My Health Insurance Premiums up nearly 50% in Three Years

I'll keep this short and sweet, but it's just the kind of outrageous nonsense I think everyone should be aware of.

I quit my fulltime job in August of 2003, which means my COBRA expired in February of 2005. At that point, I did a thorough exploration of all the possible health insurance in New York. I determine that the cheapest "real" health insurance in the state was (and, as far as I know, still is) HIP.

When I signed up in February of 2005, the premiums were at just above $400/month. The next year, they were at about $475. This year, they increased a mere 5% or so to just above $500. For next year, starting next month, my health insurance premiums will settle in at right around $602/month.

$602 a month. About a 50% increase over what I was paying three years ago. It boggles the mind.

$602 a month. Over $7200/year. Post-tax.

That point can't be stressed enough; given tax rates in New York, I need to make approximately an additional $14,000/year in pre-tax income to cover the cost of my health insurance.

$14,000 a year in pre-tax income goes to paying my insurance.

If that doesn't constitute an assault on the middle class, what does? The poor can't afford insurance. The middle class have to spend a substantial portion of their income on it. And let's just do some projections, shall we, about what it will cost if it continues to go up at the same rate?

In 2011, my insurance, if it continues to increase at the same rate it has over the past three years, will cost $900/month.

In 2014, it will cost $1350/month.

In 2017, it will hit about $2000/month.

And in 2020, it will be up at $3000/month. $36,000 a year. In post-tax income.

That, folks, is the current rate of increase in health insurance. That is why this is the most important domestic issue in 2008.

•  We must stop

  this insanity.

  by dedmonds on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:43:55 PM PDT

  •  I feel your pain, dedmonds. . .

    This is American pornography.

    But you're supposed to be very grateful that you're not one of the 47 million uninsured.

    by nyceve on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:49:50 PM PDT

    •  I am grateful

      that I can still afford insurance, and that I live in one of the few states that makes it illegal to reject people based on pre-existing conditions.

      But sweet Jesus, this is madness.

      by dedmonds on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:50:54 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    But we have to not only vote out the republicans that have caused this, from Bush on down, but we need to get rid of some of the dems that seem to be supporting big insurance companies, drug companies, oil companies, etc.  As John Edwards says, we can't change the country by replacing "corporate" loving republicans with corporate loving dems!

    This country needs "big" changes, from the top to the bottom, and it has to start with the voters.  We need to vote those who won't work for the "people" out of office, and vote in those who will put the people first, not corporate America!

    by Andy823 on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:50:04 PM PDT

    •  As a probable Edwards supporter,

      I see no difference between him and the rest in any sense except rhetoric.

      I wish he had presented a plan that did not fundamentally rely on existing insurance companies.

      by seeker on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 01:05:56 PM PDT

  •  Favorite cousin just advised me

    Note - she's IN the insurance biz.  Their employee insurance rates are jumping 28% come the first of the year.

    by kfred on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:54:02 PM PDT

    •  I knew this would be a bad year

      we're paying for the housing market crisis; insurance companies invest their money in AAA rated bonds, which means they invested a lot in sub-prime mortgages. We get to pay the price for their bad investments.

      by dedmonds on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:56:13 PM PDT

•  imagine if you were mandated to buy this thing

  This is why I find the health care plans of Hillary and Obama so terrifying - imagine what the insurance industry will do to people who won't even have the option of not getting insurance.

  by Marcion on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:50:19 PM PDT

  •  Mandates done properly

    will drop rates, not increase them.

    by dedmonds on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:51:36 PM PDT

    •  theoretically

      in a logical and reasonable business environment.  Do we have that?

      by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:55:56 PM PDT

      •  The good news is

        this is really hurting every business except insurance; there will be a lot more allies to getting costs under control than there were in 1994.

        But believe me, I understand your cynicism. I'd greatly prefer single-payer.

        by dedmonds on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:58:50 PM PDT

    •  It hasn't happened that way in MA

      The only way rates will be dropped is if we pass a law enforcing lower rates. If insurers can't raise rates to generate more profit, they are likely going to go out of business, and boom goes the mandate plan.

      A shame you're backing mandates - your diary is a clear argument as to why they're an awful idea.

      by eugene on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 02:11:06 PM PDT

      •  You actually think

        Romney did mandates properly?

        I issue to you the same challenge I always issue: if we get rid of the ban on pre-existing conditions and don't institute mandates, how do we control costs?

        I've yet to see an answer to the question.

        I know there are problems in Mass; we need to learn from those problems. But if there are no mandates, people will stop buying insurance until they are sick, and rates will skyrocket.

