<p>Oh, c’mon. What is your view, your little slice of all that’s going on? Does one experience represent the whole thing? Or require some sort of mind leap? </p>
<p>It’s too interesting to me that every time this thread makes progress, someone just has to add something about some 27 year old or some old person on too many meds or how no one can keep their doctors or whatever minutiae it is. As if that cripples the program, undeniably-- if only the rest of us could “get” that.</p>
<p>It’s not that some don’t want to hear conflicting views. Some here have even acknowledged that some others see it differently. Or that it applies to them differently.</p>
<p>It is the relentless prediction of doom that leaves me wondering. Not simply listening to an alternate POV. Glass half empty, nothing adding a drop to some folks’ perceptions.</p>
<p>Bay, thank you for your insight… but that makes no sense to me. If the idea had been to “lure” young people in by promising subsidies (free cash) – then presumably they would have all left once they realized they actually had to pay money out of pocket to buy insurance. </p>
<p>The point is to provide insurance at an affordable cost. The idea is that the young people will sign up because they want insurance, but couldn’t afford it before.</p>
<p>So no one ever promises to pay kids money to sign up for insurance; the promise was that they would be given financial help if needed.</p>
<p>Not me. Better to face the cold, hard truth realistically. Optimism motivates, true. But it has no effect on things over which one has no control.</p>
<p>Tatin, what you miss is that there is planning for the possibility something will hiccup or some new circumstances will throw in a wrench-</p>
<p>versus</p>
<p>absolute certainty it is excessively flawed, will never fly-- is doomed. And then finding the anecdotes or small potatoes things to prove your side.</p>
<p>dstark, you want to debate me that I had more choices before ACA. I had Aetna, United Healthcare, Cigna, Celtic and Health Net in addition to Blue Shield, and Anthem. I am probably leaving someone out. Also, there were at least 30 plans to choose from in all sizes and flavors instead of the cookie-cutter model we have now.</p>
<p>dstark, there is all kinds of obfuscation and opinion based on nothing more than blind faith by the supporters of ACA on this thread. You keep saying I am not fact-based but you can’t find one thing I have said which is wrong. My comments regarding competition in Ca is absolutely correct. </p>
<p>I never said the individual market was perfect before ACA, but there are hundreds of thousands non-grandfathered subscribers who would jump at the chance to keep their pre-ACA plans. I wonder how many non-subsidized grandfathered subscribers will voluntarily give up their individual policies to elect your beloved ACA insurance. </p>
<p>The one thing in your favor is at least you’re eating the cooking you are advocating for everyone else. One thing I can’t stand is being lectured to by people who wouldn’t touch an exchange plan with a ten-foot pole. Although I think I heard you say that if the fix had been approved, you would have kept your individual plan.</p>
<p>I cannot vouche for whether low-income youngsters understand the process or not. Apparently, a promise of subsidies was made, because someone decided that such a promise would be valuable to certain people signing up (otherwise, why bother to say it at all?) I don’t know exactly how the sign-up process works for subsidized folks. Does the webpage say something like, “Congratulations, you are eligible for a subsidy?” or “You are not eligible for a subsidy,” and then present the full-priced plans?</p>
<p>If the promise was made, specifically because it was expected to entice enrollment, then logically, if the promise is not kept, there may be less of an incentive for some to sign up.</p>
<p>While <em>I</em> understand what happened and the subsidy doesn’t matter, the point of the article was that there will be no subsidies for some people who were promised them. Whether it ultimately affects enrollment is unknown. People base their decisions on reasons different from my own.</p>
<p>GP, no one wants to debate your particulars. Some of us are saying, that’s you. Not the country, not enough detail to project how this is and will be for others (or even your neighbors.)</p>
<p>Bay, someone who runs the program will learn his price and whether he gets a subsidy or not. He won’t “know” without starting. Won’t know if he gets a subsidy, what his price nets to, what his choices are. Are you saying, his cost goes from higher to lower- or his situation goes from no insurance to an affordable cost- BUT he won’t sign up because the lower price doesn’t include some subsidy?</p>
<p>There were many promises made that are not turning out to be reality. Why wouldn’t people be concerned?</p>
<p>BTW - Lots of young people think Obamacare means free health care. Period. Even some subsidized young people are being asked to pay more for ACA plans than they would have been paying for Cat plans, previously. They are healthy and could easily choose the fine.</p>
