General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUnited Health Care
I just got a rate increase notification of more than $30.00 per month.
From $320.47 to 357.67 It's not as if the rates didn't go up last year too.
It's not as if my property taxes are not going to go up......... gotta redo those artificial turf fields and the playground at the town pool which is supposed to be self sustaining ....
GET OFF MY LAWN !!!!!

Big Blue Marble
(5,597 posts)that they do about taxes. I assure you most of us pay way more for insurance than we do for taxes,
and hope we never have use it.
KT2000
(21,386 posts)lump insurance rates into their anger without realizing they are different.
Jerry2144
(2,787 posts)15-20% off the top. Then cost of business is deducted. End result, even after the ACA is that only 50-60% of our premium goes to medical care. Sure, government run health care will raise taxes. But that increase is much less than what we save from not paying for insurance company profits.
EdmondDantes_
(422 posts)80% of premiums have to be spent on health care costs or quality of care. The remaining 20% can be spent on administration, overhead, marketing and profit. For insurance companies selling to large groups (50+ people) it's 85/15.
So realistically the cost drivers of insurance are pharmacy costs and reimbursement for use. Specifically GLP-1 for weight loss is a major driver. Here in Massachusetts where all health insurance companies are non profit, Blue Cross isn't going to be including GLP-1 for weight loss because they were on track to be paying a billion dollars a year by 2026. In 2023 they spent 75 million, 2024 200 million. That's for weight loss, not diabetes. In 2024 Blue Cross in Massachusetts lost 400 million dollars and that's after accounting for 175 million in investment income. So that's not a sustainable model without dramatic increases in premiums. Oh and because health insurance companies in Massachusetts are nonprofit they are required to meet a medical loss ratio of a minimum of 85/15 for large groups and 90/10 for small groups and individuals. So the idea that it's just greedy profit seeking insurers doesn't actually hold up.
Mossfern
(3,726 posts)more than $24,000 per year in property taxes, and I don't live in a castle - just a 130+ year old cottage.
I will say that in the past couple of years I have made use of my insurance - surgeries and resultant pulmonary embolisms- a trip to the ER too. I didn't pay a penny in costs.
Big Blue Marble
(5,597 posts)And I am talking about all insurance premiums for all types of insurance over your lifetime not just health coverage.
.
Mossfern
(3,726 posts)It went through our roof. Insurance paid completely to repair and replace all damage.
They couldn't get the tree off of the house for several hours because of the storm and there was water damage all the way to the basement. The entire roof needed to be replaced - including attic rafters.
Yes, in the long run insurance, for us, was worth the cost - those artificial turf fields, not so much.
Ms. Toad
(36,746 posts)Their plans have a significant discount from what is known as the community rate based on your age. They vary slightly from plan to plan - but generally you have an age-related discount that is fixed for the first few years (e.g. 60-65), then decreases every year after that until you hit a zero discount - generally somewhere in your 80s.
In addition, there may be an annual COLA.
When I reviewed plans, the historic COLA was lower than most other plans and the discount was reasonable - and ultimately it capped out. Many other plans continue the age-related pricing forever.
I plotted all of the plans in my geographical area out based on the age-related pricing until my spouse and I hit 99 each - and UHC AARP was, by far, the cheapest over my lifetime. But the charts are available with the plans (not just UHC, but all of them), so you could see when you decided which supplement to purchase what the age-related changes were (and those are locked in). No guarantees on the COLA - which is why I pulled the last 5 years for all of the plans that were even close.
Mossfern
(3,726 posts)Yes it's the AARP United Healthcare supplement, and the reason we opted for it was that it seemed to be the best plan. I must say that the coverage has been excellent and I have only had to pay for refraction evaluation at the opthamologist over the past several years.
I plan to look over my statements for the past year to compare how much we paid out versus how much we received in benefits. It's just at this point in time the costs of everything are increasing and this notice was the last straw. I know it's merely about a $360 increase for the year - but my income is not increasing accordingly.
Ms. Toad
(36,746 posts)My dad, my spouse, and I are all on the plan. My father's maxed out at a bit over $200. He hasn't had an age-related increase in years. (His plan is slightly different from mine - he joined when silver sneakers and a dental discount were included and the age-related discounts were smaller but went on for longer, and he also opted for the plan with a small co-pay for office visits. Mine has no silver sneakers and no dental discount, larger discounts over a smaller year. No office copays, no surplus charges if the provider doesn't accept assignment, and some international coverage. So I've got the annual deductible, and that's it.
So my solution for you - move to Ohio and take advantage of the ability to change plans when you move from state to state . . . Ohio is the cheapest I've found. The only explanation I can find for the difference is that Ohio is one of the few states that doesn't allow providers to charge a 15% surcharge if they don't accept assignment.
If you look at the notice closely, it is likely the announcement that rates will change in January. At least that's the one we recently got. So you may have a few months to get used to the idea.
UTUSN
(73,960 posts)elocs
(24,132 posts)I actually make money since I get $184/month for healthy food.