Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

I had a delightful conversation with a health Insurance company rep this morning

Boilerman
Boilerman
Mar 25, 2014
3:30am
Block User
Wow. What an interesting twist.

Since I've known Nick to be a "stand up guy" during the 51 years that we've been friends, I knew that he was not lying nor a "bag of shit". I couldn't prove it his numbers, but I was certain all along that Nick's numbers where accurate. I also know that the mean spirited guys on this site where missing some important details.


Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Well I believe I have finally solved this little mystery of why Nick's PPO Bronze 006 Plan from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, for zip code 60103 for ages 54, 53 and 19 cost almost $850....and we don't even have to assume the Nick family are smokers who actually live in Chicago.

It turns out there are two Bronze 006 Plans from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois. One is the 'Choice' plan that Forkush has continually held up as the reason Nick and Boilerman are liars and despicable human beings. It sells for $573 per month. He claims Nick could not possibly have purchased a Bronze 006 PPO plan from Blue Cross for $850.

The second plan is the Blue PPO Bronze 006 plan. No 'Choice' in this plan. And you'll note in Boilerman's original post, nowhere does he specify the 'Choice' plan. Although I'm guessing the real 'choice' in this plan has something to do with the Doctors who actually accept it as payment. I'll bet Nick had to choose this plan because..well he probably wanted to keep his doctor.



Now at 848.33 we still have a $5.00 difference. I'll bet the Kid or one of the adults might be a year older which would account for it. At this point I'm sure we all agree that Nick and Boilerman are owed a big apology by Forkush and Chilcoot. Somehow I don't think that's going to happen. Maybe I should just keep posting the above image every time Forkush claims something good about the ACA. Nah...that would be creepy.

Once we account for the doubled out of pocket for prescription drugs that Malibber2 points out and the increased tax burden because the ACA has forced Husband/Wife businesses out of the Group Insurance Market I'm sure we can also agree that this is no bargain for a lot of people.


Dan Svatass
Dan Svatass
Mar 25, 2014
3:45am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Well I believe I have finally solved this little mystery of why Nick's PPO Bronze 006 Plan from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, for zip code 60103 for ages 54, 53 and 19 cost almost $850....and we don't even have to assume the Nick family are smokers who actually live in Chicago.
That definitely could explain a lot of the difference, if that's what's going on here.

However, it remains true that the Obamacare BCBS Bronze plan that we've posted here several times and that includes coverage for children up to age 26 is less expensive than what boilerman concedes is "comparable" coverage to Nick's old plan (in reality, likely far better coverage, but whatever) AND includes coverage for Nick's son, who now is no longer a minor.

Nick's old plan was a short-term major medical one. Among the things plans like these do to keep premiums low is:
* deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions;
* not pay for preventative care;
* impose a lifetime cap on benefits;
* is not renewable; and
* allow the insurer to cancel at any time.

That last one was a real nightmare, because many of them were month-to-month policies w/ 30 day cancellation clauses. Get a cancer diagnosis on March 25, and if United Heath starts seeing oncologist bills before April 1, come May 1 you could be uninsured.

Obamacare policies like the BCBS Bronze ones do away with each of those limitations.

That's the larger point, that Nick can get better coverage for less money under Obamacare than he got last year from United Health.

And that the way boilerman presented Nick's situation here was fundamentally dishonest.
alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Mar 25, 2014
4:40am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Well I believe I have finally solved this little mystery of why Nick's PPO Bronze 006 Plan from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, for zip code 60103 for ages 54, 53 and 19 cost almost $850....and we don't even have to assume the Nick family are smokers who actually live in Chicago.
That definitely could explain a lot of the difference, if that's what's going on here.

However, it remains true that the Obamacare BCBS Bronze plan that we've posted here several times and that includes coverage for children up to age 26 is less expensive than what boilerman concedes is "comparable" coverage to Nick's old plan (in reality, likely far better coverage, but whatever) AND includes coverage for Nick's son, who now is no longer a minor.

