ACA, Medicare or health insurance through work? Your health insurance bills are about to go up
Category: News & Politics
Via: perrie-halpern • 2 months ago • 38 commentsBy: Berkeley Lovelace Jr.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sept. 12, 2026, 7:00 AM EDTBy Berkeley Lovelace Jr.
Most Americans can expect to pay significantly more each month for health insurance next year, whether they get it through work, the Affordable Care Act or Medicare.In some cases, the premium increases may be the largest in decades and are driven by numerous economic pressures. But they won't look the same for everyone. Some will pay more in the form of higher copays or deductibles.
"Healthcare costs are going up faster than they have in years, and open enrollment is when the healthcare affordability crisis is really going to hit home for people," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a nonpartisan research group. "That's true for whatever kind of insurance you have."
Prices have shifted upward in every corner of daily life.
The rising healthcare costs stem in part from higher prices for hospital and other medical care, as well as the increased use of expensive prescription drugs — including GLP-1 weight loss medications — that are driving up spending for insurers and employers.
The pressures are unique to each type of coverage.
People who buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace,about 19 million adults, are set to face another year of steep premium increases after the enhanced federal subsidies expired last year.
On Thursday, the White House promised $500 rebate checks to an estimated 1 million ACA enrollees, alleging they were wrongly overcharged. It's unclear where the money for the rebates would come from or whether the distribution would require approval from Congress, but experts say it's unlikely to provide significant relief.
The $500 check "pales in comparison to the increased premiums that marketplace enrollees are facing due to the expiration of the enhanced subsidies," said Miranda Yaver, an assistant professor of health policy and management at the University of Pittsburgh.
Workers with job-based insurance may be asked to shoulder more of their employers' rising health costs. And some Medicare beneficiaries could see changes to their prescription drug premiums after the Trump administration ended a temporary program that helped keep those premiums in check.
Here's what to expect.
The Affordable Care Act
People who buy health insurance through the ACA are on track for a second straight year of double-digit premium increases.
Insurers who offer ACA plans are proposing a premium increase of about 15%, on average, for 2027, according to a KFF analysis of public filings from insurers across all 50 states and Washington, D.C. For 2026, insurers upped rates by an average of 20%.
An individual earning $80,000 a year who doesn't qualify for standard ACA subsidies could see the cost of their bronze plan — the cheapest plan — rise by roughly $80 a month, adding almost $1,000 to their annual tab.
One of the biggest reasons insurers are hiking rates is that medical care is getting more expensive, Levitt said. Insurers have pointed to higher prices for hospital stays, doctor's visits and prescription drugs, among other costs.
Insurers generally "have felt pressure to add coverage of GLP-1 drugs for weight loss, but they're also seeing big, big increases in costs for those drugs," Levitt said.
The ACA marketplace is also still adjusting to the expiration of the enhanced federal subsidies at the end of 2025. Those subsidies — first put in place during the pandemic — lowered monthly premiums for millions of people in the middle class. When they expired, people either paid significantly more for coverage in 2026 or downgraded their plans.
The expired subsidies also led ACA enrollment to fall by about 3 million.
Young adults — who are generally healthier and more likely to go without insurance when it becomes too expensive — accounted for a large portion of the enrollment decrease. That left insurers with a group of customers who, on average, need more medical care, Yaver said, which was also factored into insurers rates for 2027.
Job-based health insurance
Most Americans, about 165 million people, get health insurance through their jobs. Many of them may be feeling the price increases, too.
Employers expect the cost of providing health benefits to each worker to rise 8.2%, on average, in 2027 — the largest increase since 2003, according to a survey of more than 1,800 employers by Marsh, a benefits consulting group.
That doesn't necessarily mean workers' premiums will rise by 8.2%, said Dr. Kevin Schulman, a professor of medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine who researches employer-based health insurance.
Employers typically subsidize a large portion of workers' health coverage. But when healthcare costs rise too sharply, Schulman said, employers have several ways of passing some of the increase along to employees. They can charge workers more for their monthly premiums, raise deductibles or make other changes to their benefits.
Sometimes, they slow wage increases to offset the expense.
"Because the costs are going up, the employers are trying to reduce the rate of growth, and the easiest way to reduce the rate of growth of healthcare costs is to push more of the costs onto the employee," Schulman said.
Many appear prepared to do just that.
The Marsh survey found about two-thirds of large employers — those with 500 or more employees — said they expected to increase how much employees contribute toward their premiums in 2027.
Others may shift costs in other ways, including waiving copays and deductibles for primary care visits while charging for other kinds of care, or keeping premiums the same while raising the deductible.
For workers, that makes it important to look beyond the premium during open enrollment, Schulman said. A plan that costs less or about the same each paycheck may come with a higher deductible or require people to pay more when they seek care.
Medicare
Monthly premiums are handled somewhat differently for the roughly 70 million people enrolled in Medicare.
People on Medicare generally have more than one premium to consider: typically, a premium for Part B, which covers doctor's visits and other outpatient care; and, for 9 out of 10 enrollees, a separate premium for Part D, which covers prescription drugs.
