<p>calmom,</p>
<p>I know what a subsidy is, sheesh. Where did I say someone was going to get cash?</p>
<p>Bay, both you and CNN have taken Sibelius’ statement out of context, as well as tortured the meaning of the word “qualify”. It obviously means that the person will qualify for a subsidy IF NEEDED. And that 21 year old in Nashville does indeed “qualify” – in the same way that a family with an EFC of $15,000 “qualifies” for need-based financial aid IF the COA at the school the kid attends is more than $15K – but not if the COA is less. </p>
<p>Sibelius did not say that that people with income at those levels will GET subsidies – she said, truthfully, that they “qualify”.</p>
<p><a href=“http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Transcript-Health-HHS-FY-2014-Budget-2013-4-18.pdf[/url]”>http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Transcript-Health-HHS-FY-2014-Budget-2013-4-18.pdf</a></p>
<p>The real transcript of what she said. Notice, though, how often she gets interrupted before finishing her statement. I’m going back to see if she ever makes the point quite as CNN “informs.” Oops, maybe that was snarky.</p>
<p>But again, this is a small point on which to determine whether the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. </p>
<p>If you read it, please don’t just go looking for the few words that seem to prove one side. It is clear she is being interrupted.</p>
<p>dstark, assuming the UC’s are in the Anthem network in my region (no real proof yet), that would make Anthem certainly superior to BS, which in my region has an awful network. Unfortunately, Anthem gets rid of the valuable Blue Card program while BS keeps it. No perfect choice here. It’s like picking between two ugly ducklings who each have some swan-like attributes.</p>
<p>calmom,</p>
<p>Subsidies are given, right? So if they are given, and Sebilius says you will definitely qualify for one, then to me, that means you are getting one. She didn’t say “IF NEEDED.”</p>
<p>That is the plain meaning to me based on the CNN article. Perhaps CNN will put out a retraction if they are proved wrong. But it doesn’t matter anyway, because they are still right that some young low-income people are not getting subsidies.</p>
<p>There is another angle to the subsidy equation and I am not taking someone’s side in this discussion but throw the question out there.</p>
<p>The expectation is that people should spend 9.5% of their income on insurance before subsidy kicks in (that is the number I keep seeing and I don’t know if there are exceptions). However, at what income levels do young people have the capability to take 9.5% of their income and dedicate it to insurance? I suspect it is expected to be anything over 100% of poverty line. Can someone living in Chicago be able to dedicate 2000 out of 26k for insurance?</p>
<p>Well, that’s not just a young people question. There are middle-class people whose insurance is doubling and tripling. Some on TV say it’s now more than their mortgage. These are people with budgets who were led to believe costs would come down. And even with subsidies sometimes they are going up. Of course, they’re not happy.</p>
<p>Here’s how the messages get garbled, just picking this one:
insurance is doubling and tripling. Some on TV say it’s now more than their mortgage Visualize people in horror.</p>
<p>My current independent family plan costs more than my mortgage payment.
Oh, when we had the employer plan, it also exceeded the mortgage payment. Huh? The mortgage payment is low.</p>
<p>See how misleading the quote is, all by itself?</p>
<p>GP if they get rid of Blue Card, did you clarify how OON emergencies will be handled? Everyone should and I find there is a failsafe in place.</p>
<p>What’s misleading? They had insurance they could afford and it was cancelled.</p>
<p>Just the numbers: From today’s LA Times. This is the data from the website that is acknowledged to be the best working in the country. </p>
<p>As of Nov. 19, 80,000 (in round numbers) had enrolled. Roughly 2,700 people are enrolling per day. </p>
<p>Taking those already enrolled plus the projected enrollment based on current daily figures, and we come up with 171,800 projected enrollees by Dec. 23, the new cut-off date to have insurance by Jan. 1. Just one-fifth of those who lost their insurance in California. </p>
<p>The enrollment numbers would have to jump by 10 times or 27,000 people per day, just to hit the ‘break even’ point, not to mention the millions previously uninsured.</p>
<p>TatinG, </p>
<p>Do you think signups are going to occur in a linear fashion? That is not what happened with Romneycare.</p>
<p>Do you think there is a chance that ACA will work in Calif?</p>
<p>Do you think that between now and just before Christmas, including Thanksgiving and Black Friday, there’s going to be a tsunami of people rushing to the exchange to sign up? A 10 times increase per day? Just to get to the same number as those who lost their coverage. That’s just to get to 1,000,000 enrollees, those who lost their coverage. But there are reportedly 7,000,000 uninsured in California. Let’s give them until March 31 to get some coverage for the year. That’s 2.3 million for Jan, 2.3 million for Feb. and 2.3 million for March. A 20 times plus increase over current enrollment rates.</p>
<p>You really do have to be an optimist to see that happening.</p>
<p>Not everyone who lost their coverage are going to go on the exchange to buy insurance. Some are going to buy it off the exchange. </p>
<p>Do you think all those people are going to elect to go uninsured? I don’t.</p>
<p>I have been admonished for speculating. I’m strictly a numbers person now.</p>
<p>But the number of people who sign up through the exchange don’t tell the whole story. </p>
<p>Our “own” GP has no intention of purchasing through the exchange, and there are several others on this thread who are purchasing off the exchange - just in our wee group.</p>
<p>Well, isn’t the goal to force healthy people into the exchange to make the numbers work and keep the premiums affordable?</p>
<p>If you have the numbers of people signing up off the exchange, do the math. </p>
<p>Someone with more time than I have can extrapolate the numbers nationally. </p>
<p>Your math problem of the day: If 3, 4 or 5 million (pick your number but source it) lost their individual health insurance, based on the rate and number of sign-ups on the federal exchange plus the various state exchanges, when will the numbers equal out? </p>
<p>Do the same for the number of previously uninsured.</p>
<p>No, the goal is to have everyone covered by comprehensive insurance - thus the mandate. </p>
<p>If Anthem, for example, sells plans on and off the exchange their numbers should still work as long as they get “X” to buy insurance from them.</p>
<p>People who are fullpay have zero reason to go through the exchange.</p>
<p>Are the exchange plans worse than the off-exchange plans for full payers?</p>