<p>“the former gets into speculation”</p>
<p>Probably right since Flossy says it will be fixed this weekend (I am assuming dotgov). </p>
<p>If washpost writes it, I usually think of it as a trial balloon to see how people react (someone leaked it to them).</p>
<p>Re: earlier post – Romani, it has nothing to do with BCBS and everything to do with whether or not the government will give the subsidy when you’re medicaid eligible. This agent is saying they won’t. He could be wrong. But if he is, I’m betting the other providers will be wrong too. So proceed with extreme caution is all I can say.</p>
<p>Texaspg, medicaid varies by state…
from the Kaiser link…</p>
<p><a href=“http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid/[/url]”>http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid/</a></p>
<p>“In most states that do not expand Medicaid, however, many people will be left without an affordable coverage option. Medicaid eligibility for adults in states not moving forward with the ACA Medicaid expansion is limited. As of January 2014, the median eligibility level for parents in states not moving forward will be just 47% of poverty, or about $9,400 a year for a family of three (Figure 2).* Only four states not expanding
Medicaid (Alaska, Maine, Tennessee, and Wisconsin) cover parents up to at least poverty (see Table 1), and eligibility limits in some states are less than 20% of the poverty level (16% in Alabama, 19% in Texas). Of the states not moving forward with the expansion, only Wisconsin will provide full Medicaid coverage to adults without dependent children in 2014.”</p>
<p>Table 1 has info for states that are not expanding medicaid… Most of these states require parents to have incomes well below poverty levels to receive medicaid.</p>
<p>How can they count mi as an expansion state if we’re not eligible until April?</p>
<p>It’s such crap on the part of our state politicians.</p>
<p>ETA: My apologies, KMC- I am coming off much harsher than I intend to (stupid internet speak). Thank you for your help 
I am not frustrated at you. My frustrations are squarely at the state politicians who have created this needless loophole that I’m in.</p>
<p>Texaspg, I think Flossy is referring to the problem of people having their plans cancelled. The White House is indicating some kind of solution to this problem will be forthcoming before Friday.</p>
<p>I think if anyone wants to go on the exchange instead of Medicaid, they can list their income as higher than what is on the evidence and say they got the extra as gift in kind of sorts. There doesn’t seem to be a problem with claiming more money than you earned, just less. You get rejected from Medicaid here in New York if they find one dollar more than you claimed as earning even if you are well under the threshhold so that even additional thousands of dollas isn’t going to put you over. Insane, but that 's the way it works. So we can all see that the way things are and have been has its crazy potholes too. </p>
<p>IMO, the exchanges are preferable to Medicaid because there are so many places that refuse medicaid, but it appears as though the exchanges may run into the same problem until health care providers sign in. I’m hoping all of this opens up Medicaid some more, so that it isn’t such a mark of Cain to be on it and more people can get more medical care without running to the emergency rooms, clogging them and incurring horrorific costs that for things that could have been handled far more efficiently and less expensively.</p>
<p>I saw a CNN report similarly reporting that something must be done by Friday, but referring to legislation sponsored by Feinstein and Landrieu in the Senate and others in the House. </p>
<p>Even if the website is fully functional at optimum speed by Dec. 1, just to sign up the 3 million who lost their coverage before Dec. 15 (so they will have coverage starting Jan. 1), is 200,000 per day enrolling. So far there are only 50,000 unpaid policies in shopping carts in 45 days.</p>
<p>The problem with that, cpt, is that it then makes many premiums unaffordable. </p>
<p>If I put in my income as 138% of poverty (~17k), the basic silver plan costs something like $78. A bargain to many on here, but in reality is is about 18% of my pre-tax income.</p>
<p>I can do it for a while because I’m lucky enough to have a significant amount in savings and a partner that works full time who can supplement it, but most in my position are not as fortunate.</p>
