund the excess.

      

As a result of the review process, federal officials say, rates were reduced, on average, by nearly three percentage points, according to a report issued last September.

      

In New York, for example, state regulators recently approved increases that were much lower than insurers initially requested for 2013, taking into account the insurers’ medical costs, how much money went to administrative expenses and profit and how exactly the companies were allocating costs among offerings. “This is critical to holding down health care costs and holding insurance companies accountable,” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said.

      

While insurers in New York, on average, requested a 9.5 percent increase for individual policies, they were granted an increase of just 4.5 percent, according to the latest state averages, which have not yet been made public. In the small group market, insurers asked for an increase of 15.8 percent but received approvals averaging only 9.6 percent.

      

But many people elsewhere have experienced significant jumps in the premiums they pay. According to the federal analysis, 36 percent of the requests to raise rates by 10 percent or more were found to be reasonable. Insurers withdrew 12 percent of those requests, 26 percent were modified and another 26 percent were found to be unreasonable.

      

And, in some cases, consumer advocates say insurers have gone ahead and charged what regulators described as unreasonable rates because the state had no ability to deny the increases.

       

Two insurers cited by federal officials last year for raising rates excessively in nine states appear to have proceeded with their plans, said Carmen Balber, the Washington director for Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group. While the publicity surrounding the rate requests may have drawn more attention to what the insurers were doing, regulators “weren’t getting any results by doing that,” she said.

      

Some consumer advocates and policy experts say the insurers may be increasing rates for fear of charging too little, and they may be less afraid of having to refund some of the money than risk losing money.

      

Many insurance regulators say the high rates are caused by rising health care costs. In Iowa, for example, Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, a nonprofit insurer, has requested a 12 to 13 percent increase for some customers. Susan E. Voss, the state’s insurance commissioner, said there might not be any reason for regulators to deny the increase as unjustified. Last year, after looking at actuarial reviews, Ms. Voss approved a 9 percent increase requested by the same insurer.

      

“There’s a four-letter word called math,” Ms. Voss said, referring to the underlying medical costs that help determine what an insurer should charge in premiums. Health costs are rising, especially in Iowa, she said, where hospital mergers allow the larger systems to use their size to negotiate higher prices. “It’s justified.”

      

Some consumer advocates say the continued double-digit increases are a sign that the insurance industry needs to operate under new rules. Often, rates soar because insurers are operating plans that are closed to new customers, creating a pool of people with expensive medical conditions that become increasingly costly to insure.

      

While employers may be able to raise deductibles or co-payments as a way of reducing the cost of premiums, the insurer typically does not have that flexibility. And because insurers now take into account someone’s health, age and sex in deciding how much to charge, and whether to offer coverage at all, people with existing medical conditions are frequently unable to shop for better policies.

      

In many of these cases, the costs are increasing significantly, and the rates therefore cannot be determined to be unreasonable. “When you’re allowed medical underwriting and to close blocks of business, rate review will not affect this,” said Lynn Quincy, senior health policy analyst for Consumers Union.

      

The practice of medical underwriting — being able to consider the health of a prospective policy holder before deciding whether to offer coverage and what rate to charge — will no longer be permitted after 2014 under the health care law.

 

Original Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/business/despite-new-health-law-some-see-sharp-rise-in-premiums.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

How To Find Affordable Private Health Insurance --- BCBS, Aetna, Humana, etc. Aren't The ONLY RIGHT Answers ---FIND YOURS!

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

In March 23rd, the US health care system underwent the beginning of a major reform, which may have changed the way many people go about getting health cover. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act included a mandate that every American must have medical provision, or pay a fine. Some details of the Act are still awaiting a Supreme Court ruling.

The provisions of the Act roll out over the next few years. Some provisions came into effect within months of the Act being signed into law. Most of the changes so far have affected seniors, children, those with pre-existing conditions, and young adults. Within the next few years, there will be new programs that include co-ops and online exchanges.

In 2014 a provision comes into effect, called Promoting Individual Responsibility, which says that the majority of citizens must purchase health insurance - if they don't, they could face having to pay a fine.

Buying Health Insurance On Your Own

 

If you are not covered through your employer, or part of a COOP, and are not eligible to state funded programs, you will probably have to buy health insurance as an individual.

When selecting the right insurance option, the purchaser needs to be aware of various factors. For example, should the plan include prescription coverage or not? A female of childbearing age is more likely to opt for a plan that covers pre-natal visits.

Pre-existing conditions - there are now government-assistance programs, as well as new provisions in the new legislation to help those with pre-existing conditions get cover. Pre-existing conditions, for people aged under 19, are no longer permissible reasons refuse coverage in family plans. If you want to enroll somebody under 19 on their own, in some cases they need to be part of an open enrollment period.

Major insurance companies today are required to spend a good portion of the money they collect from their insured contributors on health care.

For those who cannot afford the price of health care insurance, there is currently financial assistance.

How To Find Private Health Insurance

Private health insurance is the main source of health coverage for the majority of people in the United States. Approximately 58% of all Americans have private health care coverage. For elderly citizens and eligible children and families from low-income households, public programs are the primary source of health cover. Public programs include Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP. TRICARE and the Veterans programs also provide some coverage.

If you are not covered by a publicly funded program, or if your coverage is only partial, you will need to have some kind of private health insurance. Such companies as USHealthGroup, America's Choice For Health Insurance, BCBS, Aetna, United Health Care, etc. 

