Your Medical Plan $Changes/Increases for 2011?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by SD Transplant on October 21, 2010 - 8:31am

Well, glad to do a public service & report that my medical plan is going to go up 17.28% from 2010 to 2011.

What $changes/increases did u see on your medical plan for next year (it's enrolment time)?

Submitted by Coronita on October 21, 2010 - 8:47am.

Went from $0/month +no copay to $100/month + $20copay...

Oh well...

Submitted by tc on October 21, 2010 - 9:12am.

My copay is up over 100%. But I guess it is still cheap compared to what lots of people pay.

Submitted by bearishgurl on October 21, 2010 - 9:24am.

I have an individual policy and my premium went up 20% October 1 to compensate my ins. co. for now having to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions after the passage of the HCRA. Even if my ins. co. charges many of them an $800-$1500 mo. premium, they are still a "loss" to carry.

My co-pays of $40 primary/$50 specialist/$12 generic drugs and $8,000 yr. co-insurance if I land in the hospital remained the same.

Because of the recent passage of HCRA, I expect my premium will rise => 20% per year until I am eligible for Medicare (assuming it's still around by then) :={

Submitted by UCGal on October 21, 2010 - 10:19am.

My employer has been shifting costs from employer to employee... so my portion went up more than it would have (same with last year). This accounts for a 2% increase this year.

But looking at COBRA rates -to get the actual premiums charged by the insurance company gives me a better understanding of how insurance went up... and it varied widely based on which plan.

My employer offers 3 plans that are self managed (serviced by a large provider, but the underlying insurance is provided by the employer). It also offers two HMO's.

premium change for family coverage:
* High ded. plan with HSA - increase 5.36% YoY
* Typical 80/20 plan - 6.27% YoY
* PPO plan - 6.8% YoY
* Anthem HMO - 25%
* Kaiser HMO - 6.6%

So - Anthem jacked the rates up a lot more than the other 4 plans.

I have similar data for last year... Anthem increased 11% for 2010, compared to 5-6% for the other plans.

I suspect Anthem is losing even more customers based on this.

Submitted by aldante on October 21, 2010 - 10:31am.

My company is paying the same % as they always have so this is a true increase to me. 12.6%. And my co-pay goes from $20 to $25 (in 2006 it was $10). BTW this is with Kaiser.
I guess Bernanke is wrong (is that even possible?) that inflation is tame.

FM

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on October 21, 2010 - 10:34am.

I have one of those great plans with - 0 deductibe, 0 copays through my employer. As a result of "HCR" I will probably have to start paying $10 copays and 10% coinsurance for hospitalization now, Sigh! (I realize it is still pretty good! Not complaining).

My employer is certainly paying more- don't know how much

Submitted by UCGal on October 21, 2010 - 11:39am.

enron_by_the_sea wrote:
I have one of those great plans with - 0 deductibe, 0 copays through my employer. As a result of "HCR" I will probably have to start paying $10 copays and 10% coinsurance for hospitalization now, Sigh! (I realize it is still pretty good! Not complaining).

My employer is certainly paying more- don't know how much


Isn't your plan grandfathered in? Most large employers are allowed to continue without the HCR provisions for several years. I realize some of the benefit of the HCR won't affect you since you have no copay - but the idea of not having to pay for preventative stuff (if you had a copay) is nice. This is a non-issue for you since you have no copay... but it reduces the indignity of a colonoscopy, lol.

Submitted by air_ogi on October 21, 2010 - 12:30pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
I have an individual policy and my premium went up 20% October 1 to compensate my ins. co. for now having to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions after the passage of the HCRA.

That provision doesn't come in effect until January 1, 2014.

Submitted by meadandale on October 21, 2010 - 1:46pm.

My HSA compatible high deductible plan went from $356 every two months to $422 every two months. +18.5%

Also, note that I can no longer use HSA funds to buy over the counter medications...

Thanks Obama! Keep up your awesome-ness!

Submitted by davelj on October 21, 2010 - 2:31pm.