<p>TexasPG, for NY state, for a single person, the Medicaid limit is $9000 a year. It will be extended to just under $16K. For the NY exchanges if you imput income under $16K a year as a single person you cannot get a policy under the exchange or any info for subsidies. It just directs you to Medicaid. I don’t know if this will be fixed so that someone making, say $15K can choose a plan from the exchange instead of going on Medicaid and get a subsidiy equal to or less than the person making $16K a year and just making the eligibility. to pick a plan and get a subsidy to pay for it.</p>
<p>thanks for the link dstark. It is surprising to see that there is so much variability among states in the current coverage. One would think there is a common definition of Medicaid across States.</p>
<p>If those with plans that were cancelled are allowed to keep their plans for a few more months…that could enable the exchanges to handle more of the uninsured.</p>
<p>However, that is going to cost money.</p>
<p>Anthem Blue Cross is extending the period for 100,000 policyholders in Calif. They can keep their plans for 3 more months. They were not notified early enough about the
cancellations.</p>
<p>Edit…that was kcmmom13’s link. I just reposted it. The difference in medicaid availability by state is amazing.</p>
<p>[Even</a> doctors in dark on health plans - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2013-11-12-Doctors-confusion0_ST_U.htm]Even”>Even doctors in dark on health plans - USATODAY.com)</p>
<p>Read the final paragraph. A Texas opthamologist says that if all her patients are on the exchange at the exchange rates, she won’t be able to keep her doors open.</p>
<p>I think it has to do with Medicaid being a state program. Not all states have the same revenues. America is not only a diverse country it is a very large country. I recently moved to a different part of the country and my kids go to college in yet another distant part. The headlines in the local papers in these places are seriously different than the ones on the times or wsj.</p>
<p>It’s really opened my eyes to some of the things I took for granted as good or important to everyone at the same time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This fix does not make sense from the math point of view. Most of the people whose plans were cancelled are relatively healthy. So if these people are allowed to keep their previous insurance, then the only people who will be signing up on the exchange would be the ones who did not have insurance.</p>
<p>They did not have insurance because:
<p>I suspect that majority of people who will sign up by January 1st, will be from the first category. If I am correct, then the whole system implodes.</p>
<p>It is in the best interest of those who want ACA to work to enroll everyone without employer sponsored plan into exchanges.</p>
<p>Yeah lerkin, I’m at a loss as to how this is going to get fixed or work out. But I now have a complete understanding of why they waited on the employer mandate, given what they knew would happen with the policies. It would have been pandemonium. </p>
<p>Now we just have some test cases</p>
<p>“This fix does not make sense from the math point of view”</p>
<p>That is right, lerkin. </p>
<p>You didnt include my next sentence.</p>
<p>“However, that is going to cost money.” </p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>The numbers are going to be released at 3:30pm. Eastern.</p>
<p>why does the individual market have to get hammered so badly? These are mostly small business owners, many husband and wife. They have to get hit the hardest to subsidize all the new sick and poor enrollees? It really doesn’t seem fair…and then we have all these employer based insurance people who just don’t get what the big deal is, infuriating.</p>
<p>Dtd. Based on the same report from 2010 which predicted these results for the individual market, the same thing is going to happen with 45-65% of the employer market. </p>
<p>We just get to go first</p>
<p>I think that is part of the problem with dotgov not working. If dotgov was working, more people who were cancelled could see the subsidies. Now people just see the insurance policy on the individual market. </p>
<p>It wouldn’t be as upsetting to a lot of people I’m guessing if they know their real costs.</p>
<p>Dstark,</p>
<p>sorry, I did not connect that sentence to the previous paragraph. (I was not sure what exactly it meant, but now I do).</p>
<p>I also think you should have said: some serious money. </p>
<p>If people complain about premiums now, I can only imagine what kind of premiums the exchange market will have. Because this fix basically creates two risk pools. Exchange pool will consist of many sick people with some sprinkling of lower income healthy people, while of-exchange pool will contain mostly healthy people.</p>