<p>Didn’t it remove lifetime caps, prohibit rescissions, increase the age for children to remain on their parents’ policies, eliminate underwriting for children, and provide free preventative care for all before 2014.</p>
<p>GP, here’s another stat for you - it is estimated that 3 million Californians will be eligible for health care subsidies:
<a href=“Not Found”>Not Found;
<p>In California, I am guessing that the number of people who had insurance but lost it due to cancellation notices is probably under 500,000 – I know that the Blue Shield and Kaiser canceled about 279,000, so the rest is just a guess, with the assumption that there would be a big chunk from Anthem as well.
Here’s my source for the numbers: <a href=“http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx[/url]”>http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx</a></p>
<p>Obviously some in that group will be eligible for subsidies, but they are likely to be somewhat higher income in general than the previously uninsured.</p>
<p>I think one problem with the Families USA study is that it includes Medicaid recipients in the 3 million number.</p>
<p>^^Wonder if it also includes illegal aliens, not eligible for subsidies.</p>
<p>I seem to recall one Californian who has had significant premium rises with BC over the last few years (dstark). Or has time gone faster than that?</p>
<p>"Didn’t it remove lifetime caps, prohibit rescissions, increase the age for children to remain on their parents’ policies, eliminate underwriting for children, and provide free preventative care for all before 2014. "</p>
<p>I remember some pieces (26?) being immediately being effective when the law passed. Some increases have come through in 2012 and 2013 for the immediate pieces?</p>
<p>Most of these policies that are being cancelled are not ACA compliant, correct? So they don’t cover things like maternity care for seniors. Sigh!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read more here: [WASHINGTON:</a> For thousands, keeping your old health insurance policy isn?t an option | National | NewsObserver.com](<a href=“http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/18/3292283/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html#storylink=cpy]WASHINGTON:”>http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/18/3292283/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html#storylink=cpy)</p>
<p>So much for Californians keeping their current policies because the government knows best about “better” policies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Some</a> health insurance gets pricier as Obamacare rolls out - latimes.com](<a href=“Some health insurance gets pricier as Obamacare rolls out”>Some health insurance gets pricier as Obamacare rolls out)</p>
<p>Californians pay more, get less.</p>
<p>California is a very blue state. This could get interesting.</p>
<p>Fom the LAtimes link above,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, people weren’t exaggerating when they complained about their insurance increase. This is real and a big increase overall affecting many.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The whole scheme sounds clumsy to me.</p>
<p>“So they don’t cover things like maternity care for seniors”</p>
<p>Seniors are on Medicare and Medicare doesn’t require maternity services.</p>
<p>All seniors? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>Look, the point is the young, pregnant lawyer in the article likely has student loans and the cost of housing in OC is very high. At 80K she and her husband are struggling to build a life and raise a family. No-one is against helping the less fortunate but choices are part of this as well, since had she dropped out of high school and had kids she would be less fortunate, too.</p>
<p>Well, I am 57 and I don’t certainly don’t consider myself a Senior. But if you want to think you are a Senior, fine by me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the opposite of adverse selection. Its people picking the plan that makes the most financial sense for them, while still participating in the insurance market. We’ve had catastrophic plans all along without destroying the market for comprehensive low deductible plans. </p>
<p>This is where the logic of the ACA is a cluster. We dont want the health people in affordable cat plans because then they only contribute limited revenue. So Cat plans are mostly illegal. We need these young people in the market to it prop it up, dont you know! But then the policies aren’t affordable so we offer subsidies.</p>
<p>“I also wonder why those same people in 2010 who were so upset with Anthem are not equally outraged with some of the increases were experiencing under ACA?”</p>
<p>Why am I not outraged?</p>
<p>The insurance is better now under ACA. The insurance really is insurance. More people are going to be able to buy insurance. Anthem will less likely be able to play games. The same with BS. </p>
<p>Once ACA stabilizes, rate hikes will be smaller going forward. I am expecting rate hikes around 7.5 percent a year in Cal instead of double digit rate hikes every year including years of 20 percent plus increases.</p>
<p>7.5 percent increases a year still stinks but a third of that increase is due to aging. I posted the Milliman study yesterday that the LA Times referred to in razorsharp’s article. There isnt a surprise in the LA Times article.</p>
<p>Going forward insurance rates will become predictable. We wont be opening up letters from our insurance companies and reading about surprise rate hikes.</p>
<p>A friend said one way that health care costs can decline a little is for people to be able to choose where to get treatment. We can fly to Belgium and save tens of thousands on a hip replacement. We should be able to fly to a different state to get treatment if it saves money. I think this idea is interesting. I dont know if this idea works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you can predict the 10% rate increases. Great ;-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is this stabilization supposed to look like in California? A lot of old people flying to Nebraska for out-of-network hip replacements, and a growing population of Mexican immigrants who dont want to pay for them. This is a stable market?</p>
<p>The people paying in are young professionals in tech and entertainment. And they dont actually have to be there- they arent running a drill press.</p>
<p>Ok…</p>
<p>If you want to write nonsense…write nonsense.</p>
<p>You pulled the 10 percent number out of your tush.</p>
<p>Your post is a little insulting to a group of people.</p>
<p>Did someone upthread say the cost of fixing the website glitch is a drop in the bucket? Whenever I adapt that kind of attitude, I run way over my budget. “I would save $5 if I drive another block to the next gas station, but $5 is a drop in the bucket compared to my annual budget.” That $5 is about 20% of one time filling up. In the cae of fixing the glitches, the cost could even be 50% of the budget installing the website. 50% is not nothing. At times, the adm sounds as if they doing us a favor, “We’ll fix the problem. More experts are brought in working 24/7.” We are paying for the experts working 24/7 on problems that shouldn’t have been there to this extent. They could have delayed a month or two and get all the bugs out. It would have saved us a lot of money and no emergency measures needed 24/7.</p>
<p>Describe the stable California market then. You just got done saying that costs will be increasing because of an aging population. </p>
<p>Isnt like 75% of LAUSD on free/reduced lunch? So they are going to be getting health subsidies too. </p>
<p>The idea that health premiums increase just because of mean ol’ insurance companies isnt born out. You can read their annual reports and see they dont have 50% profit margins.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read more: [Michelle</a> Obama’s Princeton classmate was Obamacare website builder | The Daily Caller](<a href=“Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is executive at company that built Obamacare website | The Daily Caller”>Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is executive at company that built Obamacare website | The Daily Caller)</p>
<p>If this in fact true, it tells us a lot about why the websites are a disaster. Giving million dollar contracts to your buddies is the best way to get a horrible result. </p>
<p>There are so many fed government laws prohibiting single source contracts that I have a hard time believing this article. But if it turns out to be true, it is the real scandal and people should be put in prison.</p>