I am a healthy 29 year old male with a individual HSA with a $1,500 deductible. If one of these bills pass that force insurance companies to not exclude people with pre-existing conditions, won't my premium skyrocket?

Obama says everyone can keep their same plan in the new system, but it really isn't the same if my premium goes up 50% (a number I just made up).

Obama doesn't like HSA's because you and not he government have more control over your health care needs. Just laike a mandate would force you to buy insurance ,government control would make HSA's a thing of the past.

I am a 24 year old, married with the same type of plan - I haev an HSA, and my "family"
deductible is 2500....and my HSA is preloaded by my employer with $600 - not a bad deal, especially considering i am paying $3000 less than i was with my last employer in premiums ALONE. so even if it hit my deductible, i am still ahead of the deal....

i think this will definitely raise premiums....but i think one of the things that people need to realize is that the "pools" dont NECESSARILY have to balance out, as long as the overall company balances out. the idea for these is to balance at 0 - so all money in goes back out...no profits...so if the younger ones who "get screwed being forced to buy" dont use it, you better believe the older ones will make up for that.

I am 24 - and i definitely dont want to pay more money, but i would love to know that when I am 50, i can get insurance for not much more....so it is something i deal with.

I will also mention, I work for a health insurance company...one of the biggest in the country....i really am on the fence over these plans and government options....mainly because i am worried about my job, but to tell you the truth, something DOES have to be done....but ultimately, the insurance companies are gonna end up getting their profits squeezed, when they are NOT the ones making most of the profits. I have said this time and time again, and no one seems to listen...i am not saying insurance companies dont have their faults...cause they do...but the top 10 insurance companies took in less than 1/3 of the profits than the top 10 drug companies.....the insurance companies spend about 80 cents for every dollar that comes in ON CLAIMS...add in administrative costs, and you see how little the profits really are.

i also would like to mention, we were told that last year the PROFITS our company made equaled the taxes paid....think about that....imagine if your salary was HALF taxes, and you got the other half.....the wrong companies are being squeezed.....not to mention the fact that almost all large companies in the country are self insured, so they are in efffect, their OWN health insurance company...

No. It won't raise your premium. Your plan is a group plan and underwritten as such--that is, you are most likely paying based on your group's experience (and it might even be self-funded, generally depending on the size of your employer). Rules for group health insurance already strictly limit the applicability of pre-existing clauses, stemming from the HIPAA reforms in the late 90's. The worst abuses by insurance companies take place in the individual market.

we were told that last year the PROFITS our company made equaled the taxes paid

how much did your CEO haul? let me guess; too much

I think this guy doesn't talk to enough "young invincibles" - the author of the article, or the baucus guy. Most of this group doesn't have health insurance because they can't afford it, or can't get it, not because they don't want it. As a female I definitely always want insurance, birth control and annual gyne visits are alone enough of a reason, let alone the non-castrostrophic event - although extremely expensive - of pregnancy.

as far as premiums going up, that is is happening with or without this so-called reform, so it is a mixed bag for me. I don't think any reform should try to cater to specific groups (though this is wishful thinking) it should attempt to cover the most amount/diverse group of people possible with the best coverage that is reasonable to expect.

tokidoki:

I think this guy doesn't talk to enough "young invincibles" - the author of the article, or the baucus guy. Most of this group doesn't have health insurance because they can't afford it, or can't get it, not because they don't want it. As a female I definitely always want insurance, birth control and annual gyne visits are alone enough of a reason, let alone the non-castrostrophic event - although extremely expensive - of pregnancy.

as far as premiums going up, that is is happening with or without this so-called reform, so it is a mixed bag for me. I don't think any reform should try to cater to specific groups (though this is wishful thinking) it should attempt to cover the most amount/diverse group of people possible with the best coverage that is reasonable to expect.

From the insurance point of view you are a high risk carrier because you are a female of reproductive age and pregnancy care is expensive. And as you have pointed out yourself you go to the physician frequently, in large part because you are female (for your birth control and annual exams)

Young males on the under hand don't go to the doctor AND don't have the possible incurred costs that go with being female. Add to that the juvenile sense of male invincibility in most men under 30 and voila you have a segment of the population that doesn't want to bother with health insurance in the first place. That being said in most states insurance carriers are required by law to provide certain services so any plan for them is going to be expensive. That is why the young male posters on this thread have HSA with higher deductibles. And the young male is the segment of the population for which personal healthcare expenses (barring a medical catastrophe) will see a significant increase in dolllars put into the healthcare system.

ohh i totally agree, he made in the 8-10 million mark last year....but you need to realize that insurance is about spreading risk....thats all it is...spread risk over a large group. as i said, i am on the fence with the idea of overhauling healthcare - if you make things more competitive, GREAT - everything goes down in price and everybody wins. if you PENALIZE the insurance companies, all they will do is pass that penalty back to the members...meaning we all LOSE.

as i said, the insurance companies have their problems....but i think people cant forget that they arent the only ones out there screwing people....anyone involved in healthcare is screwing the people in some way....

look at the doctors...every time they see you they get paid for it - so where is the incentive to NOT see you when you call them for a stuffy nose?

everyone wants INCREDIBLE healthcare for a $10 copay....well in the end, SOMEONE has to pay for it....the insurance company can only do that because they MAKE money on the 100,000 other members....so they take that, and then LOSE money on the people with the great plans....but in the end, they are still paying for it....switch everyone to a great plan, that costs less money, and guess what? the amount PAID needs to go down or nothing will change. in the end, the govt plan, or the new "regulations" on the insurance co's, or whatever else gets passed doesnt really matter unless the cost for the healthcare changes.