        Unless, of course, we go single-payer. Which I'd greatly prefer, but no major candidate is talking about.

        by dedmonds on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 02:35:41 PM PDT

        •  There is no controlling costs

          With or without a mandate (unless the "without" case involves the implementation of single-payer). MA's mandates are wrongly attributed to Romney - a Democratic legislature agreed to it, and with Deval Patrick in office, the implementation's all on Dems now. Which is probably what Romney wanted, but, if it's not working, it is up to Dems to provide a fix.

          We also need to remember that insurance does not equal care. As Michael Moore demonstrated in SiCKO many people WITH insurance still get jerked around, delay receiving care, and drive up costs.

          The problem with how we are discussing health care is that we're doing so in the context of the presidential campaign, as if we're limited to what they offer. We're not. FDR opposed Social Security, until a grassroots movement pushed it into Congress - at which point FDR turned around and adopted it as his own. That is path we should follow. Single-payer isn't as impossible as we sometimes tell ourselves it is.

          by eugene on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 02:57:59 PM PDT

          •  I'm all for single-payer

            but until we have it, I firmly believe that a stop-gap plan with mandates is better than one without.

            Mandates done properly can control costs; I'm going to take Krugman over you on this one, sorry.

            by dedmonds on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 03:08:36 PM PDT

            •  How?

              I don't care if FDR's bones are reanimated and he himself comes and tells me mandates can be done properly AND can control costs - what we need to see is how that happens.

              I know it's hard for people to think Krugman can be wrong, and I further understand that people look at me and thing "who the hell are you?" But the methods and facts are what matter.

              Mandates have a huge downside which nobody seems interested in discussing - how will people be able to afford them? When private insurers jerk people around as they've done you, as they've done to Markos and Elisa, how can we be sure we'll get anything for our money?

              I'm uninsured. I have NO health care. But I don't think getting something done for the sake of getting something done is a good idea. I don't have health care, but at least I have some semblance of financial security for the time being. With mandates I not only don't get guaranteed access to health care when I need it, but I risk my financial security in the process.

              I am sick and tired of being told what is good for me by people who are not in my situation. By people who have insurance. By people who have a stable income. By people who have not sat and carefully looked at these issues and who assume that just because someone speaks with authority, they speak correctly.

              Mandates can be beaten. There are political coalitions possible that can stop them. I would really not like to have to ally with the right wing on this. But if that's what it takes to stop mandates, then that's what will happen.

              If people don't want to listen to criticisms of mandates now, if they don't want to listen to the uninsured, then they're going to hear from us in a much ruder fashion later on down the line when we kill this plan in Congress.

              by eugene on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 03:27:52 PM PDT

              •  People can afford them

                with government subsidy. A properly done program would subsidize people who couldn't afford coverage without.

                And "affording" is one of those relative terms. I'm a freelancer. I haven't had a fulltime job in 4.5 years. It's a bit presumptuous for you to cast me as someone for whom health insurance is some sort of easy choice. It isn't. I've made a lot of sacrifices to be able to pay for my health insurance.

                To do this properly, we'll need to take care of a lot of issues.

                We'll need to get rid of this entire notion that private insurers are allowed to deny coverage. Ever.

                We'll need to get rid of the notion of pre-existing conditions.

                We'll need a government alternative that people could buy into in place of the private plans.

                And again, I'd strongly prefer single-payer and hope we can make that happen. But if we can't make single-payer happen, this entire house of cards crumbles and half the nation will be uninsured in the space of a few more years.

                You seem to be saying no to mandates because you're saying no to anything that isn't single-payer. I truly hope we can make single-payer happen.

                But if we can't, a combination of serious reform to the private healthcare system and mandates are the only hope. You think things are bad now? Wait a few more years without reform. Maybe you think that's what we need for people to realize we need single-payer. The problem is the cost of that lesson is in human life.

                The more people that are uninsured, the higher premiums become, the less preventative healthcare happens, the more emergency healthcare. Lack of preventative healthcare means more avoidable mortality. More emergency healthcare means more money that comes from taxes (which would be better spent subsidizing mandated insurance) and it drives up insurance rates.

                I don't always agree with Krugman, but my agreement here isn't based on some kind of blind trust. It's based on what I know about the healthcare industry. It's based on extensive talks with friends who have spent decades working in public policy and public health.

                If we can't make single-payer happen, I'd like to hear your alternative to reform + madates. Because the only thing you seem to be offering is single-payer or bust, and I've already agreed several times that single-payer is the best solution. But if it's not viable, we damn well better have something else we can put into place in the short-term.

                by dedmonds on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 04:05:16 PM PDT

                •  Can you reform private insurance successfully?