I have a catastrophic policy with a $10K deductible that I locked in last year at $165/year for three years. So that's locked in through the end of next year. I may very well just buy health insurance in Mexico beginning in 2012 since I only use their health care services. If so, although I haven't checked yet, I'm betting a similar policy will be maybe $50/month. The only risk is that I'm in a life-threatening accident of some kind here in the US and can't make it across the border. So, I need to figure out if there's a way to add onto the Mexican policy to hedge against that kind of outlier.

Submitted by abell on October 21, 2010 - 3:13pm.

We have small group health insurance. Our policy cost $565 per month last year for employee, spouse, and children (this is a high deductible PPO with Blue Shield) and this year they are raising their prices to cover preventive care and the same plan (that now includes preventive care at no extra charge) went to $690. We switched plans to one that cost $640 per month, which has a higher deductible but lower maximum out of pocket. Since my husband and I own the business, the share of cost from employer and employee doesn't really apply.

Submitted by SK in CV on October 21, 2010 - 4:03pm.

The changes to the OTC rules don't start until 2011. So stock up now. You can still use HSA funds for physician prescribed OTC medications. Your HSA debit card probably won't work for them, but you can submit a manual reimbursement form.

Submitted by Coronita on October 21, 2010 - 8:02pm.

Ok...So I have to ask...Did any of you or will any of you actually benefit from the health care changes. I guess folks with preexisting conditions that aren't covered by a group policy from an employer will.. But I'm just curious if this is beneficial to anyone whom I consider in the need category (un-insurable or harder to insure category). I hope the answer is yes....

Submitted by Coronita on October 21, 2010 - 8:07pm.

enron_by_the_sea wrote:
I have one of those great plans with - 0 deductibe, 0 copays through my employer. As a result of "HCR" I will probably have to start paying $10 copays and 10% coinsurance for hospitalization now, Sigh! (I realize it is still pretty good! Not complaining).

My employer is certainly paying more- don't know how much

If you're talking about qualcomm under the exec health plan, then chances are you won't have too...I believe Qualcomm is self insured (their "plan" is only administered by UHC)....Non executive health plans still have the standard $10/10% and no monthly premium i believe.
Where the cut might happen is the extra perks under the exec health plan...

Submitted by meadandale on October 21, 2010 - 8:13pm.

flu wrote:
Ok...So I have to ask...Did any of you or will any of you actually benefit from the health care changes. I guess folks with preexisting conditions that aren't covered by a group policy from an employer will.. But I'm just curious if this is beneficial to anyone whom I consider in the need category (un-insurable or harder to insure category). I hope the answer is yes....

Well, I'm clearly not in the need category as I pay for my own health insurance (self employed) and won't qualify for government subsidized care.

However, I can say without qualification that the health care changes have only negatively affected my ability to afford healthcare, or in general.

To whit:

1) In spite of the claims that this would reduce health care costs my premiums have risen almost 20% since this legislation passed.

2) OTC medications can no longer be purchased using my HSA funds.

3) And, best of all, the 1099 provision in the massive bill that nobody read means that my costs of doing business as a small business owner will increase substantially in order to comply with the new law.

Yeah, I'm thrilled about the passage of this bill; nothing that was done will reduce my costs at all and the only thing I have to look forward to is higher taxes.

On a side note, a liberal friend of mine claimed that I surely got a tax break from Obama last year. I provided evidence that in fact, this was not in fact true and that my tax bill had risen since he took office in spite of his claim that 95% of people (unless you made over $200-250k) received a tax cut. In spite of the fact that I didn't in fact make enough to reach O's threshold, I did in fact pay higher taxes in 2009 than in 2008.

His response?

Alright well you guys got me. If your'e not a "working family" because you're self-employed or a business owner, and can't take advantage of the self-employment tax cut or any of the 16 small business tax cuts, then I guess you are simply out of luck.

Out of luck...so much for the 'everyone got a tax cut' BS.

Submitted by paramount on October 21, 2010 - 9:27pm.

This year the only choice we have is Cigna; all other options have been dropped.

So just to review, in the last 2 years I have lost the following:

1. My pension
2. 401k cut by 50%
3. Vacation time cut
4. Lost all sick time
5. Lost holidays (including July 4th)
6. And now choice in Healthcare

But oh yes, were supposed to be happy to have a job.