<p>TatinG, you dont know the truth yet. The truth is in the future.</p>
<p>If you have no control why be negative?</p>
<p>What you really think is if enough people think negatively it will cause the failure of Obamacare which is what you want. That is your right. You do think one individual has little control, but if a large enough group of like minded people join together maybe a critical mass will form and Obamacare will fail, right?</p>
<p>Otherwise, the negativity just sits in a person and rots.</p>
<p>dstark, it’s not even the “why be negative” question for me. It’s why assume some little piece one knows about is representative- or even accurate? </p>
<p>Some here can be doubters, fine by me. It’s their personal conviction this is doomed that blows my mind. We’re not even two months in and some think every little mouse squeak means the house should never have been built, in the first place. That, I agree with you, is plain old negativity. And, some incomplete assessment.</p>
<p>Some just believe the sky is falling. That is so different to me than raising some issues and having an open discussion.</p>
<p>I have no idea what he will do. But I found the article to be very informative, and definitely “news.” If the low-income 27 year olds read that article, it may help them understand that they are actually getting a better deal than expected. But they are still not getting a “subsidy,” which was promised to them (while their low-income mom might).</p>
<p>No it’s not all in the future. The millions who got cancellation letters already happened. And to dismiss them as ‘only a small percentage’ or tell them that the old plan they liked was really not good enough, is to be dismissive and paternalistic. </p>
<p>Nothing I say nor my attitude will affect the numbers. They are what they are.</p>
<p>Oh please, stop with the negativity baloney. If someone has legitimate issues with ACA, now they’re being a grouch. I would dispense with this line of thought if I were you.</p>
<p>No, there was no promise of a subsidy for the sake of a subsidy. There was a promise that people at lower income levels would be ELIGIBLE for a subsidy to assist with payment of premiums. </p>
<p>It’s like college financial aid. Students don’t apply to college because they want the financial aid. But students are deterred from applying if they know they can’t afford the tuition; they are more likely to apply if they believe the college will meet their need. </p>
<p>So the ACA tax credit is the same thing – it is a government “grant” paid out to meet the insured’s person “EFC”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pretty much, without the “Congratulations” part. At least for Covered Cal, you enter basic financial and household info, then you are directed to a page with your options. The full price of every policy is printed, along with total amount (if any) of subsidy. The Covered Cal site also asks some basic questions about health usage to help direct subscribers to a plan. </p>
<p>
But no such promise was ever made. The promise was that there would be financial help to buy insurance if the policy cost too much. </p>
<p>CNN gave the example of a 27 year old buying insurance in Chicago, where the premium is under $175. I looked up rates in Brooklyn, and found that the equivalent policy would be $385. </p>
<p>I think that most young people understand that $385 is more than $175. So if the math works out that the young person’s “EFC” for insurance is $175, then that person is going to get “financial aid” to buy insurance in Brooklyn but not in Chicago.</p>
<p>I find a difference between “millions will lose insurance” and “millions will find their current plan doesn’t qualify and need to find an alternative.” </p>
<p>You may have legit issues with ACA, GP. You just can’t tell me that what you don’t like makes it absolute fact or that everyone will have the same angle you do or that the plan is crap because it’s crap for YOU. </p>
<p>Bay, no, we don’t know what others will do. And yes, it’s possible some will be confused by what they find. And some will not proceed. I don’t think that “subsidy talk” hindsight is dooming.</p>
Then you don’t really understand what ACA does, apparently because you have been misled by the “informative” article. </p>
<p>NO one gets a cash “subsidy”. The kid’s mom won’t get a check in the mail each month-- she’ll just get a discount on the premium. If the 27 year old and his mom each have the same income and live in Chicago, the mom will pay $1 more per month for the Silver plan (I checked the Kaiser calculator for the numbers, rather than relying on CNN – the premium costs $174 for the 27 year old, and the subsidy kicks in at $175). </p>
<p>The government will pay the balance to the insurance company. </p>
<p>It’s not pocket money – it is a CAP on the amount of money that people at various income levels will be asked or expected to pay for insurance.</p>