                  You've made an incomplete list here - many people have insurance but find they can't use it to actually get the care they need. Markos went weeks before Blue Cross would authorize a CT scan to check abdominal pain; they wanted his wife Elisa to pay for an epidural she received at her recent childbirth. Michael Moore goes over these issues frequently, but they aren't being discussed. There is an assumption - deeply incorrect - that having health insurance means you will have health care. That is NOT the case.

                  How can we reform private insurance to stop doing that? If they don't like the economic conditions - if they can't make enough money - they'll stop writing policies. This happened here in CA, when they stopped writing earthquake insurance policies. It is happening on the Gulf Coast, where they're beginning to stop writing homeowner insurance policies. We can't force them to stay in business. If we hand them massive subsidies they might stay, but that's not a good use of tax money and still does not address the issue of delivery of care.

                  Some doctors in SoCal, sick of submitting claims to insurers that aren't reimbursed, have begun refusing to take insurance. Already there are problems with doctors refusing to take Medicare. All of that should suggest there are major problems with the basic concept of health insurance and that we should be very cautious before we embrace them.

                  Finally, just because this seems like something we can pass does NOT make it acceptable. If the plan is bad, it should be rejected. If single-payer is the best solution then let's make it happen. It's only seen as not viable because people are not willing to see the ways in which it IS viable.

                  by eugene on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 04:19:27 PM PDT

                  •  Did you miss the part

                    where I said we'd have to reform it so they could no longer deny coverage-- ever?

                    If insurance companies won't write insurance at affordable rates under those circumstances, then single-payer will be the only option. Which, again, is what I want. The question, by the way, isn't whether single-payer is viable in a "will it work" sense. The question is whether there's sufficient political support for it.

                    If there's a plan that reduces cost and mandates insurance, I have trouble seeing how it's bad, as long as it addresses the problems in the current system.

                    But we're really wasting our breath here; you're committed to believing that there's absolutely no way to improve the current system. I would prefer single-payer, but think that we could also improve the current system. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

                    by dedmonds on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 04:29:22 PM PDT

                    •  Again

                      It's not just about "coverage" but about claims and care. Markos and Elisa had health insurance but their insurers tried to screw them. Right now the CA state insurance commissioner is suing Blue Shield for "thousands of violations of state law."

                      Again I repeat my points about MA - they found that they could not provide comprehensive coverage for an affordable price. To provide affordability they had to cut back on what procedures and health care the most affordable policies would cover.

                      You're making two assumptions here - that mandates can cover our health needs affordably, and that there is no political support for single-payer. I believe I've indicated that the first assumption is questionable at best. As to the second, I cannot convince you that single-payer is viable now. But the support IS there. We got it passed in the CA legislature two years in a row. We have over 80 cosponsors in the House for HR 676, more than for any other health reform. An October LA Times Bloomberg poll showed that a majority of people support "medicare for all" - in greater numbers than support mandated insurance.

                      I'm not saying that single-payer is a slam dunk. It's not. But it is possible, there IS widespread support for it, and it's the better solution. If we have to engage in any fight, why not the fight that offers the best rewards?

                      by eugene on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 05:17:16 PM PDT

            •  why would it lower costs

              I really need to have this explained to me one more time. Why would an industry with a forced customer base have any incentive to lower rates?  Look at the university system - as it has become more and more indespensable to the middle and upper class, and as government has thrown more and more money at the problem, the rates have gone through the roof. Imagine if people were mandated to go to college, where would the rates go then?
              Relying on competition is naive, the market prices by what they can get, not anything else. Passing laws tampering with price increases will only make the market worse.
              With this whole program the cure is worse than the disease, now we would be introducing governmetn coercion on top of the other problems.

              by Marcion on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 03:29:57 PM PDT

              •  Heh

                That's a much more concise argument than the rant I just posted above. We cannot discount the MA example so quickly. Mandates there have cost MUCH more than were expected when the plan was created. The Connector had to rebid the policies several times and the only way they could get private companies to offer affordable policies was to strip those policies down to the bare essentials - catastrophic insurance plus a few more frills.

                by eugene on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 03:32:23 PM PDT

•  Yeah I just got the numbers for next year's plan

  and the premium is up only $20/month but now we have a $500 deductible for the Kaiser HMO and the annual $3000 out of pocket maximum is doubled from last year.

  by aigeanta on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:55:01 PM PDT

•  I'll see your premium and raise you...