Meanwhile, public sector workers live in a fairy tale world of high pay and benefits including golden pensions and lifetime benefits.

We've been duped into thinking unions are bad; if I was union my employer wouldn't be getting away with stripping our benefits without a fight.

Sooner or later I'll wise up and walk away from my house.

Submitted by davelj on October 22, 2010 - 9:02am.

paramount wrote:

Sooner or later I'll wise up and walk away from my house.

You and lots of other Piggs say this (often)... and then never actually do it. I'm waiting for one single Pigg to "strategically default." One. Please be that person. Then we can say that at least one Pigg walked the talk in this department.

Words are plentiful; deeds are precious.

Submitted by moneymaker on October 22, 2010 - 9:27am.

I don't believe Obama's health care package does anything to control costs (have not read it, nor will I, just a feeling), so when Nancy Pelosi says it will trim 1.2 Billion from healthcare costs I have to assume she is talking about saving the government that money under one of the many government sponsored health care programs offered to the elderly, disabled, or those on welfare(yes I'm calling it what it is!). I haven't got my reenrollment package yet, but I am afraid. One thing I've learned is that most doctors/hospitals have no idea what your co-pay actually is. So hang onto those old cards and just pluck it on the counter then you can keep paying your same old co-pay. My wife says hers has nearly doubled, Yikes!

Submitted by bearishgurl on October 22, 2010 - 10:13am.

air_ogi wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
I have an individual policy and my premium went up 20% October 1 to compensate my ins. co. for now having to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions after the passage of the HCRA.

That provision doesn't come in effect until January 1, 2014.

meadandale wrote:
Well, I'm clearly not in the need category as I pay for my own health insurance (self employed) and won't qualify for government subsidized care.

However, I can say without qualification that the health care changes have only negatively affected my ability to afford healthcare, or in general.

To whit:

1) In spite of the claims that this would reduce health care costs my premiums have risen almost 20% since this legislation passed. . .

Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The "form letter" I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the "option" of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my "grandfathered" benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be "reworked" to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.

As an aside here, I do contract work for a few very small businesses (law firms) who have stated that it would cost them $535 (basic HMO) to $1520 mo for a comprehensive health plan (low ded. and copays) for an employee in my age group (depending on their state of health). Their rates are virtually the same as an individual plan and many required first qualifying (for ages 50-65) before HCRA was passed.

The TRUTH is, the baby-boomer crowd is expensive to insure for a variety of reasons. No matter how smart and/or qualified we are, no small biz that can't get a group rate wants to pay it. This issue literally HAS to be addressed at the initial job interview (i.e. applicant is already covered) because if it ISN'T, the applicant will never hear from the employer again except to possibly get a rejection letter.

Unfortunately, my biz is mostly comprised of small firms who can't get competitive "group rates."

I've also had the convo on a second interview (before I had indiv. coverage) as to how much LESS I would take than the "going rate" (i.e. what younger counterpart in firm was making for same or similar job) in order to offer me comparable health coverage to that employee. The firm partner actually had a calculator in front of him during the interview and and was trying to determine how much I would cost to retain . . . in total. Not sure he does/did this with younger applicants but it is what it is. Not sure if this practice is actually illegal. The Piggs running businesses who posted here are telling the truth. The cost of health care puts a severe crimp on their business expenses, making it more cost-effective for them to contract out work rather than hire.

Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.

I think instead of the wholesale overhaul of the health insurance industry, the HCRA could have been structured differently (like high-risk auto ins) and just affected the state-run high risk pools. The Feds could have just subsidized the state run pools to provide "affordable" premiums to them only and leave the rest of the plans untouched.

For instance, no insurance company (for ANY price - even a $1500 mo. premium) wants to take a recent cancer survivor . . . for good reason. And this statement is coming from someone who has lost several close relatives to cancer.

air_ogi, SOMEBODY has to subsidize the premiums of the frequent health-care users and the sick who will all soon be "covered." This $$ will come off the backs of employers, employees and individual policy holders. There will be no more rewards (in the form of a low premium) for taking care of oneself and using exercise and alternative therapies (out-of-pocket) instead of running to the doctor constantly. Health insurance won't work like other forms of insurance anymore.

