Bliz

If this was a Republican mess, there would be 100 times the activity in this thread on this board......

All I hear is crickets. See no evil. Speak no evil. Hear no evil. Post no evil.

For me, I don't really know what to say about it. I still adamantly believe in the importance of curbing the abuses in the individual market. The law hit some of the worst ones, and that was an extremely important bit of consumer protection.

But I just couldn't be more disappointed in how badly the administration has ****ed this all up. They have done more to undermine the law than the pubs ever could have.

It gets pretty tough to dismiss the mounting evidence that Obama is incompetent

I've had an application pending with the healthcare.gov site for quite a while now.  Just waiting on the identity verification to be completed.  I originally went on mostly out of curiosity for myself, to see what the plans looked like, but now have the dual purpose that my employer (under 50 employees) wants to use my profile so they can submit a SHOP application and see what is available to them. 

But it's been since Oct. 10 that they've been working on verifying my identity, so I clicked for the online helpdesk to see what was up.  Someone was on with me in about 1 minute.  But they had no info.  Told me to call the number, give the application number and see what was taking so long. 

Okay, called the number.  Again, someone was on with me pretty much immediately,  But she didn't ask me for the application number or anything.  Just said there was a huge backlog and they were trying to work through it and sorry it's taking so long.  Even though it's been since Oct 10, I asked?  She didn't seem phased by the date.  I guess that level of delay is consistent with what they're seeing right now.

So, good marks to the customer service for being available to talk to me with virtually no wait time, both online and on phone.  But the delay in the identity verification is very frustrating.  No timetable for when they will complete the identity verification is very frustrating.

What many of you are over looking is that you don't even need to pay the fine/tax. That particular tax can only be collected on through excess in tax payments and the law bars any other penalties. If one always under pays their taxes all they need to do is pay each year minus the healthcare fine what they owe the IRS.

 

 

This is not a very good strategy. 

The excess tax payment thing, while it seems to be true as a basic principle, is tough because it's tricky for most people to calculate accurately to ensure they never get a tax refund.  Plus, if you don't pay it, the fines will accrue penalties (I suspect) and interest.   Long term, even the best case scenario is not very rosy.    The government will get theirs, sooner or later.

Well what good is a mandate if you aren't forced to follow it.

 

I mean I can pay a fine and not buy insurance.  What if everyone did that?

 

Now what I don't know is what happens to a person who simply pays the fine for not getting healthcare, if they realize they need coverage can they suddenly sign up?

I guess it depends on what you need it for.

If you need surgery but it's not urgent, or you have a longterm disease, then I think yes you could put it off until after you sign up for insurance and be fine.

If you're hit by a car or have a heart attack and need surgery today, then no.  That's the hole in the "wait until you get sick to sign up" strategy, is that it doesn't account for emergencies.

(Been watchin that gif for waaaayyy too long, lol)...good post, Wrong Direction.  We need to hear the good, too...especially after Fox brought out their fakes on Hanniteabag's show. 

The shame is that even debunked, most of the "Obamacare is Evil" believers will never know that their "news" organization flat out lies, because they're stuck in the bubble. 

Here's an opinion piece that cuts against a few themes from this thread.  It's a pro-obamacare article on FoxNews  in which the writer ended up with a low deductible--a much lower deductible than they could previously afford--thanks to the ACA.  However, this person is in New York.  And it certainly seems like New York is an outlier, with people there getting a lot more out of the deal than people in any other states.  Still, for what it's worth:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/21/was-obamacare-guinea-pig/

I signed up. I saved. And so will millions of Americans. 

 

Honestly, I couldn’t wait to sign up for ObamaCare — not because I talk about it on television, but because I’m tired of being ripped off by my insurance company. 

 

I live in New York State — which for several decades has had the highest individual insurance premiums in the nation.

 

...

 

Currently, I pay $965 per month for family coverage that includes:

•    a whopping $7,000 deductible;

•    $36,000 out-of-pocket max per year;

•    an annual coverage limit of $2,000,000;

•    a $35 co-pay for doctor’s visits ($55 for specialists); and

•    a $15 co-pay for generic prescriptions.

 

I’m not going to tell you who my current provider is, though I’m inclined to purely out of loathing and spite. But for the record, for over a year I paid for their version of “gold” coverage that had a $3,000 deductible, only a $25 doctor’s co-pay and a $6,000 out-of-pocket max.

 

But that plan didn’t process any of my reimbursements either and cost a whopping $1,687 per month. That’s over $20,000 per year! 

