Gap in domestic Health Insurance coverage, expect higher premiums?
The insurance company is must assume you do have a preexisting condition you are unaware of.  The reason for that is that Affordable Care Act precludes the Insurance company from denying coverage of them if you do.  Insurance companies are businesses.  They are in business to make money(unless you have a nonprofit insurer).  They can not do that if you can buy insurance only when you need for them to pay out.  So even though you may not have a preexisting condition, they are precluded from requiring an examination that would detect the most expensive preexisting conditions (hidden cancers, neurological, autoimmune disorders).  So the companies must do what takes business sense and either deny you coverage or charge a rate that covers the risk they would be forced to take.   In your question on travel there was a response that suggested you get international health insurance instead of travel health insurance that would be considered credible coverage.  You are trying to save money which on a personal level is a good idea.  However that is against the societal and business need that you maintain health coverage during your healthy times to cover the costs of those who need expensive treatment.  So you will be monetarily penalized should you choose to reenter the society of insured people.  Once you have paid the higher rate for up to 18 months you should be able to get a better policy for people who have had continuous coverage.  Alternately you may be lucky enough to start working for a company that provides health insurance with out requiring continuous coverage. I bought Health Insurance for myself after a period without it, and my premiums were not terrible. I was a 27 year old man, living in California, no preexisting conditions, and I paid approximately 90$ a month. This was for a standard Health Insurance plan.  However, when I moved back to NY a little while later, insurance companies wanted almost $500/month for catastrophic coverage.  So, from personal experience, my answer is that price varies widely by state. Different states have different regulations as to what Health Insurance Companies need to cover and at what price. In NY, Health Insurance companies can't charge different rates according to age. Also, in NY, there is a price spiral, where the price is so high, few people buy it, so they have to raise the price because not enough well people are in the pool, so fewer people buy it.... To test it out, go to an online insurance broker, like ehealthinsurace, and put in your proposed information, including that you haven't been covered for a period. This way you will know.
This is where an insurance agent is very useful. They will help you choose appropriate coverage, based on local rebuilding costs, the build quality of your house (higher quality or historic/semi-historic construction requires a different type of coverage), etc. They can also help advise you on things like the need for flood insurance, etc. Local rules can vary, and the local agent will know about them. For example, we found out that my home was in a semi-historic district, which requires using higher-cost materials for reconstruction. Also, our city separately licenses tradespeople, who tend to be unionized and thus more expensive. Had I just picked default coverages, I would have been in a pickle in the event of a loss. "It's likely impossible to determine why premiums are increasing in a meaningful way; not only is the interrelationship between the various data points very complex, but some of the increases are likely due to decisions by people who do not and will not publicly post what they decided and why. However, it is possible to compare health insurance premium increases over time to see if the increases in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums are comparable or not to the pre-ACA timeframe. Since the ACA phased in over a few years, we can compare the period 2008-2010 ""pre-ACA"" and 2013-2015 ""post-ACA"", ignoring 2011-2012 as being unclearly affected by the ACA phase-in.  For this, I will look at single coverage premiums only for the purpose of simplifying the analysis. I found a good table of 2008-2010 premiums from the NCSL; they list the following: Kaiser Permanente had a good list for 2013-2015 here: From 2008-2010, the average growth was around 6% per year.  From 2013-2015, the growth averaged about 3%.  In both of these cases we are comparing total premiums (sum of employer and employee contributions). So, from a data-driven look, it seems that the premium growth is lower post-ACA than pre-ACA, so it's unlikely that the ACA could be accused of causing increased premium growth.  Of course, this is US-wide average, and on a state-by-state basis there may well be significant differences that may or may not be related to the ACA. One thing that is covered on the NCSL page linked above that is interesting: while the premium growth has slowed significantly (about 50% of the growth pre-ACA), health insurance premiums are a higher proportion of employee's wages, and that growth is continuing - because wage growth has not kept pace with inflation post-2008 recession.  Employee contributions also may be higher post-recession; many companies reduced their contribution percentage (as my then employer did, for example).   Finally, increases in the ACA plans are also commonly overstated.  They largely are in line with employer plans or even less.   In 2015, premiums were basically flat, decreasing slightly in fact - see the KFF analysis here.  2016 saw a 3.6% by this methodology (see the 2016 analysis).   It's very easy to cherrypick examples that are favorable to any interpretation from the data, though; there are such big swings as a result of the different conditions in the marketplaces that it's easy to pick a few that have high swings and claim the ACA has massive premium increases, or pick a few that have low swings and claim it's reducing costs." There are several aspects to this but at a high level it boils down to A lot goes in to insurance rating and risk projecting.  