  BCBS for my wife and me costs $18,000 per year. Premiums have gone up about 20% a year for 11 years. At this rate, I am likely to soon be counted among the 47 million without insurance.

  by fordcomm on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:55:03 PM PDT

•  Got you beat!

  Since you mentioned it, I looked (shouldn't have) and our family premium is up 56.446% since November, 2004.   During that time, the four of us have averaged less than two doctor visits each per year.

  We do not have dental or maternity coverage and no prescription card - none of us take any regular prescriptions.  The only changing factor was those pesky birthdays we keep having.

  by texasmom on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 01:00:22 PM PDT

  •  healthy person premiums

    and your rates are the rates for people the insurance industriy does not count on getting much medical care.

    by Mr Bofothum on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 02:37:57 PM PDT

    •  actually in New York

      the rates are the same for everyone, regardless of health or expected care. again, it's one of the things I actually like about New York.

      But we still have to find a way to get these costs under control, or we're seriously fucked in another few years.

      by dedmonds on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 02:41:18 PM PDT

•  Why we accept this is mystifying

  In what other "industry" would we accept a skimming middle man that provides NO SERVICE? Insurance companies do NOTHING but take our money and prevent us from getting the care we need. We need to cut the insurance business out of the doctor/patient relationship. It's insane. They have us by the short and curlies...it's time to get rid of them. ANY Senators/Congressthings who don't help us to get rid of the blood sucking insurance industry need to lose their taxpayer funded socialized medicine immediately. If we can't have what THEY have, they shouldn't have it either.

  by Panda on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 01:08:37 PM PDT

•  Move to Europe or Canada

  or just scream really, really loud for a very, very long time, until they're bleeding from their ears and their premiums go through the roof.

  I'm still not sure what we pay in taxes (sweden) for med care, but about 25% of our paychecks go to everything- education including college, unemployment (80%) I think maternity leave 1.5 yrs for women at 80% of their work pay and they can't be terminated from their jobs for the duration, 6 months for men, etc.

  by borkitekt on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 01:18:33 PM PDT

•  I took 'major medical' coverage in 2005

  My quarterly premium is now my monthly premium.

  But I did get a prescription filled a couple of months ago for $10, so those 2.5 years of premiums were well worth it.

  For next year, I'm going on my wife's coverage through her job. The premium is only 25% more than the major medical, but it actually, you know, covers things...

  by George on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 01:55:42 PM PDT

•  I feel So Lucky

  Everytime I read something on American Health Ins I am just flabergasted.......
  Welcome to Canada,,,,,

  How can I get health care coverage (OHIP)?

  To receive free public health care services, you must first have an Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) card (Health Card). If you are Resident of Ontario, you can obtain free basic health care services by showing the doctor, nurse, or other health care worker a valid OHIP card. \

  The Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) pays for services that are medically necessary. These services include visits to your family doctor and specialists.

  http://www.settlement.org/...

  by scrambler on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 01:56:16 PM PDT

•  What a coincidence

  My dividend checks on the insurance companies I invested in have gone up 50% in the last three years.  You just need to accept that in our new economy, there will be winners and losers.  Fortunately, I am a winner.

  Next we need to do something about this massive 15% capital gains tax that is robbing me of all my hard earned stock gains.

  [This comment is labeled sarcasm lest I get troll rated due to lack of humor sensors]

  by Mr Bofothum on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 02:07:41 PM PDT

•  Back in 2003

  we were paying $110/month for insurance through the Mister's employer.

  In 2004, it went to $190/month -- with doubled co-pays for office visits and prescriptions.

  In mid-2006, it went to $215.

  In 2007, $295.

  And in January, it's $303.50.

  In 5 years, our portion of the premium has tripled.  It would be higher, except he's got a union job; thank gawd for that.

  by Frankenoid on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 02:58:41 PM PDT

•  My $50/mo full-coverage med insurance.

  Yes, it's true. My full-coverage medical insurance costs just $50/mo and covers every medical condition from a hangnail to a heart transplant. On top of that, my unlimited prescription drug insurance costs me only $600/yr maximum.

  So what company sells this insurance? Answer: none. I'm a Canadian. Get smart, people. Insist on single-payer healthcare like universal Medicare. It works. Really.

  by skrymir on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 03:16:11 PM PDT

•  I think I'm at a point where mandate is a minus

  I'm less likely to vote for those candidates offering the madate plan. It's horrifying in its implications, will add another thing for the governmetn to punish me for my private choices, and will preclude any chance of a single payer system because it will be a colossal failure and will turn the voters off any governmetnal health care plan for a generation.  

  by Marcion on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 03:44:52 PM PDT