<p>They lose their health insurance if their premium prices go up beyond that which they can afford. </p>
<p>Not everyone will get subsidies.</p>
<p>I have talked to 3 doctors about ACA. 2 liked Obamacare. One didnt like Obamacare and was blaming a situation on Obamacare. The situation had nothing to do with Obamacare and I was surprised at her ignorance but I said nothing. I needed a prescription for my daughter and did not want to discuss Obamacare.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’ve discussed that at great length here already.</p>
<p>Well nobody in this country will ever lose their health care, as if you’re willing to pay enough money, someone will always cover you. Then again, I suspect many of those losing their plans will not be willing or cannot pay for the new and improved plans at much higher prices. I wonder how many formerly insured people will go without it.</p>
<p>But that would be against the law. Affordable Care Act is an ironic name for this thing.</p>
<p>Why yes I did read it, dstark. Though I always read too fast. Did I miss something significant?</p>
<p>Uhhhh… Yeah… The headline was bs…</p>
<p>Come on busdriver11…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And can you offer us any data about this, or is it just uninformed speculation? Will zero people be unable to afford insurance? Will half a million (minus two: Goldenpooch and Calmom)? How many of them would be eligible for subsidies? Of the ones who are not eligible for subsidies, how many would have to pay more than 9.5% of their income for their insurance and therefore would be eligible to buy catastrophic insurance? How do you define “cannot pay”? How many of them will be faced with higher prices?</p>
<p>The name for Affordable Care Act is also deceiving. Affordable for some, not affordable for others. In other news?</p>
<p>
I think I bought my first health insurance policy in 1977. I think it was about $50/month and had a really low deductible. </p>
<p>My policies “which I like” have been repeatedly terminated and or priced outside of the range of affordability with considerable regularity since that time. </p>
<p>I find it mildly amusing that some posters to this thread are looking for “indemnity” coverage rather than PPO’s – do you even remember the last time such coverage was available to anyone, at any price, in California? Apparently it can still be bought, in some exchanges, in other parts of the country. </p>
<p>Care to venture a guess at what your insurance policy premium might be already if the ACA hadn’t imposed that 80% rule a couple of years back? It seemed to me that the annual increases slowed somewhat with that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All health cost growth slowed up with the recession, including individual premiums but also including, for example, Medicare costs. It’s unclear why, and there is some disagreement, but a lot of health economists say most of the slowdown is due to the bad economy.</p>
<p>Calmom, I kind of feel like the Blue Shield of California PPO network was almost as good as an indemnity plan. It covered practically every hospital in the state, almost a hundred thousand doctors and through the Bluecard program all the providers in every state that accepted Blue Cross/Blue Shield. </p>
<p>In the last couple of years, I received a couple of hundred dollars in refunds because of the 80% rule. I don’t think it saved me much money.</p>
<p>BTW, Calmom do you know what the deductible and out-of-pocket maximum are for these catastrophic plans for young people and others who have to pay more than 9.5% of their income?</p>
<p>I guess if the title of the article had added the word “Plans”, that would have made all the difference. The reality is, for many people this really bites (and no, cf, I can’t give you precise data on exactly how many people, I don’t have time to poll the millions of people who are and will be losing their health care PLANS).</p>
<p>Some of you can spin it all you want, but I doubt you’ll find many people who are happy losing what they had, and paying more for what they didn’t need. Why would you even want to spin that? The middle class, for the most part (and it takes a good salary to be middle class in CA) are struggling to pay their bills and won’t get a subsidy. Maybe some see this as a necessary part of the ACA, but to those whose costs are suddenly increased even more than normal, it will be difficult.</p>
<p>The catastrophic plans are not subsidized. Many young people are better off buying subsidized plans.</p>
<p>dstark, were the two doctors who liked Obamacare primary doctors or specialists? Did they have their own practices or were they salaried employees?</p>
<p>I agree that cost increases probably slowed down because of the recession like almost every industry, not because of meager refunds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The NH catastrophic plan for a single person is $6350 max out of pocket and $6350 deductible. I assume this is the same across the country as the $6350 max is a national mandate. The catastrophic plan is actually pretty good. It covers the first three doctor visits (not subject to the deductible) with a $40 copay.</p>
<p>Question, to those of you who are griping about the higher cost of health insurance:</p>
<p>How many of you paid full cost, or close to full cost, for your kids to attend private colleges? Are any of you subsidizing grad school for your kids? </p>
<p>It seems to me that the concept of “affordable” is relative. My health insurance premium will be a lot less than my mortgage payment, and probably less than what I pay for food and incidentals in the course of a month. It’s more than my FAFSA EFC was when my daughter was in college, but way less than what my daughter’s college actually expected me to pay. </p>
<p>I think that things will be tight, but not “unaffordable”, for people whose income is close to the 400% mark. Economist Jonathan Gruber projected that 500% FPL was the point at which more than 99% of the population would be able to afford to pay the full cost of their insurance premiums and typical out-of-pocket costs – so it’s probably tight to be caught in that 400%-500% range. </p>
<p>But again, I know that without ACA, my insurance premium would have gone up to $580+ next year. (All I have to do is to look at last year’s rate chart for that). That’s assuming no increases in rates, which has never happened. The lowest cost Bronze in my area is an HMO for $516/month, which seems like less than I would have paid without the advent of the new law. I want a PPO with an HSA that will cost me either $611 or $654 a month, depending on which company I choose. But that’s a choice, just like the choice I made to spend extra money to pay to send my daughter to a prestigious east coast private college rather than an in-state public.</p>
<p>Well GP… One had his own practice and one was on a salary. </p>
<p>They were saying Obamacare was good for patients.
They were both specialists. </p>
<p>I am sure there are doctors that are against Obamacare. I mentioned one. All 3 doctors brought up Obamacare.</p>
<p>Back to the catastrophic plans. I hope young people look carefully at other plans. I am reading that 80 percent of young people are going to qualify for subsidies.</p>
<p>I looked briefly at catastrophic plans for my kids and my initial reaction was the plans were terrible. I didnt see great pricing with these plans. I didnt look that carefully, but more carefully than busdriver11 looks at things. ;)</p>
<p>[STUDY:</a> Young Americans Won’t Avoid Obamacare Simply Because They Don’t Want To Buy Insurance | ThinkProgress](<a href=“http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/21/2501311/study-young-americans-invincible/]STUDY:”>http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/21/2501311/study-young-americans-invincible/)</p>