 

You can see why, regardless of what party I vote for, I was excited to have some more affordable options.

 

So I logged onto the New York State health insurance exchange website. Yeah, I had a few false starts — the website was down a lot early on either because of service glitches or overwhelming traffic. 

 

For a few days, I couldn’t do anything at all on the website.

 

Then for a day or so I could “log-in” but not complete registration. And then for a day, I could answer the questions to complete my registration but not actually complete the process. 

 

On one occasion, I got so frustrated at the stalled exchange website that I actually shook my computer. 

 

Not pleasant.

 

...

 

Within a week, I had settled on a “gold” plan offered by Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield. The plan includes:

•    a $2,000 total deductible;

•    an out-of-pocket max of $12,500 for the year;

•    a $30 co-pay for visits to our primary care doctor;

•    a $15 co-pay for generic prescriptions;

•    NO annual coverage limit — because that’s now prohibited thanks to the Affordable Care Act; plus

•    an added bonus: the plan I selected includes child dental. 

 

This option will cost my family $931 per month — $408 per year less than my previous crappy plan and a $5,000 savings in deductibles. A big win for me and my family financially and in terms of what’s covered.

 

Plus in the past, I spent several days looking for and comparing insurance options. Under ObamaCare, even with the slow and sticky website, I spent a total of four hours — to save over $5,400. That kind of return on investment would make Warren Buffett drool.

 

Health insurance is not a free market at all though, and that is the problem.  First of all, you would pay anything for a heart transplant, wouldn't you?  If I told you that you needed a heart transplant to live, and I could do it, and you would survive, wouldn't you buy it?  It is an extremely inelastic good that has a tremendously high value.  

 

Second, insurance companies do not compete on a free market now.  Not the way other companies do.  We do not want insurance companies to go out of business, which is a necessary part of any free market.  But if Blue Cross/Blue Shield goes out of business tomorrow, millions of people are just screwed over.  We don't like that.  So, we allow insurance companies to share information, and we set up huge frameworks to make sure they do not fail.  They are "too big to fail" already.  Too important to fail, perhaps.

 

So, in one sense I agree with you.  Health care does not work as a free market.  Its not one, and forcing a square peg into a round hole might not work.  But, it is the most free market way to try to address this problem.

 

 

I would piggyback on that to add, it's not a free market because there is very little competition, and the barriers to entry are so high as to be essentially insurmountable.  You can't start your own health insurance company offering better service at cheaper rates. 

It's an oligopoly.

Where I work they already cut some employee hours down to 35 and are looking for a 100% increase in our contributions to our health insurance.  Will they get 100%, I highly doubt it, but they are going for it.  But don't worry,  your insurance premiums won't rise and it won't cost us a dime.

The employer mandate has been delayed until January 2015.  Cutting hours now is irrelevant in terms of how it effects the employer under Obamacare.  More importantly, the threshold number is 30 hours.  Someone working 35 hours a week is still considered "full time" and must be offered insurance by large employers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/14/will-someone-get-fired-for-obamacare/

 

Will someone get fired for Obamacare?

 

Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs raised an uncomfortable question Monday during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Now with Alex Wagner”: Is someone going to get fired for the uneven rollout of the Affordable Care Act‘s Oct. 1 rollout?

“When they get it fixed, I hope they fire some people that were in charge of making sure that this thing was supposed to work,” said Gibbs, usually a defender of the Obama administration. “We knew there were going to be glitches, right? But these were glitches that go, quite frankly, way beyond the pale of what should be expected.”

 

Administration officials, who could not be reached immediately for comment, have not identified which officials at Health and Human Services were directly in charge of the new computer enrollment system, or which companies are most involved with fixing it now. Both GCI Federal and Quality Software Services Inc. helped construct the Web site and data hub, respectively.

Senior White House officials have consistently attributed the site’s problems to unanticipated demand, but Gibbs challenged that explanation Monday.

“This was bungled badly,” he said. “This was not a server problem, just too many people came to the Web site, this is a Web site architecture problem. I think it is, again, excruciatingly embarrassing.”

And Gibbs is not the only traditional supporter of the White House criticizing its handling of the Affordable Care Act launch today. Washington Post Wonkblog’s Ezra Klein posted a piece Monday calling the recent rollout “a failure.”

How long does this have to go on before the administration has no choice but to delay the individual mandate by at least 6 months?  You can't have this failure of the website stretch on and on and still impose the mandate on people. 