Prescription drug costs are where enrollees may see the biggest changes, according to Yaver, of the University of Pittsburgh.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services projected in July that the baseline monthly cost for Part D coverage will rise about 6% in 2027, from $38.99 to $41.33.
What enrollees actually end up paying varies, depending on their income and their specific plan.
The increase stems from the Trump administration withdrawing its support for a temporary federal program that helped offset premium increases for Part D plans. The program began in 2025 as Medicare's prescription drug benefit underwent major changes under the Inflation Reduction Act. Without it, enrollees would have seen their monthly premiums nearly double, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office.
The change will hurt seniors, Yaver said, noting that the program had reduced the average premium by 40% last year. People on Medicare are often retired and live on fixed incomes.
"Though seniors don't change their Part D plans often, this year may be an exception, potentially resulting in seniors opting into lower-quality plans, leaving them less protected," she said.
Enrollees will still have an annual out-of-pocket cap on prescription drugs. In 2027, the cap is $2,400.
Tags
Who is online
97 visitors
Financialized healthcare seems to have been an unaffordable mistake. We've financialized healthcare, education, housing, our retirements, and the government. Now all are requiring more money than the banking system can print or the stock market can fake. This does not bode well for the next quarter century.
A public option should create a more affordable system with private healthcare having to compete with a version that does not base its pricing on profit margins.
Its impossible to take the “financial aspect” out of healthcare, unless you want people to work for free, medicine to created for free etc…
We are one of the very few countries that haven't done it, why?
Well, that's not true. Prohibiting stock trading of healthcare enterprises would remove a very large portion of the "financial aspect". We don't need Wall Street involved in our health care. And there's nothing wrong with using public bonds to finance healthcare rather than investment banks. That is how we fund education, transportation, and public services. Private schools are not traded on Wall Street; private hospitals don't need to be traded on Wall Street, either.
The expectations of nationalized healthcare would be to remove the profit incentives which is unrealistic. The problem is not so much the profit as it is the speculation in healthcare. Our system of financialized healthcare has expectations of speculative returns that far exceed mere profit.
Insurance companies are not in business to insure people. They take the premium money paid in to them and invest that on Wall Street.
Well, that's not true. Prohibiting stock trading of healthcare enterprises would remove a very large portion of the "financial aspect". We don't need Wall Street involved in our health care. And there's nothing wrong with using public bonds to finance healthcare rather than investment banks.
"Wall Street" is a place where people can buy (or sell) stocks. Also "public bonds".
But unlike what is controlled totally by governments, Wall Street is more democratic-- every purchase or sale of stocks and bonds must be at a price both the buyer and seller agree to.
What is being bought and sold by Wall Street (and finance)? Therein lies the problem. Where do patients fit into financialized healthcare? Are they customers, commodities, or products?
Paper investors expect the highest returns. That requires raising prices and reducing costs. How does that benefit patients?
Capitalism is the name of the game. The rich get richer, the poorer get poorer.
Exactly.. Imagine if our poor people could be as well off as they were in the middle ages, or in 1920. Poor Americans are certainly worse off than ever. Sure, they have access to better things than the Rockefellers did 100 years ago but they are told how terrible they have it so it must be true. ....
... until the rich start getting killed off.
So, capitalism doesn't make the poor, poorer, like you claim.
[✘] ericans can support that fucking moron makes me really scratch my head.
Because they don't believe silly things like capitalism makes the poor, poorer.
10% of American households own over two-thirds of the country's total wealth, according to Federal Reserve data.
and those households pay more than 70% of the income tax....
Capitalism does not necessarily make poor people poorer in absolute terms, but certain forms of capitalism can make the poor poorer relative to the wealthy and can reinforce wealth inequality.
The basic argument is:
But there is an important distinction between absolute poverty and relative inequality. A capitalist economy can simultaneously make a poor household materially better off—higher income, better technology, better consumer goods—while making the wealth gap between that household and the richest households much larger.
So a more precise version of your statement would be:
Financial capitalism is quite different than industrial capitalism. Financial capitalism utilizes economic abstractions to create and concentrate money. The constant creation of money is inflationary and that inflation is the mechanism that concentrates money and purchasing power.
Industrial capitalism utilizes tangible resources (including labor) and assets to produce goods and services in the real economy. For the rich to become richer it is necessary to produce material improvements in people's lifestyle and living conditions.
LMAO! Ok, that's completely false. I pay more in taxes than Amazon does.
LMAO! Ok, that's completely false
From ai assist:
The top 10% of American households pay 72% of all federal income taxes . This significant contribution highlights the progressive nature of the U.S. tax system, where higher earners bear a larger share of the tax burden.
I pay more in taxes than Amazon does.
Amazon's effective tax rate has varied, but it paid $39.615 billion in income taxes for the twelve months ending June 30, 2026
[ I ][ ✘ ]
Financial capitalism does, indeed, make the poor poorer. A financialized economy runs on debt and inflation with the result of debasing the currency. Since the poor cannot accumulate money faster than the rich are debasing the money then the poor will undoubtedly become poorer.
