<p>Yeah, I’m confused too. Some states did Medicaid expansion so I wonder if that’s part of this issue? IDK</p>
<p>The system is supposed to allow signups for Medicaid via the exchanges. The idea is that everyone who needs insurance will go through the exchange. When they provide financials, there are 3 possibilities: they are eligible for Medicaid; they are not eligible for Medicaid but are eligible for a subsidy; they are neither eligible for Medicaid nor a subsidy.</p>
<p>If they are eligible for Medicaid then the exchange system is supposed to automatically enroll them in Medicaid, by interfacing with the state Medicaid system. </p>
<p>One reason that most of the early enrollees may be going onto Medicaid is simply that they don’t have to choose a plan or pay a premium – so they aren’t going to be in application limbo like I am. (I’ve signed up, I’ve got my income verified, but I haven’t done the next step of selecting a plan because as of yet, there’s no accurate way to verify which doctors and hospitals are in which network). </p>
<p>Also there may be better outreach and awareness on the Medicaid front – people who have applied in the past but been told they were ineligible. It’s hard for a single adult to get on Medicaid, for example. Also, one huge barrier in the past has been that Medicaid was means tested for assets – so a person with money in the bank would be told they were not eligible. It didn’t have to be a lot of money – in California the asset limit is $2000 for a single person, $3000 for a couple – and that’s not limited to cash assets. So basically you had to be completely destitute to qualify. </p>
<p>So there probably are a huge number of people who have virtually no income but have assets that prevented them from getting Medicaid. These people are not ignorant – they’ve typically had contact with the system in the past, and very likely have applied for Medicaid and been turned down – and there has probably been plenty of notice via community organizations of the changes. </p>
<p>I believe that the California exchange is set up right now primarily to screen for Medicaid. I came to that conclusion because of the way the financial forms are set up – rather than asking “what do you expect to earn in 2014” or “what were your total earnings in 2012”, the question is: “how much did you earn last month” – that question makes no sense in the context of subsidies, which will be determined based on year-long income. But it does work really well as a Medicaid screen, because Medicaid looks at month-to-month income.</p>
<p>Calmom, thanks for this suggestion, its a good one. And I suppose I should be concerned that our accountant didn’t know about the two-year sunset on the tax credits 
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think to do this I’d need what’s called a flexible spending account because with the HRA alone the defined contribution rolls back each year. Hopefully, I’ll be able to get accurate info from my broker on this once we meet :)</p>
<p>Then again, your prediction that small employers may find releasing people back onto the exchange preferable with a salary increase may be highly accurate. It’s just that the plans I can access via SHOP have lower deductibles and OOP for what on the surface seems to be about the same premiums. So I was viewing that as an advantage.</p>
<p>[Obamacare</a> Site Is Working Slightly Less Badly - Businessweek](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>
<p>" In the first week, 5.3 million people accessed the site, but only 2 percent of them could log in. By the third week, 22 percent could log in. Still, fewer than 6 percent of people who accessed the site created an account, complete an application, and began browsing through plans."</p>
<p>Imagine how much more useful this thread could have been if people could discuss their health plans. Personally, I would rather read about which States have better plans on this thread so we can help people to relocate to those states next. :D</p>
<p>Yes! </p>
<p>We can call it ACA–part III, the relocation thread. :p</p>
<p>^Glad it’s working better. BTW who’s paying for this “fixing up”, tech surge, bringing experts in, and probably a lot of overtime?</p>
<p>calmom, it sounds like your state is good now. Your Rep says so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Texaspg…</p>
<p>Here…</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/MarketplacePremiums/ib_marketplace_premiums.cfm]ASPE[/url”>Health Insurance Marketplace Premiums for 2014 | ASPE]ASPE[/url</a>]</p>
<p>You dont have to move although if you want the best rates… Go to Minnesota.</p>
<p>One thing that gets lost on CC is that 56 percent of the uninsured are going to pay less than $100 a month for insurance. </p>
<p>States where ACA is working well include Kentucky , Oregon, NY, Washington. When these insurance companies get their act together, ACA is going to work well in California. The states that have set up their own marketplaces and have embraced ACA are most likely going to have the biggest success. I dont think that is a surprise. </p>
<p>I am surprised to read that GPs wife has a precondition. Sorry to read that.</p>
<p>texaspg wrote:
</p>
<p>So is that the current fail point for (almost) everyone? That’s where I got stuck last night. I got in a loop where I received a message that there was a problem with my immigration document (I clicked “YES” I am a US citizen) and my dob, name and ss# information - I got a message that it couldn’t be verified. </p>
<p>I read in the paper this morning that the consultant says the website will be working in a month. Then they go on to say it will be working “by the end of November” which according to my calendar is more than a month, but that’s ok, I really much prefer someone telling me to wait 6 weeks and it will work rather than trying every few days and wasting time and getting frustrated when I get stuck at point “X”, and big deal if 3 days later I get past point “X” and get stuck at point “Y”. I really don’t mind being told to come back at the end of November. </p>
