<p>“so the more the rest of the potential buyers jump in, the lower the premiums for everybody.”</p>
<p>I think you mean the lower the rate by which premiums will increase. No way they are going down. </p>
<p>We shall see if they can get the healthy people into the pool and if the projections of sick people are underrepresented. I am not all that confident there won’t be huge premium increases in future years. No one predicted the rate increase I am experiencing this year. If they did, they forgot to tell me about it.</p>
<p>Someone on television last night was predicting subsidies declining over time. Maybe, someone who knows more about the nuts and bolts of this thing can address how the law defines the future of subsidy amounts because if there is wiggle room I would expect issues. But, I tend to be negative like that.
It’s a problem. LOL!</p>
<p>dstark, I have an idea for your kid. Why don’t you purchase an individual Blue Shield of Ca. plan for him. Tell them he is living in your house in Ca. This way he is covered with every provider in NY that is in the Blue Cross/Blue Shield network. If anything happens to him, you can tell Blue Shield he was visiting NY. He would probably have a more extensive network in NY than Ca because of the Blue Card program.</p>
<p>But how subsidies may decline is speculative, at this point, isn’t it? And, the impact may depend on where one falls in the exchange scheme. Eg, I have a whole lot of wiggle room before my new rate comes anywhere the rate I pay BCBS today.</p>
<p>Good job, GP. But, does this tell us something about how digging can avoid some of the wild info passed earlier?</p>
<p>On the same note, I’d suggest when we find and/or post links that are editorial or opinion, we aim for Oct 1 and more recent, since so much wasn’t known before that date.</p>
<p>I meant that the more people jump into the private market, the lower premiums will be next year. They probably won’t decline from this year’s rate, but if more people sign up, premiums will be lower than they will be if only a few people sign up.</p>
<p>Out of 50 million previously uninsured, about 40% are below poverty level and eligible for medicaid. That leaves abot 30 million previously uninsured looking to be insured through the private market joining 15 million people who had the individual insurance. Is it safe to assume the 7 million people CBO is expecting to sign up will be sicker than average population and also those 15 million people who had their insurance pulling down the average health of the group? I am assuming so since we heard so many horror stories about people who can’t get insurance because of pre-existing conditions. I’d expect they will make up to be the first few millions of the 7 million in CBO estimate.</p>
<p>If his permanent location is CA, would Blue Shield consider it fraudulent if you bought him a California plan even though he will be in NY for two months? What if you called and asked?</p>
<p>This is where the communication breaks down. We have ACA to insure previously uninsured, most with pre-existing conditions. And you are saying with a straight face they are not sicker than the average people? You must work for the government.</p>
<p>Ah. I see the problem. You think that most people who are uninsured are uninsured because they have pre-existing conditions. That’s incorrect. There are a lot of reasons why someone wouldn’t be insured, but for many, they don’t have insurance because they either don’t think they need it (young invincibles) or they can’t afford it (low to middle income people).</p>
<p>And I repeat, $10 says the private insurance pool (not counting those eligible for Medicaid) is no less healthy than the employer insurance pool. If you’ve got data on the matter, bring it on.</p>
<p>No, you don’t see the problem. I don’t think most are sick just that they are more likely to sign up so that the average health of newly insured will be lower on the average.</p>
I dont play games like that. </p>