My opinion only, November 1 is the drop dead date.  If the system isn't running smooth and fast for the vast majority of users by that point, you have no choice but to delay.

Which raises an interesting question.  Obama knows this.  He knows there's a point of no return that will force his hand on the delay.  Is he already assuming that he'll have to do that, and holding out for something particularly valuable from Pubs that he can sell the base on?

I don't get health insurance through my work so I have been purchasing it on my own for years now.  I just did the "Premium Estimation Tool" and all 28 plans, including the "catastrophic" plans, are higher than my current premium.  Not looking good for me.

 

Edit: Oh and the Kaiser Family Foundation calculator says I don't qualify for any tax credits.

 

Edit #2: My current plan's deductible is $1,500 in network, $2,500 out of network. These plans are all $5k-6k. I didn't know I had it so good, hope I don't lose my plan.

How did you get to those details on the deductibles?  I wasn't able to see anything other than premiums using that tool.  Are you in a state that set up its own exchange, or on the federal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m6lC3TwtIk

So funny.

His expression at 0:20 just kills me

Pointing out, you're comparing apples and oranges. (In this case, deductibles and premiums.)

(At least, I assume that your $1,300 number is the premium.)

---------- 

 

typo.  thanks.  corrected.

And then they tell me that I failed the identity test.

I must call Experian, to prove my identity.

Experian has a recording telling me that they're experiencing a high call volume, and call back some other time, and hangs up on me.

 

Same thing happened to me.  Frustrating.

Bliz,

 

You have mistaken me for someone that wants this to fail rather than someone who is just letting you know what you are in for.

I will give you an analogy to your celebration.

 

Each year I have to renew my health insurance for my company.  Insurers who don't know the "health" of my company offer me cheap rates.  Once my company "health" is known, then my rates are adjusted accordingly the following year at renewal.

The true test to Obamacare is the cost of premiums moving forward.

 

So basically if the majority of people who buy Obamacare are sickly, then rates will skyrocket.

 

Call me next year.

And BTW, I have been saying this all along, and Larry's post above tells the story nicely.  Larry btw is on your side.

I don't think that's what I'm doing.  Just trying to recognize the point you've been making about coverage.  Anyway I would hardly call that post a celebration.  It was pretty objective, I thought, and pointed out the holes in the info.  I only said it was a good sign for affordability and a step in the right direction.  Not exactly spiking the football. 

It will be very interesting to see what happens in a year.  It is certainly possible that rates will skyrocket based on who buys and who doesn't.  But we should also consider that insurance companies are pretty good at underwriting and making money, and they are undoubtedly factoring in (to at least some degree) the ratio of healthy/sickly who buy in so they don't lose their shirts.  Maybe they're overestimating it, maybe they're underestimating it.  I have no idea.

Chip may flip out over this, but fwiw

There seems to be a new "premium estimation" tool that will give you the monthly premiums* for the different plans available in your county.  It doesn't have any of the details (though you can find those by googling the plan, if you're so inclined) so it's of very limited usefulness right now.  Also it doesn't take into account any tax credits.  But I still found this interesting:

There are 35 family plans (excluding catastrophic) available in the county where I live (3 platinum, 8 gold, 11 silver, 13 bronze).  There are 62 family plans (excluding catastrophic) available in the county where I work (3 platinum, 14 gold, 23 silver, 22 bronze). 

Of those 97 plans, or there may be overlap, I don't know, but of all of those plans, every single one of them has a monthly premium lower than the $1,288.24 my employer and I pay combined for family coverage.

Now Chip would very correctly point out that just knowing the cost is only half the puzzle.  You can't compare two plans without knowing the details of coverage, deductibles, etc.

But, I don't think my plan is terribly expensive, so to have all of the plans beat that price--before qualification for any tax credits--is a good sign for at least the affordability of achieving the status of "has health insurance."  Which is a step in the right direction. 

*disclaimer - not sure what it assumes for ages of people on this hypothetical plan, and how that may change the numbers.

Info on my experience with comparative level of benefits/value to come...if and when I am able to get some actual quotes from the Exchange.

The estimator tool is available here:  https://www.healthcare.gov/find-premium-estimates/

 

Ironically, if they passed a law tomorrow that said congress would be treated just like everyone else w respect to the aca, congressfolk would be MUCH better treated by the law than they are now

 

Uh, no.

Government health insurance is better than what is provided by the ACA.