In our modern financialized economy, savings do not earn interest and the value of savings erode rapidly. Working hard, playing by the rules, and savings no longer provides better lifestyles or living conditions.
Except reality proves you wrong. Just look around. Compare what a "poor" person has today compared to 1970. No one in their right mind would prefer to be poor in 1970, with everything that comes with living in 1970 (quality of medicine, travel, tech etc). Let alone to be middle class...
n our modern financialized economy, savings do not earn interest and the value of savings erode rapidly.
Savings do in fact earn interest. I just rolled over a sort term cd at over 4% the other day. Investments, of course even more.
Working hard, playing by the rules, and savings no longer provides better lifestyles or living conditions.
Yeah, it does. Our lifestyles and living conditions have inflated incredibly fast. It's not really arguable and a quick trip back to whatver golden age you believe exists would should you that.
Does it? How many people were homeless in 1970? How many people with mental disease were forced to fend for themselves in 1970? How many students were required to take on a lifetime of debt to obtain a college education? What was the prevalence of medical bankruptcies in 1970?
The dollar has lost 89% of its buying power since 1970. Today the consumer goods are disposable and of exceptionally low quality. Today's food is a source of chronic disease and illness. A lot of today's material luxuries are purchased on credit. Today the material goods that make up our lifestyle cannot be produced in the United States. That wasn't the case in 1970.
What happens to that interest if the money is needed before maturity? What amount of 'savings' was needed to obtain a 4% rate?
Yes, it does....
So you are ok with your health ins. going up?
Unlike under Communism, where everyone's wealth is equal . . . ???
Vladimir Putin 's official net worth is listed as modest, but unofficial expert estimates suggest his hidden wealth could range from $70 billion to as high as $200 billion .
The richest 10% of American households own over two-thirds of the country's total wealth, according to Federal Reserve data.
Just to be clear on the math, that leaves 90% of Americans holding just 1/3rd of the wealth.
Unlike under all previous presidents where wealth had been equally distributed ...
(/sarc)
Unlike systems totally controlled by governments.
For example Communism-- where the government controls everything and everybody prospers!
(/sarc)
And people ask me why my 38 yr old daughter lives at our house still.... because with her pre-exisiting condition makes her monthly premium over $1700.00. She has to pay for best insurance to cover her maintenance treatments. I can't even imagine what it will be after this shit happens.
There many countries that have various forms of Socialism. Some forms are better than others . . .but it is possible to have a system than benefits all more thoroughly than what we currently have in the U.S.
Morning.. flipping heck thats is a lot of $$ per month..even our top private hospital insurance is no where near that a month...just had a look $350 a month for gold standard here...
Depending on the condition medication here it would be free or a very small amount..if it's on the PBS it would cost $7.70 and that's it...which by the way our PBS irks Trump so he slapped 100% tariff on the pharmaceuticals we supply to the USA..so now costs you mob way more..
Can have private health insurance here, but in the country areas it makes no difference if you haven't or not..
If you have to be flown to Melbourne etc it's a $70 a year fee to the ambulance and covers everything regardless of the number of trips etc..
So glad I live on my sandbar in the middle of the ocean...
most people in the US are too stupid to realize how willing hospitals are to negotiate their fees, than risk not being paid at all.
think you could you introduce me to nikki osborne or molly dixon if I were to visit?
nikki has oz tutorials, one on morning tea, while molly likes to tease apex predators with her flesh ...
Absolutely...just so long as you can pass the Vegemite test..
Don't want any undesirables sneaking into the country..we have standards you know..we just don't let anyone in..😁
visually, how would you tell a pile of vegemite from a maga?
Vegemite smells way better...😁
bloody right ...
We are preparing for the AEP and OEP now. It's going to be brutal across the the whole health insurance spectrum. For anyone that's losing their plan, don't panic - the enrollment period into a new plan will be extended into the new year, by law. For those of you looking for individual family plans on the market place... I'd say good luck, but it won't help.
I hate that we call it healthcare when the truth is that it is sick maintenance. Those who act to promote actual healthy lifestyles are ridiculed as the nanny state, because eating junk and keeping eyes glued to screens is a highly profitable aspect of capitalism, as is health insurance. The healthcare-for-profit industry wants to address the problem of people dying from obesity related illness (and therefore losing their busine$$), by selling expensive prescriptions that do what we won’t do for ourselves. The ultra-processed food industry is in a battle with the pharmaceutical industry over which will squeeze the most money out of the people, and neither of them is actually concerned about the health of those people. It’s all about maximizing profit.
Eating junk?
Eyes glued to screens?
Is there really any truth to that? (Isn't that really a matter of opinion, and not fact?
)
What Is Your Favourite Dessert? Lots to choose from - let us know just what your sweet tooth really is.
I personally have almost entirely cut out eating unhealthy food. (Although I have to admit I still waste all too much time in " doom scrolling ").
Work without getting paid? That would save patients a lot of money!
But how many doctors, nurses, dentists and other healthcare providers should work and not get paid?