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on October 22, 2010 - 10:52am.

As it stands now - the future is HSA+HDHP for everyone. Some will get there earlier, some will get there later. But eventually that is where we all will be! That is all we can afford as a society.

I am not sure if following cost lowering alternatives were ever considered.

[1] Offer catastrophic only coverage at affordable rates through govt. for uninsured.
Not sure why everyone is so fixated on covering every single illness to the uninsured on taxpayer dime.

[2] If you ever use a ER without paying for it - govt. will reimburse the hospital at medicare rate and records it with IRS as a debt to be collected from your SSN.

Submitted by bearishgurl on October 22, 2010 - 11:18am.

enron_by_the_sea wrote:
As it stands now - the future is HSA+HDHP for everyone. Some will get there earlier, some will get there later. But eventually that is where we all will be! That is all we can afford as a society.

I am not sure if following cost lowering alternatives were ever considered.

[1] Offer catastrophic only coverage at affordable rates through govt. for uninsured.
Not sure why everyone is so fixated on covering every single illness to the uninsured on taxpayer dime.

[2] If you ever use a ER without paying for it - govt. will reimburse the hospital at medicare rate and records it with IRS as a debt to be collected from your SSN.

Good points, enron, esp. #2. Emergency room bills at Medicare rate could be withheld from patients' Federal tax refunds (even their huge earned income credits)! Even Medi-cal has a low co-pay and covers EVERYTHING including comprehensive dental services! Only the choice of providers is limited. Why do we as taxpayers OWE these services to this group when we can't afford this level of service ourselves??

I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don't have "wages" to withold an HSA from). I just don't think it's right to raise the premiums of a HDHP (which only has a limited 100% "preventative-care" benefit) to exorbitant levels on an individual policyholder who has never tapped into their post-$8,000 ded. hospital benefit. My ins. co. has been doing nothing but making a sizable profit off me for the last few years. I understand the "age-group" pricing but feel like my record alone should speak for MY current premium and not other insureds' (or soon-to-be-insureds') records.

I don't deserve to pay for others' health problems (whether intentionally or unintentionally caused) and I can ill afford it. It's not fair to me and I think health premiums should be based solely upon the record of the individual policyholder, like other forms of insurance.

And yes, even if I was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, I would still have the same opinion.

Submitted by SK in CV on October 22, 2010 - 11:46am.

bearishgurl wrote:

Well, air_ogi, how else do you explain this huge YoY increase?? I started with this plan in 2004 and it has NEVER increased this much YoY. The "form letter" I was sent in August implementing the 10/1/10 increase stated that they were complying with the new HCRA. It gave me the "option" of giving up my plan for a lesser plan ($10,000 co-insurance for hospitalization) for the same premium I had but I would lose my "grandfathered" benefits and my *newly chosen* plan would be subject to be "reworked" to comply with their new requirements under HCRA.

If you haven't had these sorts of YOY increases in the past you're unique. I don't even consider it huge. My premiums increased 311% over the last 9 years (for a policy year beginning 7/1/10). Three times over that period, premiums increased by more than 25% in a single year. My experience was only slightly higher than most because of my particular employee census. That you've never had those kinds of increases is almost shocking. Twenty percent a year has been pretty typical and any argument, on the part of the insurance companies is disengenuous at best, and outright lie at worst. The only significant part of the new law that will affect this policy year is insurance companies inability to cancel coverage, and mandatory of allowance of children up to age 26 (though there are certain extensions on the applicability of that part of the law.) And that's a part of the law that insurance companies LOVE. There are no better customers than 22-26 year olds, they don't get sick and they don't go to the doctor.

The reason for the increase this year is the same as it has been over the last 15 years. To increase profits. Certainly the possiblity exists that increases were accelerated in anticipation of some price controls under the new law which won't take effect for a few years.

United Health just came out with their earnings. Beat the street by a huge margin. Came in with an 80.9 loss ratio, which they brag about. At the same time, complaining that the new law requires at least an 80% loss ratio. (And their 80.9% was on ALL policies, the will be allowed as low as a 75% loss ratio on individual policies.)

