Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Employees Start to Feel the Squeeze of High-Deductible Health Plans

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 387 posts

Re: Employees Start to Feel the Squeeze of High-Deductible Health Plans

#191

Post by snowwrestler »

frenchman_in_ny wrote: post #160
WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite one was pregnancy being a pre-existing condition so if your husband got fired (noone would ever fire a pregnant woman for no reason), you couldn't get insurance when you needed it the most.

Though ( if both spouses were working & had access to employer sponsored insurance), wouldn't the husband being fired result in a qualifying change for the woman, allowing her to enroll on her employer's insurance plan, thus covering the pregnancy?

Unless her employer's insurance plan excluded her based on the pre-existing condition of being pregnant. (which it certainly could have)

Re: Employees Start to Feel the Squeeze of High-Deductible Health Plans

#192

Post by nostrademons »

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #108
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre ACA, pre-existing conditions could disqualify you from insurance. People with pre-existing conditions are the people that need health care coverage the most. We can't under-weigh the moral obligation we have to this previously marginalized group, when considering service may be slightly worse for people who have employer coverage. How I see it: if you were in the pre-ACA pre-existing condition pool, your perspect…

My favorite one was pregnancy being a pre-existing condition so if your husband got fired (noone would ever fire a pregnant woman for no reason), you couldn't get insurance when you needed it the most.

"noone would ever fire a pregnant woman for no reason"

Companies do this all the time. My sister worked at a major oil company that laid off all the pregnant women and new moms out on maternity leave within her department. (To be fair, they also laid off about 1/3 of the rest of the company as well.) It's totally illegal, but if you've just been laid off and have a new baby on the way are you really going to have the money or energy to fight a lawsuit? And even if 10% of people affected did, it's cheaper for the company to settle for $500K or so than to pay the salaries of all the people they fired.

Re: Employees Start to Feel the Squeeze of High-Deductible Health Plans

#193

Post by brazzledazzle »

tfandango wrote: post #185

I have not seen mental health mentioned here yet as a factor in rising healthcare costs. My HSA/HD Plan has almost ZERO mental health doctors in network. Providers have been fleeing in droves (especially from UHC) because the insurance companies continue to lower payouts. I went from spending a co-pay for mental health care for 3 of my kids to paying out of pocket until I reach my out-of-network deductible, which I n…

By all accounts we have a good PPO available but this is exactly why I haven't even evaluated leaving Kaiser's HMO. Not that I don't like them. It does have positives and negatives but I've been happy so far. I just can't even consider it.

Re: Employees Start to Feel the Squeeze of High-Deductible Health Plans

#194

Post by godshatter »

rb808 wrote: post #39

I really like the idea of high deductible plans. The idea for me is that insurance shouldn't cover regular costs that most people pay every year. Insurance should just be for unusual events, like car insurance is only used if you have an accident. So now I got a $2k bill from ER for something that wasn't really an emergency. It makes me think carefully about next time this happens where before the cost didn't really…

I seem to be the only one that thinks this way, but I view health insurance as a plan to cover catastrophic events. I view it kind of like auto insurance. I don't use auto insurance to get my oil changed or to replace the wipers or to add a rack to the roof.

So the high deductible plan I get at work is perfect for me because it has a high deductible, yes, but it has a lower overall ceiling. Meaning that if I get in an accident or I come down with a disease I won't go bankrupt because after a certain value things are covered 100%.

I do use the HSA, since my employer basically puts money in my savings account if I agree to put so much into it. So it's both an incentive to save and free money at the same time. I do use it on tests and appointments occasionally, but I often go a year or more without touching it.

Of course, I have the luxury of doing this because I don't have a chronic disease and don't have dependents to worry about. I understand that.

Re: Employees Start to Feel the Squeeze of High-Deductible Health Plans

#195

Post by dominotw »

mrosett wrote: post #2

You can argue that the ACA improved the healthcare system overall. But it's been tough for people who were already covered by employer insurance. I think people fail to appreciate that prior to the ACA, when the healthcare system worked, it actually worked really well. I got very sick at the age of 20 while I was still on my parents very modest insurance (pre-ACA). Within 48 hours I had an appointment at the best onc…

COBRA is cheaper for me than ACA.

Re: Employees Start to Feel the Squeeze of High-Deductible Health Plans

#196

Post by CptFribble »

Every discussion on healthcare payment structures in this country is completely asinine.

Healthcare is best managed as a risk pool. The bigger the pool, the cheaper to be in it. The biggest risk pool is everyone. Therefore, we should put everyone in a single pool.

How we manage this is a separate discussion. Private, public, maybe a federally chartered non-profit like the Fed.

But as long as we keep ourselves fractured into thousands of different risk pools, all these discussions about deductibles and HSAs and whatnot are just chasing our own tails.

Re: Employees Start to Feel the Squeeze of High-Deductible Health Plans

#197

Post by rjohnk »

angel_j wrote: post #48

Insurance is not suited for health care. It's suited for emergencies. Sometimes health care is that, although preferably not often, and less often if proper care is given when due. But general health care—the practice of keeping people healthy, rather than fixing them when ill—is not suited to the insurance model, and the insurance industry is too powerful to let control who gets which treatment. A proper model pays…

I wholeheartedly agree. That and employer-based access to health insurance. Imagine if you had to change auto/life/home/rental insurance every time you changed jobs.

Re: Employees Start to Feel the Squeeze of High-Deductible Health Plans

#198

Post by brazzledazzle »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #153
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre ACA, pre-existing conditions could disqualify you from insurance. People with pre-existing conditions are the people that need health care coverage the most. We can't under-weigh the moral obligation we have to this previously marginalized group, when considering service may be slightly worse for people who have employer coverage. How I see it: if you were in the pre-ACA pre-existing condition pool, your perspect…

AFAIK, preexisting conditions weren't a disqualifier for any employer-provided health insurance (which is why group policies are so expensive).

Is there any legal basis for that or is that something negotiated by employers with the plan provider?

Re: Employees Start to Feel the Squeeze of High-Deductible Health Plans

#199

Post by syntheticnature »

nostrademons wrote: post #192
WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite one was pregnancy being a pre-existing condition so if your husband got fired (noone would ever fire a pregnant woman for no reason), you couldn't get insurance when you needed it the most.

"noone would ever fire a pregnant woman for no reason" Companies do this all the time. My sister worked at a major oil company that laid off all the pregnant women and new moms out on maternity leave within her department. (To be fair, they also laid off about 1/3 of the rest of the company as well.) It's totally illegal, but if you've just been laid off and have a new baby on the way are you really going to have the…

I do believe that was unmarked sarcasm, so hazardous in these times.

Re: Employees Start to Feel the Squeeze of High-Deductible Health Plans

#200

Post by 0xfeba »

Of my past 3 employers over the past 8 years (all family plans):

$3000 deductible, no HSA

$6000 deductible, HSA

$9000 deductible, HSA

I pay $370/month in premiums... $100 of that a fee because my spouse is eligible through her employer but the plans are even worse, so we declined it.

So we pay $4,500/year in premiums. Which equates to roughly a 20% effective income tax instead of ~15% normally.

This is ridiculous. Whomever seems best to get a single-payer plan in place is who I'll vote for. Absolutely no reason it should matter who my employer is for what doctor I can go see or how much I pay in private, personal medical bills.

Retirement accounts I feel the same way, but that's a long way off for the US.

Other countries have solved this fucking problem, I'm tired of elected congressmen firing back with "BUT VENEZUALA" quips every time someone mentions "Medicare for all".

And the proper response to that is "So we should eliminate Medicare altogether then, right? Where's your bill for that?"

Post reply on HN