<p>I may go to the BCBS website and look at plans, but I have read that I must purchase insurance using the exchange to be eligible for subsidies and I don’t trust reports to the contrary.</p>
<p>Rates vary by county. </p>
<p>We have to be careful with averages because we are all above average. :)</p>
<p>[Crain’s</a> Chicago Business : Subscription Center](<a href=“http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130924/NEWS03/130929882?template=mobile]Crain’s”>For Chicago-area consumers, lower rates under Obamacare)</p>
<p>Looks like Butlington VT is out. Chicago is in and I like Portland.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/102413_pima_premiums/times-pima-county-has-lowest-obamacare-premiums-us/[/url]”>http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/102413_pima_premiums/times-pima-county-has-lowest-obamacare-premiums-us/</a></p>
<p>NJ! If you are in NC, which I think you are, then you absolutely, at least of today, need to go to dotgov to get the subsidies. </p>
<p>Don’t rush. If you can get a subsidy, just wait.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[The</a> hidden truth behind early Obamacare numbers - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/26/politics/obamacare-medicaid-enroll/index.html]The”>http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/26/politics/obamacare-medicaid-enroll/index.html)</p>
<p>If not enough young health people apply, talking heads say the rates will go up even more.</p>
<p>^ that would be disastrous, and predictable actually</p>
<p>[More</a> legal trouble for Affordable Care Act - latimes.com](<a href=“More legal trouble for Affordable Care Act”>http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-glitch-20131025,0,5402697.story#axzz2iqbE2Psv)</p>
<p>There are several legal challenges to the subsidies. Apparently, since no one read the law before it was passed, the tax credits are available only “through an exchange established by the state”.</p>
<p>Only 14 states established an exchange. If in the 36 states relying on the federal exchange, no subsidies can be offered, the whole thing falls apart since the individual mandate could not be enforced.</p>
<p>dstark, </p>
<p>The ASPE chart is fascinating. When I compared the weighted average premiums across states, I expected that high-cost-of-living areas like California, New Jersey and Hawaii would have the highest premiums. Those states were as expected on the high side, but the two highest states were Wyoming and Alaska, two of the least populated states. Maybe insurers didn’t think it worthwhile to compete in WY and AK, given the uncertainty of the first year of the exchanges.</p>
<p>Mississippi had the third highest costs. What’s up with that? Vermont and Maine are also high.</p>
<p>Note, when you look at Table 4 (p. 13), the weighted average premiums, they are averaged not over the ages of the total population of the state, but the ages of the total population of the people eligible for the exchanges. In other words, that table tells you what the average person who would sign up on the exchanges would pay (before subsidies). </p>
<p>If they made another table that was weighted over all adults 19-64, the average premiums would be higher.</p>
<p>“As the law was originally envisioned, more than half of the uninsured people in the United States – 24 million or so, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation – who would be getting insurance through Obamacare would have been getting Medicaid. Anyone who makes less than 138% of the poverty level – about $27,000 for a family of four – isn’t eligible for federal subsidies to buy insurance, so Medicaid is effectively their only option.”</p>
<p>That is from razorsharp’s link.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder whether that would be the result if the court case were decided that way. By the time the court case wends its way through the courts, a lot of people will be invested in getting subsidies, or providing health care to people with subsidies, or being related to people getting subsidies, or being pleased that people who couldn’t afford health insurance now have it. Maybe there would be enough pressure to just amend the law.</p>
<p>CF, I am not surprised that you read the link because you are one of the two most informed posters along with calmom. </p>
<p>Yeah the more densely populated areas seem to have better rates. I was surprised that the lower cost areas werent less expensive. More competition in the more populated areas. I just visited Vermont but not Burlington. The thought did cross my mind as I travelled through Vermont. “Where do people get healthcare?” The state is so rural.</p>
<p>I agree about averages </p>
<p>I was talking earlier about color coding postings that were vents. </p>
<p>I think Tating’s postings should be black. Completely black. Including the blank areas. ;). </p>
<p>It will blow my mind if a judge makes a ruling that prevents millions of poor people from getting medicaid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The feds (HHS?) purposely nixed this option in late summer, according to testimony…</p>
<p>Bluebayou, do you have a pointer to the testimony?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Supreme Court did just that in 2012, so consider your mind blown, I guess.</p>
<p>Well it’s not that they prevented people from getting Medicaid. It’s that that part of the law was judged to be unconstitutional. Given the wider decision, I think they deliberated very carefully. We do live in a republic. </p>
<p>I think this whole set up is kind of strange . But I expect it will evolve over time to be more about universal health care and less about insurance.</p>