Insurance companies make money when they can. I don't suspect the new law will do much more than slightly slow the increases in premiums. And the insurance companies won't make less under the new law, they'll make more. Afterall, they wrote the law.(Who do you think insisted on mandatory coverage? That was not an idea borne in the halls of congress.) But we certainly weren't promised any declines in premiums, before the law even takes effect. Anyone that was expecting that wasn't paying attention.

(As an afterthought....did you move into a new age bracket? Comanies have different brackets, but if your age now ends in a 5, a 6, 0, or a 1, that may explain the increase. Particularly moving from the late 30's through the early 60's, the increases are stunning.)

bearishgurl wrote:
Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.

That makes no sense. Why would any company intentionally shrink now, because of costs that may rise 3 years from now? I'm not disputing that you're seeing it, but I'm in contact with a few dozen businesses every month in that same size range, and not a single one has moved in that direction. Some of those currently under 50 employees are ecstatic with the new tax credits that will help them pay their employees insurance, beginning this year.

I'm not, by the way, in favor of that mandate. I think it's a huge mistake to link health care with employment, and this law strengthens that link. Insurance companies love it. De-linking is a part of the long term solution. With the undue influence of the insurance industry (and in a broader sense, the entire finance industry, of which insurance is a part) on both parties in congress, the likelihood of that happening any time soon is slight.

Submitted by meadandale on October 22, 2010 - 11:58am.

bearishgurl wrote:

I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don't have "wages" to withold an HSA from). I just don't think it's right to raise the premiums of a HDHP (which only has a limited 100% "preventative-care" benefit) to exorbitant levels on an individual policyholder who has never tapped into their post-$8,000 ded. hospital benefit. My ins. co. has been doing nothing but making a sizable profit off me for the last few years. I understand the "age-group" pricing but feel like my record alone should speak for MY current premium and not other insureds' (or soon-to-be-insureds') records.

That's a high deductible for a HDHP...and I don't think that you have to have *wages* in order to contribute to an HSA. I'm self employed and although I pay myself a salary, my company pays my HSA contribution every month as part of my medical benefit. Both the premiums and the HSA contribution end up being medical benefits at the end of the year and are a line item deduction.

Submitted by bearishgurl on October 22, 2010 - 1:09pm.

meadandale wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:

I HAVE a HDHP but no HSA (I don't have "wages" to withold an HSA from). . .

That's a high deductible for a HDHP...and I don't think that you have to have *wages* in order to contribute to an HSA. I'm self employed and although I pay myself a salary, my company pays my HSA contribution every month as part of my medical benefit. Both the premiums and the HSA contribution end up being medical benefits at the end of the year and are a line item deduction.

Meadandale, my "deductible" is only $5,000. But my co-insurance portion is $8,000. Practically speaking, I pay very little co-insurance every year, because I just use the 100%-covered "preventative care" benefits. So the whole (or nearly the whole) $8,000 co-insurance would kick in if I landed in the hospital. Years ago (before I was on an indiv. plan), I was in the hospital for just 40 hours and my bill was nearly $11,000. My health plan at the time paid 75% of it, I got the rest written down some and made a deal with the hospital to pay the balance off in 6 mos. with 0% interest, which I did.

I know I can open an HSA on my own, but don't want or need one as I'm in a very low tax bracket. My premiums alone now nearly equal 7.5% of my gross income BEFORE any co-pays or deductibles. Due to my recent premium hike, I will probably be able to take the medical deduction on my tax return and pay NO tax for 2011, even if I NEVER use ANY care next year!

Submitted by PatentGuy on October 22, 2010 - 1:09pm.

We have approx 30 FT employees (located throughout California), and our insurance plans only went up 14-15% over last year. Emphasis on only.

We buy through some sort of insurance brokerage that bundles small businesses for obtaining allegedly better rates with Blue Cross Blue Shield. Emphasis on allegedly.

I'm not sure what the future holds, but these kinds of increases while our earnings continue to be down (40% off from 2007) does not bode well for our ability to keep offering employees medical insurance.

Submitted by bearishgurl on October 22, 2010 - 1:32pm.