Nick's old plan was a short-term major medical one. Among the things plans like these do to keep premiums low is:
* deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions;
* not pay for preventative care;
* impose a lifetime cap on benefits;
* is not renewable; and
* allow the insurer to cancel at any time.

That last one was a real nightmare, because many of them were month-to-month policies w/ 30 day cancellation clauses. Get a cancer diagnosis on March 25, and if United Heath starts seeing oncologist bills before April 1, come May 1 you could be uninsured.

Obamacare policies like the BCBS Bronze ones do away with each of those limitations.

That's the larger point, that Nick can get better coverage for less money under Obamacare than he got last year from United Health.

And that the way boilerman presented Nick's situation here was fundamentally dishonest.

Now that you mention it, I bet Nicks old plan was in fact from United Health rather than United Security. After all, United Security has no 'PPO Plans' and United Health does. And since Nick and his wife own a Chapter S Corp, they qualified for a Group Plan as its employees. There is no good reason they would have to settle for a short term plan on the individual market. Group Plans have not been able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions for many years. They also can't cancel at any time. This has nothing to do with the ACA. It was existing law.

Of course the ACA has now mandated that Group Plans can no longer be offered to businesses where Husband and Wife are the primary workers. My insurance has been cancelled effective April 15 for that reason. I know exactly how much it would have cost this year for my old policy because my insurer sent me a renewal package even though we were no longer eligible unless we hired an additional full time worker. I know exactly how much an identical replacement policy on the individual market will cost this year. It is $2000 more. I also will no longer receive the tax benefit of my company providing health insurance as most companies receive...merely because I married my partner. Thanks Obama.

And I'm sure Nick appreciates your sincere apology for your support of the arrogant, self serving, wrongheaded character assassination he has endured here without his knowledge.

Dan Svatass
Dan Svatass
Mar 25, 2014
4:50am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
And I'm sure Nick appreciates your sincere apology for your support of the arrogant, self serving, wrongheaded character assassination he has endured here without his knowledge.
The alanleroys suck at reading.

And if Obamacare has stopped couples that own an S corporation from getting special health care benefits and tax breaks that non-S corporation owning couples can't get, that's a good thing.

A GREAT thing, actually.

alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Mar 25, 2014
5:01am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
And I'm sure Nick appreciates your sincere apology for your support of the arrogant, self serving, wrongheaded character assassination he has endured here without his knowledge.
The alanleroys suck at reading.

And if Obamacare has stopped couples that own an S corporation from getting special health care benefits and tax breaks that non-S corporation owning couples can't get, that's a good thing.

A GREAT thing, actually.

Actually it has stopped business owning married people from getting the same tax benefits that non married business owning partners get. But don't let the facts get in the way of your comments. They never seem to anyway.

Dan Svatass
Dan Svatass
Mar 25, 2014
5:24am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Actually it has stopped business owning married people from getting the same tax benefits that non married business owning partners get. But don't let the facts get in the way of your comments. They never seem to anyway.
Among the words you two alanleroys suck at reading is "if". Even when it appears at the beginning of a sentence. Apparently.

Tell me how this works, how Obamacare now treats S corporation owning couples less favorably when it comes to health insurance than it treats non-S corporation owning couples. I don't know about this.

A link would be ideal. This Business Week article from last fall makes Obamacare sound pretty favorable to couples who work for an S-corporation:

Historically, a two-person business has had no leverage at all with insurance companies. You would probably have to pay $1,200 to $1,400 a month–if you could even get a policy.
alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Mar 25, 2014
5:59am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Actually it has stopped business owning married people from getting the same tax benefits that non married business owning partners get. But don't let the facts get in the way of your comments. They never seem to anyway.
Among the words you two alanleroys suck at reading is "if". Even when it appears at the beginning of a sentence. Apparently.

Tell me how this works, how Obamacare now treats S corporation owning couples less favorably when it comes to health insurance than it treats non-S corporation owning couples. I don't know about this.

A link would be ideal. This Business Week article from last fall makes Obamacare sound pretty favorable to couples who work for an S-corporation:

Historically, a two-person business has had no leverage at all with insurance companies. You would probably have to pay $1,200 to $1,400 a month–if you could even get a policy.