To clarify, by "now" I didn't mean the insurance they have right now, but how they are now treated by the ACA.  If you read that story, the Grassley amendment mandates they purchase on the Exchange.  If they were treated like everyone else, there would be no such requirement, and they could go back to having large employer-provided health plan instead, which would be much better for them.

Will not eat a dinner that the cook will not eat. Therefore why should I take part in a program prepared by politicians even though they themselves will not sign up for.

Just Sayin'

the law passed and they want exempted from the provision in it addressing them....pretty simple really

Ironically, if they passed a law tomorrow that said congress would be treated just like everyone else w respect to the aca, congressfolk would be MUCH better treated by the law than they are now

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/30/john-boehners-plan-c-hurts-congress-hurts-taxpayers-fixes-nothing/

<Chases tail>

 

No I don't want it to list every possible condition, which is my whole point.  You make it for me.  What I said is basically you will get what you pay for, cheap insurance will mean lesser benefits and more expensive things like prescription drugs.  I am simply stating what to expect from Obamacare.

 

You accuse me of calling a guy an idiot because I let him know you can't tell the actual inside costs and whether he is actually saving $1000.  You say hey look at my neat little matrix it tells everything.  Then I point out what that matrix and what the exchange can't show consumers, and you say you want it to show everything?

 

Premiums mean nothing and that grid you keep linking means nothing.  The devil is in the details like what ACTUALLY is covered.  Who cares if you save $1000 in premium is you spend $2000 more on prescription drugs.  Or the new plan doesn't actually cover something you actually need.

 

But thanks for proving my pont.

 

</Chases Tail>

 

That is correct.  But that's not what Americans want Obamacare for.  It's for those that are sick and actually have to use it.  You know COVERAGE -vs INSURANCE.

If that's all you were trying to say, you could have made that point MUCH more clear much earlier, instead of suggesting that you were talking about widely applicable systemic problems with Obamacare specifically (as opposed to healthcare purchasing generally).  Something like:

"I know this doesn't apply to the vast majority of people, but there is a narrow exception where some people will fall into a gray area of coverage, and might not have coverage for the treatment they think they have coverage for, which will disappoint their expectations of cost savings.  Sucks for that minority, but hopefully they are aware enough of their health condition to investigate their plans and make sure their unique individual needs are taken into consideration.  As for regular healthy people, the matrix should give them a reasonably accurate baseline for estimating costs of different plans in different scenarios (like nothing other than regular doctor checkups vs 1 minor outpatient event vs surgery/hospitalization and hitting the out-of-pocket max, etc.")

No he doesn't, nor do you, nor do I for that matter.  I am speaking on experience of my own health insurance issues with my employees.

 

 

No they won't.  Here is a good article for you.  http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/prescription_drug_coverage_under_obamacare_comes_at_an_unspecified_price.html

 

 

Prescription drug costs for one.  Not to mention the fact that when you sign up for health insurance in an exchange, even if they could provide prescription drug pricing, if you have never had health insurance you might not have a clue what a doctor prescribes you.

 

 

That link provides me the same thing my benefits broker provides me when I pick insurance plans, what it doesn't show is the details.

An example I used before.  This is happened to my friend.  Friend has a child with a speech impediment since birth.  Has BC/BS for years.  BC/BS covers childs voice therapy.  It's more complicated than looking at a chart on the exchange because there are many different types of voice therapy and reasons for coverage.  Anyways, company switches to Cigna.  Friend goes to take kid to voice therapy.  They say it's not covered.  Voice therapy is covered just NOT for his kid because Cigna doesn't believe the kids type of illness is treatable by voice therapy.  So now friend has to pay out of pocket.

That little matrix you link to means nothing, and if I used simply that to pick my plans, my employees might riot.  Level of service between blue cross blue shield and coventry is night and day even though on your matrix they might look comparable....and they are known entities.

 

We will no more in a year, but based on my experience with health care, I am not optimistic...because the details are what matter, and those details are what I have to consider every year when renewing for my employees.  Some policies are cheaper than others for a reason.

The problem is that you have set a nearly impossible standard, one which I think would be detrimental to most people because it would give them such an overwhelming amoung of information the plans would cease to make sense.  You want it to list every condition it does or doesn't cover?  Or how much every drug known to man costs?  Of course not.  But if you do have a particular illness requiring a particular treatment I believe you could go to a broker and get that information, but I'm not sure.

Most individuals making purchasing decisions on the individual market have used that matrix or its approximate equivalent in making decisions for years.  Does it give you every single detail?  No.  But it gives you a pretty  good idea about the straight cost/value of a plan for a regular person in generally good health. 

