<p>GP:
</p>
<p>Not sure but here is what I THINK…since K1 distributions are voluntary…you don’t have to take $$$ out at the end of the year, but you can if you wish, it shouldn’t make a difference if you have a loss or no income. But again, that is just my guess.</p>
<p>"And, yes, we are a very very small group…but we try to make up for it with a big attitude "</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>Calmom and others in my peer group might fill out paper application, but remember - the key is getting the young ones on board. </p>
<p>They do not love voice mail. </p>
<p>They grew up with a mouse in their hand. Instantaneous gratification does not lie in sending paper forms to government agencies. </p>
<p>Last year, having filled out numerous fin aid forms over the years, finally had one “lost” in cyberspace. Had confirmation and summary printout, but it was gone. Had I sent it in and not known it was missing, I would have delayed the process by untold number of extra weeks. </p>
<p>How many twenty somethings are going to trust paper apps?</p>
<p>Just read in our local paper that the insurance company I have my current plan with will allow people to continue their cancelled policies. If true, this means I will be able to keep my previous plan. I am feeling such relief! No word on any increased costs but at this point, I don’t care. I’m just happy to keep my current plan.</p>
<p>Well, my 25-year-old daughter insisted on sending paper apps to every single college that would allow it, back in 2005. </p>
<p>The 20-somethings who don’t already have insurance aren’t the ones who are stressed out about the Dec. 15th deadline - they’ve got until the end of March to get on board. Presumably the computer glitches will be working by then. </p>
<p>My comment about the paper was focused on the private market buyers who are facing insurance cancellation notices and are worried about continuity of coverage. </p>
<p>And the thing about the insurance broker/agent still stands as well. Working through an agent doesn’t solve the problem, but it turns it into somebody else’s problem.</p>
<p>CF, my answer to your post #4558 got deleted, apparently because I linked to [THOMAS[/url</a>]. </p>
<p>However, in California, the insurance companies already have rate increase applications pending. </p>
<p>Most (if not all) of Blue Shield’s individual plans are grandfathered, even if all the members are not – and they are requesting an average 9.8% rate increase for all of those plans, effective January 1. See: <a href=“https://interactive.web.insurance.ca.gov/apex/f?p=102:2:0::NO:::[/url]”>https://interactive.web.insurance.ca.gov/apex/f?p=102:2:0::NO:::](<a href=“http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php]THOMAS[/url”>http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php)</a></p>
<p>So basically, because it is a regulated industry, I think if the plans were continuing, then the rate increases were already in the works. If it a matter of resurrecting a plan that was expected to terminate by year’s age, that’s a tougher question, but presumably the companies could submit rate increase requests by following the same procedures – I think that California requires 60 days notice.</p>
<p>I don’t see any reason, a priori, to assume that the people who were grandfathered into the plans and who would choose to keep the plan would have the same risk profile as the people not grandfathered into the plan who would choose to keep the plan. They might be, but it’s an unjustified assumption.</p>
<p>For that reason, I don’t see any reason, a priori, that the rate increases for the grandfathered people would be actuarially correct for the ungrandfathered people.</p>
<p>I checked the link and I dont see anything for Anthem. I would also expect new filings.</p>
<p>That Blue Shield Rate Filing is interesting reading, if you happen to be an incredible nerd.</p>
<p>For example, much has been made of the Medical Loss Ratio part of the ACA, where 80% of your premium has to go to health care. Two interesting things. First, it appears to be strictly defined: it is the amount paid in claims divided by the total amount collected in premiums. So there’s less wiggle room than one might imagine. Second, here are the Medical Loss Ratios for Blue Shield of California, for the years 2004 (which seems to be the year they came to California?) through 2012: 58 (!), 67, 62, 68, 71, 74, 79.3, 79.8.</p>
<p>So the Medical Loss Ratio rule has more teeth than I thought.</p>
<p>That is good… Some of the numbers from the prior years were incredibly low.</p>
<p>I am sure Blue Shield was in Cal before 2004.</p>
<p>I have a link but it’s so ugly I’m not going to paste it here. But go to the bottom of the page, click I would like to view a list of all companies, then Go. Then click on Anthem.</p>
<p>Their reviews appear to still be in process, but you can read the give and take between the insurance commission and Anthem’s actuaries on how they set 2014 rates. Both sides are going seriously into the weeds. The Anthem actuaries are doing detailed modeling of who will stay on their plans and how much those people will cost; they’re not just throwing darts at dartboards.</p>
<p>Maybe Blue Shield wasn’t in the individual market before 2004?</p>
<p>I’ve been insured by Blue Shield from at least the early 90’s-- I was also insured by Blue Shield in 1982 & 1983 when my son was born. Somewhere in the interim I switched insurance company, as I had Blue Cross when my daughter as born 5 years later. (This is memorable to me because the BS policy only covered 80% of my hospital maternity costs, whereas the Blue Cross policy covered 100%.</p>
<p>Blue Shield of California was established in 1939 – see <a href=“https://www.blueshieldca.com/bsca/about-blue-shield/home.sp[/url]”>https://www.blueshieldca.com/bsca/about-blue-shield/home.sp</a></p>
<p>I think you are just looking at a document that happens to list data going back 10 years, because that’s what the regulators are interested in seeing.</p>
<p>Thanks Calmom, I might just call them during their meeting to state my position.</p>
<p>I looked at the filings and saw the 8%-10% proposed increase for our plan. If I am allowed to keep my plan for 2014 it will cost me a heck of a lot less money than the ACA plan</p>
<p>BS can ask for another rate increase. Actually it isnt really asking… More like telling.</p>
<p>^^^^
No different under ACA</p>
<p>In our state, the Insurance Commissioner has ruled they will not allow ANY plans to be grandfathered in. In virtually every case, the plans under ACA are cheaper, and have much better benefits. We have had a large number of sign-ups (second to California and New York), most of which for expanded Medicaid, with most of the rest being subsidized.</p>
<p>I am more concerned about what I expect to happen when the ACA “works” rather than this interim period when it is not.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, mini, in our beautiful state of Washington, everything is working great!</p>
<p>Except they realized that 8,000 people who signed up for the ACA who thought they were getting subsidies either aren’t getting subsidies, or are getting less than they’d projected. Apparently they told people to put monthly income, yet offered them the subsidies as if they’d entered annual income. 8K people getting letters that will make them very unhappy. Oops.</p>
<p>And the insurance commissioner rejected all insurance companies who wanted to offer ACA plans except for four, limiting competition and rejecting plans that were available in other states. </p>
<p>The ACA is working so well, when I searched for a comparable plan to what I had…the closest that I found one was that was slightly worse, and cost over 20K. The same plan that costs my company a little more than 9K to provide. Scary.</p>
<p>So if this is what you consider to be working well, (is it?), yep, Washington state ACA is working great!</p>
<p>I’m starting to think my son and I may have dodged the bullet by a matter of months and could actually be grandfathered. That doesn’t solve much but things could look very different a year from now. The cheapest ACA plan was more than what we’re paying but not by alot and of course includes a bunch of stuff we don’t need or want however I expect to try as hard as possible to avoid the exchanges. Daughter is on a school plan so that most likely will mean a tuition hike since it’s included and required.</p>
<p>Flossy, I’m not clear on why you’d go to the exchanges, even if your old plan is cancelled. You’re not eligible for subsidies, are you? So why would you go to the exchanges?</p>