Does it cover sticker shock?
Rebecca was stunned when she opened her mail last week.
Her insurance carrier, Highmark BCBS, said her health insurance premium would rise 40 percent this year and her policy would be canceled on Dec. 1, 2014.
She had purchased the policy in 2009, after her husband had passed away from lupus, which he'd contracted 10 years before. His employer's insurance covered virtually all of the $1.1 million cost of his care during the last 66 days of his life.
With three children to raise, Rebecca knew how important it was to have good coverage. Her husband's company covered her for three months after he died. That gave her time to buy her own coverage with Highmark — though paying the $400 monthly premium would not be easy.
She worked two or three jobs to make ends meet — jobs that allowed her to be home when her kids got home from school. She was thankful to receive $1,300 a month in widow's benefits from Social Security, which her husband had paid into for years (she will soon lose these benefits when her youngest turns 16). Her combined income is $47,000 a year.
By scrimping and saving, she has been able to pay her mortgage and insurance, feed her kids and get the oldest two through college (thanks to several loans she is repaying).
So, she was stunned when she found out what her new insurance policy would cost.
The Highmark representative explained that her new policy had to meet all the requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). It would have to cover things she does not want or need — such as mental health problems, substance abuse and maternity care.
She asked the representative to help her choose a policy similar to what she had. The closest match he could find was a comprehensive PPO policy.
Her deductible would go from $1,200 to $1,500 per person, but her family deductible would increase from $2,400 to $5,000.
Her 90-percent copay would rise to 80 percent. Instead of being responsible for only 10 percent of her medical bills, after the deductible is met, she would be responsible for 20 percent. Her maximum out-of-pocket costs would soar from $2,000, after deductibles, to $12,000.
Her premium would go from $400 to $884 per month — an increase of almost $6,000 per year.
If she or one of her children were to get ill, as her husband did, her out-of-pocket costs would run about $24,000 a year.
Surely there are subsides for people in Rebecca's position?
Not in her case.
If her three children were younger, she would be eligible for a $6,000 tax credit. But her two oldest kids have just entered the workforce and their combined income disqualifies them.
If she covers just herself and her youngest child, her $47,000 income is still too high to qualify for subsidies.
She is too proud to accept subsidies in any event. She doesn't want taxpayers picking up the tab for her coverage. In fact, ObamaCare subsidies will cost taxpayers $1.9 trillion over the next decade.
Her only solution is to find a full-time job that provides benefits — if she can find an employer that offers them. Employers, too, are seeing their premiums soar.
Virtually everyone agrees our country needs to help the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions get coverage and care.
However, ObamaCare is essentially forcing those who buy their own insurance to pay double or triple costs to cover those without insurance or who have pre-existing conditions — and a good many of these middle-class people will not qualify for subsidies.
The shame here is that there are creative ways for the government to solve the problem by establishing guidelines while unleashing market forces. This is demonstrated by Medicare Part D, a successful entitlement program that provides drugs to the elderly poor.
Under Part D, seniors are free to choose among a variety of benefits, costs and plans offered by private insurers. According to the Heartland Institute, Medicare trustees estimated a 2013 average monthly cost of $61 — the actual costs are HALF that.
In any event, lots of people are getting sticker shock as they learn how much their premiums will increase. And despite the president's promises, many people will not get to keep their current coverage.
Just ask Rebecca.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Offense awakens to lead Steelers past Panthers
- Peduto’s first budget proposal seeks to increase property tax rate
- Civil rights organization urges developer to scrap hotel plan for August Wilson Center
- Steelers notebook: Rooney says owners support Goodell
- Rossi: State of NFL gives Steelers a chance
- Game changers: Turnover leads to elusive TD for Steelers
- Coal gathering opens with dour assessment, political vitriol
- Pirates notebook: Bucs set single-season attendance record
- Inside the glass: Penguins’ Martin, Ehrhoff look comfortable together
- Penguins forward Megna’s skill set might be perfect fit
- Corbett confident state trooper ambush suspect will be caught