The company my wife works for is being bought-out and we are having to shop health insurance providers for the first time in a while.
Just curious what to expect for a family of 3?
Just curious what to expect for a family of 3?
Health Insurance Costs
- Thread starter Allday.sixpack
- Start date
Try blue care with bcbs- although the enrollment period may be over. For myself the policy was $570. $270 for each kid.
That was the best I found at the time and it was pretty decent insurance. Office visits were $25 and no deductible for meds.
It depends on the state you live in. Here in Mississippi you have limited options and they are all expensive. Being self employed I have had Blue Cross for 12 years covering myself, wife and daughter. Our renewal for 2023 was $2,200.00 per month and that was just too much. Went into the Obama Care circus with Ambetter and opened a HSA. The customer service is something to behold with Ambetter. Took us 3 months just to get our primary care doctor, who takes Ambetter, on our plan. Our last call to Ambetter customer service we heard a rooster crowing in the background! I eventually called the state insurance commissioner's office to try and get some resolution. All I can say is good luck.
When I was working for the state, my BCBS cost me $43/check. When I retired, it went to $630/mo. The guvment wants us to work till we can't work anymore
Health insurance is a racket. My "favorite" insurance story was from when I started my job at State several years ago. My wife and I have two kids and when we first moved, she was only working a part time job that didn't offer insurance. So we were all on my MSU plan. As she interviewed for full time jobs at State, we started looking at the insurance options offered on campus and they varied wildly.
I don't remember the exact dollar amount but for the sake of this example, lets's say that for all of us to stay on my MSU plan, it was like $500 a month for all of us.
If she got her own MSU plan but we kept the kids on my plan, it was like $350 a month total for all of us.
If she got her own MSU plan and we put one kid on each plan, it was like $400 a month total.
Same number of people, same insurance carrier, same level of coverage but vastly cheaper just based on how we structured the plans administratively.
I don't remember the exact dollar amount but for the sake of this example, lets's say that for all of us to stay on my MSU plan, it was like $500 a month for all of us.
If she got her own MSU plan but we kept the kids on my plan, it was like $350 a month total for all of us.
If she got her own MSU plan and we put one kid on each plan, it was like $400 a month total.
Same number of people, same insurance carrier, same level of coverage but vastly cheaper just based on how we structured the plans administratively.
Who is 'the guvment'?
Stop tying health insurance to employment. It was initially tied to work back during WW2 by companies as an incentive and it has completely 17ed workers since thru reducing labor migration between companies, industries, geographic locations, etc.
That is true but if it wasn't tied to employment, people would still be 17ed, but just as individual consumers. We restrict supply and subsidize demand, so anybody that is paying for health insurance and/or healthcare themselves is going to be on the **** end of that deal.
Why are you trying to put forth a false choice? It isnt 1- employment subsidized healthcare or 2- people are 17ed as individual consumers.
There are other possibilities and you know there are other possibilities.
Health insurance is socialized medicine. Many working people are expected to pay more than a mortgage for something they rarely use. Meanwhile those that don’t work have free coverage.
The US insurance industry is a great example of unintended consequences. Seemed like a good idea to compete for workers in WW2. Set the US on a unique healthcare trajectory and we are dealing with the consequences now.
I don't owe your ignorant arse any explanations but here it is anyway. It is obvious my health insurance IS TIED TO MY EMPLOYMENT as it was mostly paid and provided by my employer as witnessed by the numbers I included pre and post retirement. My health insurance has NEVER been a factor that "reduced labor migration". If I wanted to change jobs which I did multiple times in my 40+ yr working career I did so w/out hindrance from my insurance provider. The guvment wants to keep everyone working as long as they can and tied to that employer paid insurance so they won't have to provide Medicare and Medicaid to the aging population, hence full retirment w/ SS benefits increasing from 62-67 over the years. I always thought Goat was the most obnoxious SOB on here but you sir have by far surpassed him as is repeated almost daily on this forum. Spare us all a reply because NOBODY wants to continue to hear your worthless unsolicited rhetoric.
The point is that however you want to structure it, as long as you restrict supply, it's going to be painful for people that pay for health insurance. People like to pretend they are getting a better deal by buying insurance through their employer, but while there is some cross subsidization between employees, they are basically just paying for insurance in reduced cash compensation, so it doesn't feel as painful. Whatever scheme you come up with, if you put a stranglehold on supply while demand is growing, somebody is going to get screwed. And the more you try to stick the cost on one type of person instead of another, the worse the screwing gets because of reduced incentive to manage costs.
Ok, so what would you do fix it? Sorry if you are all hurt that I asked you to clarify what your opaque comment meant, but its a legitimate ask since you have now explained it and your view makes more sense.
I wasnt sure if you were upset at Health Insurance companies, businesses, or the government when you posted that first comment- thats how unhelpful it was in furthering the conversation.
But now here we are- you clearly dont think tying health insurance to employment restricts worker migration(even though it is a well documented bipartisan conclusion) and you clearly dislike the fact that the government upped the full retirement age.
Ok, so what would you do to fix it?
- Would you lower the full retirement age? If so, then how would you account for the inevitable increased financial burden the system will experience?
- Would you remove healthcare from being tied to employment?
- Would you just give everyone HSAs and tell them they are on their own to figure it out- good luck and spend wisely?
This is a conversation- I am sorry to hear you dislike being asked for more information on your view, but thats how this works. If you offer up an opinion, someone may ask for clarification or they may even(gasp!) disagree with your opinion!
I havent even disagreed with your opinion, I just asked you to further explain it. I hate to see your response if I actually disagreed.
BlueCare Individual with BCBS of Mississippi has been the only company offering "major medical" in Mississippi. There are a lot of "medi-share" plans and MEC plans (minimum essential coverage) out there, but read the fine print. Caveat Emptor.
BCBS only takes individuals (and families) during the open enrollment period for January 1, but there are a few "qualifying events" that will allow you to enroll mid-year including loss of current coverage.
*It is quite possible that another company has entered Mississippi, but I haven't heard of it. The Mississippi Department of Insurance would know.
**BCBS is a different company in each state. They share networks, but BCBS of TN is different than BCBS of Mississippi or BCBS of Alabama. They have different websites, offices, and everything. it is based on your residence address.
BCBS only takes individuals (and families) during the open enrollment period for January 1, but there are a few "qualifying events" that will allow you to enroll mid-year including loss of current coverage.
*It is quite possible that another company has entered Mississippi, but I haven't heard of it. The Mississippi Department of Insurance would know.
**BCBS is a different company in each state. They share networks, but BCBS of TN is different than BCBS of Mississippi or BCBS of Alabama. They have different websites, offices, and everything. it is based on your residence address.
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.