SK in CV wrote:
If you haven't had these sorts of YOY increases in the past you're unique. I don't even consider it huge. My premiums increased 311% over the last 9 years (for a policy year beginning 7/1/10). Three times over that period, premiums increased by more than 25% in a single year. My experience was only slightly higher than most because of my particular employee census. That you've never had those kinds of increases is almost shocking. Twenty percent a year has been pretty typical . . .

SK, I just figured out my premiums have gone up 253% since 2004 and this is the first year they have actually gone up 20%. All during that time, I was enrolled in the same HDHP. And no, I did not recently hit a new "age bracket." My carrier has a new "age-bracket" for EVERY age.

SK in CV wrote:
Certainly the possiblity exists that increases were accelerated in anticipation of some price controls under the new law which won't take effect for a few years.

But we certainly weren't promised any declines in premiums, before the law even takes effect. Anyone that was expecting that wasn't paying attention.

Didn't expect declines, SK, but also didn't expect to pay for all my "contemporaries'" health problems, either, in the form of an undeserved much higher premium on an HDHP. And it's not over yet.

SK in CV wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
Unfortunately, the loss of full-time jobs will continue to be the fallout from the HCRA. I see many firms with just over 50 employees begin to pare down their workforces to <49 employees before 2014 to avoid being mandated to offer health coverage.

That makes no sense. Why would any company intentionally shrink now, because of costs that may rise 3 years from now? I'm not disputing that you're seeing it, but I'm in contact with a few dozen businesses every month in that same size range, and not a single one has moved in that direction. Some of those currently under 50 employees are ecstatic with the new tax credits that will help them pay their employees insurance, beginning this year.

SK, I never stated that employers are shrinking their workforces RIGHT NOW. I stated that they WILL by 1/1/14 if they have just over 50 employees today and can easily retire some and/or not fill openings to have *under 50* employees by 1/1/14. This unnoticeable "RIF over time" wouldn't be very hard to plan for and implement.

Submitted by PatentGuy on October 22, 2010 - 2:28pm.

Any time the government takes from some and gives to others, the people being taken from don't like it, and the people on the receiving end like it.

As far as I can tell, the people on the receiving end of health care $$$ are first and foremost the insurance companies. But, I'm sure lots of entities have their hand in the pot.

Bearishgurl, you are being a bit hard on the "newly insurable." Do you feel this way about people you already subsidize with food stamps or medicare or [fill in the blank]? Obama made no secret during his campaign that he was all about wealth redistribution. He was overwhelmingly elected, so I assume people who voted for him were OK with his plans for wealth redistribution. Did you vote for him? If so, you got what you voted for.

Submitted by meadandale on October 22, 2010 - 2:36pm.

PatentGuy wrote:
Obama made no secret during his campaign that he was all about wealth redistribution. He was overwhelmingly elected, so I assume people who voted for him were OK with his plans for wealth redistribution. Did you vote for him? If so, you got what you voted for.

Which is why, as much as I hated McCain I could never have voted for Barry...

Submitted by jstoesz on October 22, 2010 - 2:46pm.

agreed...verbatim.

Submitted by air_ogi on October 22, 2010 - 3:09pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

air_ogi, SOMEBODY has to subsidize the premiums of the frequent health-care users and the sick who will all soon be "covered." This $$ will come off the backs of employers, employees and individual policy holders. There will be no more rewards (in the form of a low premium) for taking care of oneself and using exercise and alternative therapies (out-of-pocket) instead of running to the doctor constantly. Health insurance won't work like other forms of insurance anymore.

And that is why the requirement to have insurance goes along with removal of pre-existing conditions.

So over last couple years, salaries of doctors have been relatively constant as have been the prices of the medical equipment.

And yet we had insurance increase by 10+% every year. So that means that either insurance companies are making way more money or insured people are way sicker.
After looking the financial reports for several insurance companies, I can tell you that none of them are having significant increases in profit.

So what is going on is that as prices are rising, more and more healthy people are leaving the insurance pool. And it's an interesting cycle, since as more healthy people leave the pool, the higher the rise in the insurance rates, resulting in more healthy people leaving the pool.
If you look at insurance rates for a large corporation, which has a nice captive pool, the price increase have been nowhere near small business and individual market.

I have absolutely no idea why you would blame Obamacare for this.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.