<p>And the number for people who put a plan “in their cart” not actually buy it. That might be a reasonable distinction to make in Oct/Nov but on the other hand not all of these people are going to convert to real policies. </p>
<p>DC, Hawaii, Mass and Oregon are NA’s so they must still be broken.<br>
Alaska, ND, SD, Del, WY are all <100 so they might be broken too.</p>
<p>Today’s Wash Post:
In announcing the enrollment figures for the first reporting period of Oct. 1 to Nov. 2, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that 106,185 people “have selected plans from the marketplace.” She said that 975,407 others “have made it through the process by applying and receiving an eligibility determination, but have not yet selected a plan.”</p>
<p>At least in my state, I appear to be the “demographic” for whom the prices are pretty much the same before and after the exchange. If I want to renew my non-ACA policy early right now, it’s $465 a month. The nearly identical ACA policy (slightly lower deductible, slightly higher out-of-pocket, slightly smaller network) is $465 a month.</p>
<p>I’m a 59 year old guy who got the preferred discount rate for being extremely healthy (had to get physical and apply for this rate).</p>
<p>Basically, I figure anyone younger than me is probably going to get hosed in the exchanges. Anyone my age or older who is not as healthy is probably going to see a benefit. That just my guess, but it’s the only thing that makes sense if you are subsidising people with pre-existing conditions.</p>
<p>This is ultimately a matter of actuarial tables. There’s no free lunch.</p>
<p>Prices are nearly doubling for people in their 30’s. Funny enough, this includes a bunch of freelance reporters in DC. Thus, the media beast is angry.</p>
<p>The irony is that a Senator from Texas offered a bill to do just that – delay the whole thing for year. In hindsight, they could have grabbed this lifeline, gotten a year to get the website up and working, and probably extracted a pound of flesh in the congressional negotiations in the bargain.</p>
<p>“Basically, I figure anyone younger than me is probably going to get hosed in the exchanges. Anyone my age or older who is not as healthy is probably going to see a benefit.”</p>
<p>Interesteddad, I am slightly older than you and have the preferred “healthy” rate, and I am seeing much higher rates on the exchange for me.</p>
<p>Actually, I did, and predicted same (way back when cc had a political thread). </p>
<p>In a prior life, I spent 20+ years in health care economics, and the net effect was clear as day to me. The problem was that folks wanted to believe that coverage could increase while overall costs decreased; on its face, it made no logical sense. And those that attempted to point out the obvious were considered partisan (or worse). :D</p>
<p>Well, I admit, bluebayou, I knew the cost would go up. Absolutely.</p>
<p>I also am completely aware of the fact that we have just seriously decreased incentive for the best and brightest to take out hundreds of thousands in loans to become doctors to be hardballed by the insurance companies.</p>
<p>But, here’s the thing. I didn’t understand that the 20% profit would be subsidized by tax payers IN ADDITION to the uninsurables and pre-existings costs coming flat with my own based on age. I knew I was getting dinged in my taxes, and by dinged, I mean head on collision based on what I do. But… I just didn’t understand that I would also be expected to pay this high of insurance rates. </p>
<p>I am subsidizing quite a few people. Which I don’t mind. The subsidizing the insurance companies and big pharma drives me nuts.</p>
<p>From the ASPE press release:
"(9) For California, the total includes individuals who have been fully determined as well as those that are “pending” and also those that are “contingent.” "</p>
<p>What is interesting about the 28 page report is that it contains no demographic information. It would have been very easy to pull a report on age, male/female, number of insured vs number of policies. </p>
<p>I think the fact that it is missing bodes poorly for the ‘brosurance’ market in the first month.</p>
<p>"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday will convene a special meeting of the Senate Democratic caucus and senior White Officials to discuss the troubled rollout of ObamaCare.</p>
<p>Reid on Wednesday told reporters he would not answer questions about the hundreds of thousands of insurance policy cancellations or other issues until he has further discussions with the White House.</p>
<p>No. Anthem Blue Cross offered me early renewal on my non-grandfathered, but otherwise ACA-compliant plan that would have kept my old plan in effect until Dec 1, 2014. However, the early renewal came with a price increase effective Dec 1.</p>
<p>The 20% left after the 80% is not “profit” – most of it goes to administrative costs. The insurance profit margins are far narrower (and of course, some of the insurance companies on the exchange are operated on a not-for-profit basis). </p>
<p>I agree with you philosophically (I think) that more pure, government run system (such as Medicare-for-all) would have had -0- going to any private corporate profit.</p>
<p>On-exchange and off-exchange, the individual market is one risk pool, statewide (by law). Only people on grandfathered plans are excluded from the unitary statewide pools created by ACA.</p>