Since the turn of the millennia, millions of Americans have found themselves with no health cover at all. Most studies place the number of "uninsured" at over 46 million. Tens of millions more have inadequate insurance.

---

Source: US Census Bureau

Offspring over the age of 19 and under 26 may now be added to their parents' insurance plan.

Matching Your Needs With What Is Available

Deciding on what best suits you, your current circumstances, plus those of your family's, may seem confusing and daunting. Experts advise purchasers to think carefully about what is ideal for them before proceeding with a purchase. The following points need to be considered carefully:

• One plan or separate plans - adding a spouse or offspring to a plan may be ideal, but not always so. In some cases, shoppers may find better deals by checking what is around first. It is important to balance to benefits offered against the amount that has to be paid out in premiums, in every case.
• Is your doctor included? - if you are considering an interesting plan, make sure your doctor or clinic is listed in their network of healthcare professionals. Otherwise, you may either have to change doctors, or pay out-of-pocket for the one you prefer.
• Only choose relevant options - do not choose a plan with options you do not need, in order to keep your premium costs to a minimum. If the purchaser or spouse is a female over 45, it is unlikely maternity coverage is a top priority. Even prescription plan coverage most likely will not cover all drugs, especially the newer, more expensive ones.
• Big premiums today, or in the future? - if you have little disposable income and enjoy good health, you might find it more convenient to opt for a high-deductible plan to start with, that has progressively lower monthly premiums with the passing of time. If your health care requirements are high now, a low-deductible plan to start with may be a better choice.

An important decision as such should not be handled alone unless you fully understand what you are getting for you and your family. Consider an advisor with USHealth Group, America's Choice For Health Insurance. Nannette Bean is an award-winning insurance advisor with USHealth Group.

Original Article Comes From:http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/health-insurance/find-private-health-insurance.php

FoxNews Reports: ObamaCare's "affordability glitch" Could Leave Your Family Without Health Care!!--- Stay Informed-MUST READ!

Could ObamaCare's 'affordability glitch' leave your family without health care?

 

• 
  
  

The “Affordable Care Act” is turning out to be anything but. Slogans reminiscent of the government doublespeak of George Orwell’s 1984 are taking the place of real access to real care.

Advocates for the poor are now suddenly concerned about a new oxymoron, the so-called “affordability glitch,” where your employer can no longer afford to cover you and your family, and you will be forced to go to the state exchanges for your health insurance only to discover that you can’t afford the rising premiums there and don’t qualify for a federal subsidy. The only “good news” about this glitch is that new IRS regulations may exempt you from paying the 2.5% tax for non-compliance, which is hardly a consolation when you still lack insurance.

Employers simply can’t afford to pay these health insurance premiums, especially for family plans, and remain in business. And you are no longer allowed to pick up the slack. Consider that ObamaCare will allow you to pay only 9.5% of your income towards an employer plan.
 According to new estimates just released by the Congressional Budget Office, at least 7 million people who now receive health insurance from their employer will not be covered by their jobs a decade from now. This is double the number the CBO previously predicted.
So what will your employer do? It is becoming more and more likely that he or she will drop your policy and pay the penalty, or reduce you to part time hours to avoid the penalty. According to new estimates just released by the Congressional Budget Office, at least 7 million people who now receive health insurance from their employer will not be covered by their jobs a decade from now. This is double the number the CBO previously predicted.

Twenty-three million of us will go to the state exchanges, according to the CBO, leaving 30 million non-elderly people still lacking health insurance by 2023.

How ironic are these estimates when you consider that ObamaCare’s stated purpose is to provide affordable insurance for all. So why the glitch? The answer is that premiums are rising to the point of unaffordability, something that the new law should have anticipated given its taste for comprehensive plans with low co-pays and limited deductibles ($2000 for an individual, $4000 per family maximum).

Consider the state exchanges, where beginning this October ObamaCare will offer four basic types of plans; Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum. Bronze is considered a basic, catastrophic-type plan, but this is simply false advertising by the Obama administration when you consider what the plan must cover; ambulatory and emergency patient services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance abuse services, prescription drugs, rehabilitation, laboratory, preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management, and pediatric services including oral and vision care.

Sounds great until you consider the cost of all these non-catastrophic services. Traditionally, high deductibles have kept premiums down by promoting cost-sharing; you pay out of pocket for basic well care and utilize a health savings accounts to provide you with a tax deduction for most or all of these payments. ObamaCare doesn’t believe in this kind of common-sense cost sharing and is trying to decrease out of pocket payments. When you take away these proven disincentives for overuse, you are left with an entitlement behemoth.

Rising premiums automatically accompany comprehensive insurance plans in an age of expensive medical technology. Insurers transfer costs to the consumer. The bronze and silver plans on the state exchanges will limit the amount you can pay for premiums to 9.5% of your income if your income is 300-400% of the poverty line, but on average, the IRS estimates that a family of 5 will be paying $20,000 for a bronze plan. This is simply unaffordable to most families.

There’s that glitch again. And here’s the main oxymoron; The unaffordable affordable act.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/11/could-obamacare-affordability-glitch-leave-your-family-without-health-care/#ixzz2KtNMUcsw Original Article By Dr. Marc Siegel; Published February 11, 2013 via FoxNews.com