Older hill aides shocked by Obamacare prices

[FarCenter]

Veteran House Democratic aides are sick over the insurance prices they’ll pay under Obamacare, and they’re scrambling to find a cure.

“In a shock to the system, the older staff in my office (folks over 59) have now found out their personal health insurance costs (even with the government contribution) have gone up 3-4 times what they were paying before,” Minh Ta, chief of staff to Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), wrote to fellow Democratic chiefs of staff in an email message obtained by POLITICO. “Simply unacceptable.”

In the email, Ta noted that older congressional staffs may leave their jobs because of the change to their health insurance.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/older-capitol-hill-aides-obamacare-affordable-care-act-prices-health-insurance-100226.html

[Lex]

1. Welcome to what the rest of us have been dealing with for years. nt

[Fumesucker]

44. Not all of us..

Quite a few of us don't have any insurance and aren't likely to have any insurance any time soon.

[Shrike47]

2. The older ones may find that getting a new job ain't so easy.

[SoCalDem]

9. Actually, many of them will have no trouble getting hired

They know "where the bodies are buried"..and lobbyists will hire them.. Their pay will probably be increased to equal out what extra premiums are costing.

I can actually see a new industry springing up.. A firm is created for them, and then they are "leased-back" to the senator/congressman/woman.. They have a foot on both sides..

[NYC_SKP]

3. If true, it's only because they had an extraordinarily and unequitable (to us) form of benefit.

Welcome to the real world, aides.

[Lex]

4. A gift from us.

Exactly.

[elleng]

5. Don't know about inequitable,

but if referring to Federal Employees Health Benefits, yes, extraordinarily good plans offered. I as a retired federal employee still benefit, thanks for govt, our employer, contribution. I wondered for years why our plan wasn't used as a sample for everyone.

[NYC_SKP]

6. I say inequitable from the point of view of one who doesn't enjoy these benefits.

One can only hope that their packages of benefits would have increasingly become common in the private sector rather than increasingly rare, as the case has been.

[CreekDog]

52. Actually, the exhanges were modeled on the Federal Employee Exchange

a few previous versions of health reform included allowing people to buy into the Federal Benefit System.

[elleng]

53. Yes, I recall seeing that,

and hoped people would be able to 'adopt' FEHBP.'
And obviously, those who manage it have huge amounts of clout with insurers, so they keep b.s. out, they work for Federal employees, a large workforce with some amount of clout.

[Luminous Animal]

7. Sounds like you would prefer a dog eat dog world.

They are workers, like us, and their benefits are no more inequitable than those of union members who negotiate good benefits that are, ultimately reflected in the cost of the product they produce.

What they had should have been emulated. What they lost shouldn't be fodder for snarkery.

[NYC_SKP]

8. No. My point is that their "shock" is disingenuous. They should have been more aware and...

...and shocked at the growing disparity between their nice benefits and the rest of the nation.

Nothing that I wrote suggests a preference for a dog eat dog world.

[Luminous Animal]

12. How do you know that they didn't know?

I am well aware of the wide gaps in coverage and costs and I am shocked at how at how much more I will have to pay for insurance to replace the plan that has been cancelled.

Being shocked by a severe increase in price does not mean they were not aware of inequalities.

[VanillaRhapsody]

13. Not to mention the fact that govt employees on the whole get paid less than the private sector...t

the benefits package makes up for THAT inequity.

[CountAllVotes]

39. +1

Absolutely correct. I know -- did it myself for over 10 years and no, I did not make much (~$17,000.00/yr.). As for the benefits, same old same old. If you wanted good care and things like dental benefits, you had to pay pay pay and no, it was not cheap! Hence, I had Kaiser Permanente most of the years I worked for them and frankly, Kaiser is not that great IMO.

I really wish people knew the reality of what most Federal workers make -- those in the lower grade positions which is where many workers fall (GS-2 - GS-7).

[kelliekat44]

64. Congressional aides are not "government workers" last time I looked. They have an entire different

pay scale and employment rules. They generally make out like their bosses in the kinds of benefits and work requirements. I was once assigned on detail to a Congressional office. Believe me, those employees are not the same as the grunts working for the Federal Executive Branch of government.

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. They are Federal Employees....not in the Private Sector...

[ogradda]

49. Snarkery. Heh.

I agree with your content though. People losing good heath care isn't a good thing.

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. and only a fraction over 1% are losing "good" insurance...

the rest are either the same or better....

[CreekDog]

15. I'm not sure that the article is true

the most common Federal Employee plan, if my research is correct is Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO.

the rate for a single individual is:

189/month employee contribution
483/month employer
for a plan that costs 672/month total.