"But there are reasons for optimism too."

 

Oh really?  Please share.  You did a lot of  barking but you didn't say anything.  What are the reasons for optimism?

 

"you shut out and refuse to consider anything that is contrary to your currently-held view"

 

The only poster to share a contrary view with anything to back it up was PeterMP, and that was just about the cost of the ACA to the Government.  If you have any contrary basis to backup your ACA is going to be great view, please share.

 

"And here's a good example of what I was just talking about.  You assume that the poster is an idiot.  He couldn't possibly be saving money, it must be that he's just less informed than you.  NEver mind that all of the details of his plan were required to be spelled out very clearly on the Exchange.  If he's happy and think he's saving money, then it must be that he's too dumb to know the difference between his old plan and his new one.  A very disrespectful post, IMO, which also shows your own knowledge gaps"

 

1.  If you read my post it says he may or may not save money.  The truth is it's unknown.  I never said he wouldn't or would or said he is too dumb.

2.  You don't know what you are talking about with regards to "all of the details are spellled out in the exchange.  Listen, the devil is in the details.  The real details that the exchange wont tell you is if I have a prescription for Liperol or any other drug, how much does it cost me under the plan.  The exchange doesn't tell you that.  There are a lot of things you can't derive from the exchange.

3.  If I have knowledge gaps, please inform me.  Don't try and insult me without any information.  I am all ears.

Nothing is for certain with any of this.  It's going to be a trial by fire.  The article I linked was an example of reasons for optimism.  I recognize there are reasons for pessimism too.  And I'm not convinced it's going to be great all the way around.  There are parts of it I like, and parts of it I don't.  And some things that concern me greatly

The poster your responded to is saying he'll save money on his new plan.  The devil may be in the details, but you don't know the details.  He does.  If he feels the plans are comparable in terms of coverage/coinsurance/deductible and the premiums are less, than it's a pretty good likelihood he'll save money.  But you assumed that he had not basis for saying he would save.

"The real details that the exchange wont tell you is if I have a prescription for Liperol or any other drug, how much does it cost me under the plan."

Prescription drug payments are required to be listed, along with many other details of the plan.  The exchange will tell you that, as long as you know what tier the drugs you take are in (or you know how much you pay for it now, and what your current benefit is).   

What things that are relevant as to costs or value of the plan can you not derive from the exchange?  The Exchange will tell you copays (incl for specialists and hospitals); outpatient, ER, drug, in network, out of network, deductible, coinsurance, labs, x-rays...  The only true unknown in all of this is what happens to you next year.  Otherwise the Exchange gives you as much information on costs and expenses as you could reasonably hope for. 

Here's the link to the details on RI plans that I posted in the other thread.  http://www.healthsourceri.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/HealthSourceRI-Individual-Plans-all-info-FINAL-08202013.pdf

You can look at that and come to a reasonable conclusion about whether one of those plans is a better value than your current plan.

Yes they're non-existent.  Because the plans haven't even started offering coverage yet.  They may not be out there until Jan 1 2015.

But as a response to the complaint that the Exchange will only allow people to price-shop, what I said remains a valid point.  Price-shopping today, true, but in the future there will also be ratings and information pertaining to customer satisfaction and other things that allow for a more informed decision.

the more you know...

Maybe someone can help me, but what are the limitations to plans under the ACA? Like with normal insurance, some doctors won't take it, or to see a specialist you have to be referred by your primary care physician. Does ACA have anything like this?

Not exactly.  The ACA is just a series of mandates.  Insurers can design their plans however they want, subject only to certain minimum benefits that they must offer (e.g., the plans must be projected to cover no less than 60% of costs, that certain minimum essential services be covered, maximum out-of-pocket expense, etc.).  Some plans will be more generous, some will be less generous, and naturally the more generous plans will come with a higher monthly premium.  All of the plans are still through private insurers.  So if a doctor doesn't take BCBS now, then a BCBS plan offered through the Exchange will be in the same boat.  The ACA wouldn't address something like referral to a specialist.

 

Yes. Provider networks are more limited under the ACA than most private insurance. 

edit on reading twa's link - appears I was wrong about that one.  Though I still wonder how universally true this will prove to be.  Some insurers will attempt to control costs by limiting networks.  But how many do that, how limited the networks become, is going to be a very localized issue.

Does a company only have to offer insurance to avoid the 2k penalty or does the employee have to use it?