Actually it is Chilcoot who sucks at understanding sarcasm rather than alanleroyii who sucks at reading.

The marriage penalty is not limited to S corporations. It applies to LLC's and proprietorships as well. If there are two full time employees in a business, that business used to qualify as a group for insurance purposes. Now...BECAUSE OF THE ACA, if those 2 employees are married or domestic partners, they no longer qualify as a group and must purchase insurance on the individual market. If I was in partnership with my neighbor instead of my wife we could purchase group insurance.

If the federal government wishes to treat me as an individual rather than a company, then I will thank them for a refund of the 25 years of employer FICA taxes I've paid....And note at various times we have employed many people and offered them all the same insurance policy we have.



Dan Svatass
Dan Svatass
Mar 25, 2014
6:21am
Block User
Ah, sarcasm. Always helpful in fostering understanding during an internet disagreement.


So as it turns out, as you've explained it, Obamacare now treats married couples and domestic partners who work together for an S-Corporation the same way it treats married couples and domestic partners who don't work together for an S-Corporation. Which was my initial thought on this particular tangent:
Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
if Obamacare has stopped couples that own an S corporation from getting special health care benefits and tax breaks that non-S corporation owning couples can't get, that's a good thing.

A GREAT thing, actually.
So now there's no special breaks for couples with an S-Corporation compared to couples without an S-Corporation.

Treat all married and domestic partners the same way, without regard to whether they work for an S-Corporation. Nice!
alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Mar 25, 2014
7:16am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
Ah, sarcasm. Always helpful in fostering understanding during an internet disagreement.


So as it turns out, as you've explained it, Obamacare now treats married couples and domestic partners who work together for an S-Corporation the same way it treats married couples and domestic partners who don't work together for an S-Corporation. Which was my initial thought on this particular tangent:
Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
if Obamacare has stopped couples that own an S corporation from getting special health care benefits and tax breaks that non-S corporation owning couples can't get, that's a good thing.

A GREAT thing, actually.
So now there's no special breaks for couples with an S-Corporation compared to couples without an S-Corporation.

Treat all married and domestic partners the same way, without regard to whether they work for an S-Corporation. Nice!

No one prevented couples from starting a small business (S, INC, LLC or Proprietorship) and securing group heath insurance in the past. You know, most thinking people believe that's a good thing There were no barriers to entry for some and not for others. It's hardly a special break for the chosen few. The ACA simply discriminates against Business Partners who are married (or domestic partners) compared to Business Partners who are not. And Chilcoot thinks that's a good thing.

If you want to make it fair then eliminate deductibility of heath insurance as a business expense, get rid of group health plans and force everyone to the individual market. Then everyone is treated the same. I'm sure that will make Health Care even more affordable for all....just like the extra 2 grand I'll have to pay. I imagine Chilcoot will be jumping for joy then. Nice.

And although it is a tangent, I also suspect it's why Nick's coverage was originally cancelled. It's the alanleroyii's and Nick's of the world who are paying for this boondoggle. And I wasn't even complaining until now...because I can afford it. Many people can't.
forkushV
forkushV
Mar 25, 2014
7:42am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Wow. What an interesting twist.

Since I've known Nick to be a "stand up guy" during the 51 years that we've been friends, I knew that he was not lying nor a "bag of shit". I couldn't prove it his numbers, but I was certain all along that Nick's numbers where accurate...
Wait, you're saying the guy complaining about the high cost of health insurance actually heads a family of THREE SMOKERS? You're kidding, right? That kind of gall is just hard to imagine.

And now he's with Blue Cross instead of a company that breathlessly advertises, "Monies are paid upon first diagnosis...medical treatment is not required! Benefits are yours to use on anything of your choice!" As in, "Honey, let's skip the chemo - we're going to Vegas!"

And since in a family of three smokers there's a decent chance of one of them will be puking up blood one of these days, Obamacare's no lifetime limit, no cancellation, and yearly open enrollment upgrade option will probably save him thousands - and maybe his life.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now