3-4 times that (according to the article) would be:

661/month employee contribution
1691/month employer contribution (if the employer share stayed the same)
for a plan that costs 2352/month total.

such a plan doesn't exist for a single individual in Washington DC.

it's Bullshit.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. I'm sure it's true

One of the worst provisions of the ACA was the one that allows insurance companies to charge people over 50 three times what younger people are charged for the same policy.

My insurance premium nearly doubled, but the deductible went down.

[CreekDog]

25. I'm sure you're wrong, no matter how sure you are, here's why

I've been looking up prices for the oldest individuals.

Even family coverage for 2 adults in their 50's is less than the amount the Politico article is suggesting an individual is paying in this case.

it's bullshit.

[Art_from_Ark]

40. I've known LL for years

and have met her in person on several occasions, including just recently. She comes across to me as someone who is straightforward and won't bullshit people. I believe her when she says that her premiums went way up while her deductible went down.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. Thanks for the vote of confidence, Art

One thing that Creek Dog may not realize is that I'm self-employed and that it IS allowed under the ACA to charge people over 50 up to three times more than a younger person for the same policy.

[Art_from_Ark]

59. That is really messed up

In the past, people might have started going downhill quickly after 50, but that was due in large part to smoking and excessive drinking, I think. Today's 50-somethings tend to be healthier, although it seems that in the US, they tend to be on some medication or other, whether they actually need it or not. So health insurance companies might try to use that to justify higher premiums. But charging 3X a younger person's premium is ridiculous.

[mainer]

63. Not bullshit. Unsubsidized ACA plans are high for older folks.

I don't qualify for a subsidy, and bronze plan quoted for me and spouse under ACA is $1400 a month.

It is almost identical to what I'm currently paying privately, so it's no surprise. But would be a big surprise to those whose insurance is now subsidized by employer.

[NutmegYankee]

47. The employer share became a fixed price.

Also, you should compare the family rates.

[bornskeptic]

50. I think they are saying the employee contribution is 3 or 4 times as large.

I would assume that the FEHP is community rated, and so has no age differential in pricing. Plans offered on the exchange can have a 3:1 age differential, so older workers are going to end up with higher premiums, while the employer contribution remains the same.

[scheming daemons]

10. because their employer is FORBIDDEN from contributing

Thanks to GOP.

[mainer]

62. And this does explain everything

It shifts the cost from employer to individual (if employer has fewer than 50 employees)

It makes the article perfectly plausible.

[scheming daemons]

11. you Better Believe It, dkf!

Enough is enough

(Soon I hope)

[JNelson6563]

54. Somethin' like that.

[eqfan592]

14. I'm inclined to call bullshit.

I'm a federal employee, and I've got what's considered the best plan available by most. I spend $400-600 a month for our family plan, and many of the exchange premiums fall well below that for similar coverage.

[Luminous Animal]

16. How old are you?

[CreekDog]

17. it is bullshit, here's why:

Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 10:03 PM - Edit history (2)

the most common Federal Employee plan, if my research is correct is Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO.

the rate for a single individual is:

189/month employee contribution
483/month employer
for a plan that costs 672/month total.

3-4 times that (according to the article) would be:

661/month employee contribution
1691/month employer contribution (if the employer share stayed the same)
for a plan that costs 2352/month total.

such a plan doesn't exist for a single individual in Washington DC.

it's Bullshit.

[Luminous Animal]

20. How old are you? The exchange allows insurance companies to charge up to 3

times the rate for older citizens.

[CreekDog]

22. I priced it based on a 55 year old, here look:

Health Insurance premium in 2014 (for a silver plan, before tax credit):$5,653 per year for a silver plan.

that's actually less than the total premium of their current plan.


http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/#state=&zip=&income-type=dollars&income=100000&employer-coverage=0&people=1&alternate-plan-family=individual&adult-count=1&adults%5B0%5D%5Bage%5D=55&adults%5B0%5D%5Btobacco%5D=0&child-count=0&child-tobacco=0

[Luminous Animal]

27. And that may well be 3 to 4 times as much that they are already paying.

Federal congressional assistants may be getting a better plan than you

[CreekDog]

28. no they aren't. quit making shit up.

they are covered by the same Federal Employee Health Benefits and same plans as other Federal Employees.

that's what the law required.

the federal subsidy is 72% employer 28% employee.

the only way things went up 3 times is if there's no employer contribution thanks to the GOP, that's not Obamacare's fault.

[okaawhatever]

30. No, the employer contribution portion stayed in the legislation. It does not allow the staffers to

get the subsidies, though. I don't know how many of them make less than 400% of poverty, but even then the problem isn't so much the ACA as the Republicans who wanted to make sure they had bad stories to tell and forced these people on it without the subsidies. Shame on them.