You can't adjust a single variable and expect a proportional change in your premium, 7,000 miles per year just won't be 70% of the cost of 10,000 miles per year, because there are a lot of other things in play as well.  To further address premium adjustments.  Consider this: Even if your liability coverage did scale with perfect correlation to your mileage (using the same 70% from above, 7,000 miles per year versus 10,000 miles per year) then your premium composition is: $200 to $170 is 15%.  No change will have a direct linear correlation to your total premium because there are different component pieces of the total premium.  Fixed costs may be built in to the amounts for other component pieces of the premium, for example maybe no line of coverage ever has a cost below $X. Obviously these numbers are all made up Additionally, and also less considered is the fact that your liability also scales because of a lot of factors that have nothing to do with you.  It might be the other cars that are on the road, it might be that more densely populated areas have more fender benders.  For example if you live in Beverly Hills you have a much higher likelihood of accidentally bumping a $70-$80-$90-$100k+ car than you do in say, rural Wisconsin.  If your zip code is gentrifying and everyone starts buying Mercedes, your liability coverage increases.   You can not adjust one single variable and decide that you are lower risk than all insurers think you are.  If you shop this coverage and all insurers are within a nominal margin of pricing for the same coverage levels, there isn't much to argue with; you are simply riskier than you think you are and the variable you are focused on is not as meaningful as you think it is. "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://news.ehealthinsurance.com/news/affordable-care-act-health-insurance-will-be-unaffordable-in-2018-for-many-middle-income-american-families-ehealth-analysis-shows) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The Affordable Care Act considers health insurance to be &amp;quot;Unaffordable&amp;quot; when annual premiums for the lowest-priced plan in a market cost more than 8.16% of a household&amp;#039;s modified adjusted gross income.  &gt; eHealth, Inc. owns eHealth.com, a leading private online health insurance exchange where individuals, families and small businesses can compare health insurance products from brand-name insurers side by side and purchase and enroll in coverage online and over the phone.  &gt; eHealth offers thousands of individual, family and small business health plans underwritten by many of the nation&amp;#039;s leading health insurance companies.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73ecm7/ehealthcom_has_just_published_a_new_study_that/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~219483 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **plan**^#1 **health**^#2 **insurance**^#3 **eHealth**^#4 **City**^#5" Yes, it should be. As, where one has insurance, its an expense one would expect one to continue to incur in a normal budgetary emergency, even drop in the extreme. Its not just the insurers. Healthcare facilities were floating on which way to go and not upgrading or expanding their locations.  Now they have started to move towards expansion and change would throw that all up in the air. As others have said, it depends entirely on what benefits are provided, and how much of the cost of those benefits is paid by the employer and how much is paid by the employee, and compare that to what it would cost to obtain the necessary/equivalent coverage without employer assistance. In my case, my employer pays more than $10,000 per year toward the cost of medical, dental, vision, disability, and life insurance for myself and my family. That's almost 20% of the average total household income in my state, so it is not an insignificant amount at all. "It seems like if that were true, then if everyone were in one group, you'd get the biggest discount of all.  My preference has been for single payer, but recently I saw a guy suggesting single-group, multi-payer, or SGMP. This was just a comment from a physician in a medical journal, and I don't have the link and haven't been able to find out anything more about it, but it seems intriguing. It had something to do with insurance companies bidding to provide coverage services.  edit: [Here it is](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1211514#t=comments):  &gt; JOEL SPALTER, MD | Physician - Infectious Diseases | Disclosure: None  &gt; FAYETTEVILLE AR  &gt; October 02, 2012  &gt; Single Group Multi-Payer  &gt; True reform resulting in universal health insurance and access to care is achieved by state mandates for insurance with replacement of individual or group underwriting with underwriting by ""Dutch auction"" for a percentage of the single group consisting of all of the residents of a State – Single Group – Multi-Payer (SGMP). Each successful insurance company would be responsible for payment of the percentage of the total costs for medical services equal to the percentage of the population insured. This preserves the integrity of the bidding process.    &gt; States are free to establish the public contribution to premiums. SGMP prevents exclusion of insurance for pre-existing conditions or due to genetic background, absent individual underwriting; guarantees maintenance of health care insurance independent of place, or even existence of employment; assures equality of access to providers due to a single established remuneration scale; and assures patients' choice of providers free from any empanelling by insurance companies. Market forces will govern providers' attempts to gain and hold market share.   &gt; A single group eases statistical comparison, with EMR, of 50, State patterns of care."