For companies that are subject to the mandate (50+ full time equivalent employees) they must offer it to at least all full-time employees in order to avoid the penalty.  The employee is free to go to the Exchange if they want, even if the employer offers a plan.  No requirement that the employee use the employer's plan, but if there is an employer plan out there then you lose out on certain tax credits or incentives offered to people who do not have an employer plan.

 

 

I'm asking because my company does offer private insurance, but I'm wondering if it would simply be  cheaper to get an ACA plan. I don't have kids and won't for another year and my wife and are are pretty healthy. The only reason I get insurance is because I know that if I don't, I'll have some sort of accident that requires the hospital. Why? Because Murphy and I are old friends and he likes to screw me every now and again.

You should be wondering that.  It's a smart thing to wonder.  Go to the Exchange and find out.  That's what I'm going to do.

I read it.

What it didn't tell you is when the good health plans with cheap prices have all the sick people switching to that plan, premiums will rise significantly to costs for caring for these people.

Well, if you read it, then you missed the point.  So I will clarify where I was going with that.

You have your doubts.  You've made them clear.  But there are reasons for optimism too.  The problem is, you're focused like a laser beam on the flaws of cheap insurance (high deductibles, low co-insurance) and on your doubt that low costs will be sustainable, so much so that you shut out and refuse to consider anything that is contrary to your currently-held view.

The reason you can't compare the two is you don't have all of the details.

I would say the biggest expense between plans can be in prescription drugs.  An identical prescription drug in BC/BS will have better negotiated rates which could cost hundreds more than the exchange.  In addition things like copays, deductibles, etc it could cost you even more.

It all depends on how much you rely on your insurance to pay for things.

It may save you, it may cost you more.  Not enough information.

And here's a good example of what I was just talking about.  You assume that the poster is an idiot.  He couldn't possibly be saving money, it must be that he's just less informed than you.  NEver mind that all of the details of his plan were required to be spelled out very clearly on the Exchange.  If he's happy and think he's saving money, then it must be that he's too dumb to know the difference between his old plan and his new one.  A very disrespectful post, IMO, which also shows your own knowledge gaps.

Too expensive is rather subjective and bad results are not a metric in the original networks drawn up (they will be rated later,as well as procedures)

 

I would suggest looking carefully before leaping

I disagree.  Because you're being too general.

Too expensive is not easy (or necessarily proper) when you're comparing cardiac surgeons.  But it's very easy in some other respects.  If you charge $1,000 for an MRI and other people are charging $500 for an MRI, an insurer is going to look at that and start forcing your hand.  Same for labs, meds, fixed costs for overnight stays, etc. 

Bad results is also an easy metric, in some respects.  I bet if you talk to the right people, they know the precise anticipated success rate of particular surgeries.  So if I know that a particular knee surgery will be what we call a success 80% of the time, 5% of people will develop infections and have to come back to have them treated, and 15% of people will require a 2nd surgery in order to achieve the desired result, over time I can use those numbers to evaluate how you're doing.  If you have a statistically significant difference in the number of people developing infections or requiring that 2nd surgery, boom, bad results.

Posted this in another thread. Our experience so far:

We got our bcbs letter yesterday. Our monthly payment (family of 5) is going up 40%. I own my own business, wife is a prn physical therapist. Three kids so we need more then just catastrophic care but not the super gold premium plan. Dont qualify for any subsidies. Not super excited to be paying $4200 more per year.

Have you gone on the exchange today to see what is available to you now?  I'd be very interested to hear how the rates compare.

Obamacare hasn't been servicing the nation for 3 years.

Like I said, call me in a year

 

Once the exchanges get in full swing, and the actual health of the population is known, the rates for people and the participation of the providers will be better known.  You don't have Obamacare.  That starts now.

It's semantics.  Portions of the law have been in effect for 3 years.  Kids up to 26, no co-pays for certain essential services,  etc.  But I'd tend to side with you on this one.  Some carriers are reducing costs for renewals right now in anticipation of competition.  Some aren't. 

But it would be smart for everyone to go on the Exchange and see what their options are for coverage/cost.  Can't know unless you check.  Even for people like me covered by an employer.  With my employer contribution there is no way that, on its own, it would be cheaper for me to go on the Exchange.  But I'll look anyway.  Why wouldn't I?  Maybe I can convince my employer to give me $600/month (they're paying $900 currently) as an incentive not to be on their plan, use that money to subsidize a purchase through the Exchange, and come out ahead in the long run.