[Luminous Animal]

32. I'm not making shit up. I am exploring and looking for answers.

I am trying to figure this out thinking that people won't be an asshole to me. No thanks to you. And yes. It may not be Obamacare's fault but that doesn't change reality.

This is very complicated. My insurance was cancelled and it WILL cost me more than $400 a month to get comparable coverage. That is a pretty big budget hit.

[CreekDog]

33. well we are talking about whether the article is correct or not

and it talks about federal employees

it says they are going to be charged 3 to 4 times what they currently pay for insurance, even with subsidies.

considering the average policy for those employees *now*, running roughly 6000 per year for a single person, to increase 3 to 4 times, the new policy would have to be 18000 to 24000 per year --ridiculous, astronomically wrong.

[NutmegYankee]

48. I think they are looking at their premiums paid in a paycheck.

The amount the gov is tossing in is fixed and will not increase as a percentage IIRC. So a staffer in their 50s may see their normal check deduction jump.

[pnwmom]

35. So what? It's their own Rethug Congresspeople who insisted on this.

The Dems wanted their aids to be able to keep their government insurance.

[Luminous Animal]

37. I know that. Not once have I blamed "ObamaCare".

[eqfan592]

46. Until this legislation, the staffers and congress itself had access...

...to the exact same plans as all other federal employees.

[Luminous Animal]

29. Age 59. The age mentioned in the article $6599 per year. Add a spouse

$13,198 per year.

[CreekDog]

31. that's about the same, even less than current Blue Cross coverage

what are you talking about?

do you believe everything you read while we are explaining to you how wrong the article is?

[Luminous Animal]

36. Was there coverage subsidized by their employers (the govt.) before?

Has that subsidy changed? There are details absent from the article AND those who purport to claim the article is wrong.

[Skip Intro]

38. I've always imagined CreekDog as being 12 or so. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

42. :)

[CreekDog]

51. You're the one that started a thread in Meta about me then self alerted it pretending to be another

12?

what did you say about Trayvon Martin?

what did you say about Benghazi?

why did you mock people and minimize their suffering during the gov't shutdown?

me 12?

at least i'm a liberal.

[mainer]

60. Maybe because it's now without employer contributions?

If they were paying 189/month when employer chipped in 483, now without employer they're paying the total amount (672) that would be about 3 -4 x.

They're just seeing the true cost of health insurance, now that they're doing it without employer contribution.

[eqfan592]

45. Early thirties. nt

[okaawhatever]

19. No kidding. I think if anything, they referred to the federal plan as "heavily subsidized" and then

mentioned the "contribution" that is now being made to those on the exchanges. Even so, the prices quoted for a gold plan were only in the $600 range before employer contribution. I'm sick of these stories that offer nothing in the way of facts. If this is so bad, why isn't anyone putting out the before and after costs and benefits? I keep hearing hyperbole with nothing to back it up.

[Luminous Animal]

24. Do they qualify for a policy on the exchange? I don't...

and my policy was cancelled. There are income limitations to qualifying. To buy similar coverage, with near the same benefits, will cost me over $400 a month.

[CreekDog]

23. correct. it is bullshit. look at my post.

a silver plan for a 55 year old in Washington DC, is actually less than the total premium the average single, Federal Employee currently pays.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

21. What a surprise! A negative spin from you again.

And the beat goes on. Just making you aware you are more than transparent in your aims.

[Egnever]

26. This smells like someone

Shipped their pants!

[pnwmom]

34. So what? This poison pill was engineered by the Rethugs.

They were the ones to insist that these aids leave their govt. health plans and switch to the Exchanges. They even wanted to prevent lower paid employees from getting subsidies. They were hoping that this would prevent Dems from passing the ACA.

So blame them.

[Ikonoklast]

41. Just more victims of the Republicans.

Gee, look at all those recs you got!

Oops.

[HERVEPA]

43. Geez. You never get tired of this crap, do you?

[Whisp]

56. most likely yet another Bullshit Anti-ACA story.

will you make a thread of apology when this is shown to you?

no, didn't think so.

[HereSince1628]

57. Regression to the mean hurts those above, and below the mean, including millions

who won't get -ANY- help with mandated coverage because they live in states that have adopted a Calvinistic ideology to guide public policy.

[Skip Intro]

58. No no, it's not true! People are just making it up! And if it is

true, then they deserve to pay more because they can afford it and their plans were horrible to start with, and...

[mainer]

61. Those prices don't shock me. It's what I was quoted for bronze ACA

I'm self-employed so I bear the total cost of individual insurance. For me and hubby (both in early sixties) a bronze ACA plan would cost $1400 a month. About same or a little higher than what we're already paying.