<p>“Who would manage the subsidy? States, federal gov’t? I get that the subsidy is currently managed by the Feds but now the Feds would have to manage it by person instead of through a de facto pre-qualifying site (e.g. healthcare.gov).”</p>
<p>I haven’t thought it through, really, but it seems to me that if people are able to sign up for insurance just fine through the insurance companies, the only problem we’re talking about is the subsidies. I’ll bet my son and his friends could put out a site with a calculator pretty fast, if there isn’t one out there already. It seems that the big hurry is to get covered by insurance, who cares if it’s through the ACA? If they separate the subsidy getting, it’s a far less complicated problem. Easy enough for IRS to look through last years tax return and send the subsidies, aren’t they going to do that anyways? Sure, time intensive, but the problem is actually how many million people who need subsidies, and must have them immediately.</p>
<p>Or maybe they could just demand that insurance companies can’t dump people from the plans on Jan 1, it has to be Mar 1st, or some later date.</p>
<p>I’ve been thinking about all of these possible fixes and frankly, they are all flawed and could each cause additional problems. <sigh> I guess time will tell and we’ll see what happens. As I said before, with all of this uncertainty, I am waiting until the very last minute to sign up for anything.</sigh></p>
<p>So you fixed the problem of providing insurance for everyone who qualifies for subsidies at the risk of much greater fraud, but you haven’t done anything to entice all the healthy people who don’t qualify for subsidies. Most of these people hate these exchanges and rather go swimming with a bunch of rattle snakes than pay the exorbitant prices for inferior plans.</p>
<p>If you get insurance through your employer but actually want to buy on the exchange with a subsidy, is it possible? </p>
<p>(My fiance just got a part time position that offers insurance, but pretty crappy insurance for more than he’d pay on the market with a subsidy… the catch is he will probably be moving to a full time job with his 2nd job in February, no guarantees, and we have no idea what that insurance looks like. He will probably make about 200% of poverty next year- at least that’s what we’re going to estimate and it’ll probably be slightly higher than reality.)</p>
<p>The calculators failed me They told me I was eligible for a subsidy at 104% fpl. But nooooooo. Michigan’s gotta go and be all screwy and stuffs. </p>
<p>I know zero zip squat about programming. (Yes, even the people that royally screwed up the exchange know more than I do… )</p>
<p>ETA:
OH. HAHAHAHA. I get what you meant now. Oh gosh, I’m slow tonight :o. Moral of this story: don’t drink and CC.</p>
<p>Here is an article which will irritate the heck out of you. Many people will have to sign up for a plan without knowing who will be in the plan’s network.</p>
<p>According to the USA article over 50% of NYS doctors are not accepting the plans. Loss of truly affordable plans for students losing coverage, according to the second article?</p>
<p>Romani (re post #4304): The answer is no, your fiance would not qualify for a subsidy unless the premium for his employer-provided insurance is more than 9.5% of his annual income – which based on the info you provided would be roughly $185/month.</p>
<p>Busdriver and Calmom, those are excellent common sense solutions. Write your congresspeople. Seriously. I’m sure they are looking for good ideas, particularly if you have liberal congresspeople.</p>
<p>Romani - I’m assuming that’s real insurance that is being offered by the part-time job. When my son took a part-time job about a year ago, the optional “insurance” he could sign up for really was worthless, but I am thinking that those sorts of policies can’t be sold any more. If the employer-offered insurance doesn’t equate to at least a Bronze plan, then it wouldn’t count-- and your fiance would be able to buy from the exchange.</p>
<p>calmom, I just looked over the paperwork- it’s $24.xx/week and is “limited” insurance- covers up to about 2k worth of stuff. It’s useless other than for a few doctors visits. It’s also about 1/5 of his paycheck there. He has until mid-December to enroll. I don’t know what they’re going to offer next year instead.</p>
<p>If his 2nd part-time job becomes a full time job in February and he quits this job, he might actually be better off because the new job doesn’t offer insurance. It has only about 8 employees- 3 of which are FT.</p>
There’s no look back period for dependent or not? I’m not 100% on the rules of what is and is not required to be determined as a dependent as it pertains to ACA.</p>
<p>“Oh gosh, I’m slow tonight . Moral of this story: don’t drink and CC.”</p>
<p>What? It’s much more fun if you drink while CCing!
Yes, quantum computers, that’s it!! Ah, I doubt much will impress romani while she is spoken for (nor should it).</p>
<p>“those are excellent common sense solutions. Write your congresspeople. Seriously. I’m sure they are looking for good ideas, particularly if you have liberal congresspeople.”</p>
<p>I guarantee you, my congresswomen don’t even read what I send. I’ve tried it, and at least they could pretend they looked at what I said. Actually, come to think of it, if they can’t even fix a simple website in all the time they’ve had, just about everything is going to be too complex for these people to handle. Though I guess they could pass a command directive (or law), telling insurance companies that they MUST extend plans for a few months, till they get this working. All that takes is a vote, and I think it would pass. Seeing as the insurance companies are the main beneficiaries of the ACA, they ought to be able to suck that up.</p>
They told me I was eligible for a subsidy at 104% fpl. But nooooooo. Michigan’s gotta go and be all screwy and stuffs. </p>
)</p>