As an initial supporter excited over the possibilities and promise of health care exchanges, I have no choice after reading Friday's premium hike news ("Self-insured to get sharp sting: Health insurers plan to raise rates more than 50%") but to join the growing chorus of people who decry the implementation of the exchanges as a total disaster. The architects of the health care reform legislation and the underlying exchanges need to intervene in a major way to prevent the system from collapsing.
The biggest disappointment for someone like me, in my 40s with a family, is that the cost of insuring my family through the individual market is now totally out of reach. I priced a plan online for my family of five based on current prices, and it was almost $1,000 for a plan with a $9,400 deductible and a $13,100 out of pocket maximum. And that is now scheduled to increase at least another 50 percent for 2017, bringing it closer to $1,500. That is almost as much as my monthly mortgage payment. How do the self-employed, the entrepreneurs and those trying to start a business manage that? For me, it is the No. 1 barrier for striking out on my own as an entrepreneur, taking a career risk, etc.
And the silver lining, we're told, is that more people should now qualify for federal tax credits as a result of the skyrocketing premiums. Seriously? I couldn't be more disappointed with how this has played out, both nationally but especially here in Minnesota. Something has to give. It should now be obvious to all that this is not a sustainable model.
Brad McFaul, Rosemount
• • •
There are several things worth noting about the increases in individual health insurance rates. First, Commerce Commissioner Mike Rothman says that the increases aren't fair. How does he define unfair? Is it the fact that this same class of insured customers have been enjoying artificially low rates while the insurance companies lost money and now they must pay rates that allow the insurance companies to make a profit? Before the casual reader objects and says the insurance companies are making too much money on the backs of hardworking Minnesotans, remember that the companies must pay out a mandated high percentage of their premiums to cover claims and are allowed only a relatively small amount for overhead and profit. This is all set out in the Affordable Health Care Act. Also remember that these rates are reviewed and approved by the state government. This class of insured customers has come at a much higher cost than anticipated due to larger claims than other classes as well as gaming of the system by many in this class.
The other issue is the remark in the Oct. 1 article that tax credits will cover the increased cost for many of those affected by higher rates. Nowhere does it say that this simply means that these higher rates must then be covered by the remaining taxpayers, not by those who are insured in this program. I'm disturbed how this is rarely mentioned or is trivialized by the media, not just in this article.
Many will use the issues with the ACA as justification for a single-payer system. All this means is that the 5 percent of the population covered under the exchange plans will benefit while the remaining 95 percent of us will be worse off in a program that will be managed by our federal government with no incentive for efficiency or innovation. There are answers to the problems, but we won't arrive at them with misinformation and lack of information.
Bart Eddy, Chanhassen
• • •
