<p>Should ask dstark. He said 80% get discounts in NY and that’s why the discussion started. The point is 80% CAN get subsidies because their starting price tags are higher for the age group compared to other States where fewer are getting the subsidies.</p>
<p><a href=“http://mobile.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2013/Aug/1701_Collins_covering_young_adults_tracking_brief_final_v4.pdf[/url]”>Home | Commonwealth Fund;
<p>Page 6.</p>
<p>nice link dstark.</p>
<p>"The Kaiser Family Foundation’s premium calculator shows that, on average, young
adults earning about $15,000 will pay no more than $38 per month; those earning $23,000, no more than $121 per month; those earning $29,000, no more than
$193 per month; and those earning $35,000, no more than $273 per month (Exhibit 7). "</p>
<p>It looks like the expectation is for many to be paying in full after they cross about 25k income if they are single.</p>
<p>Question - who has a deadline tomorrow - only those renewing for next year as opposed to new enrollees?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That “on average” is silly. There’s no “average” about it, and I don’t know why they dragged the Kaiser Subsidy Calculator into the matter when all you need is basic arithmetic to do the simple computation.</p>
<p>People who earn $23K won’t pay more than $121 a month anywhere, if they are eligible for subsidies. That’s how the subsidies work. A given income anywhere in any state has the same maximum, and nobody with that income has to pay more than the maximum.</p>
<p>For the income of $23K per year, the maximum is $1450/year or $121/month, everywhere. If your income is $23K and you get subsidies, you are subsidized down to $1450/year. If your premium was already lower than $1450/year, lucky you, you don’t get subsidies because you already have cheap insurance.</p>
<p>Isn’t this about the uninsured? Because that healthy 23-year old could have bought insurance at that price pre-ACA and didn’t because it was too expensive. And with a big deductible all he’s buying is an insurance card. He’s still paying if he goes to the doctor. These are the kids that may pass and pay the fine.
I have no idea how many there are.</p>
<p>Here is a Cal story. </p>
<p>[Few</a> in California are hit by Obamacare cancellations - SFGate](<a href=“Few in California are hit by Obamacare cancellations”>Few in California are hit by Obamacare cancellations)</p>
<p>"16.1 million Californians under the age of 65 with pre-existing conditions can no longer be turned down or charged more for coverage</p>
<p>3 million are eligible for tax-credit subsidies of, on average, $5,548 per family of four a year</p>
<p>68 percent of those in the individual insurance market are eligible for premium subsidies</p>
<p>6.7 percent of Californians under the age of 65 have individual insurance plans"
Flossy, are you a big fan of the Koch brothers?</p>
<p>“Flossy, are you a big fan of the Koch brothers?”</p>
<p>dstark, saw this article on front page of LA Times today and it reminded me of your morbid fascination with the Koch Brothers.</p>
<p>“Tom Steyer may be liberals’ answer to the Koch brothers”</p>
<p>[Tom</a> Steyer may be liberals’ answer to the Koch brothers - latimes.com](<a href=“Tom Steyer may be liberals' answer to the Koch brothers”>Tom Steyer may be liberals' answer to the Koch brothers)</p>
<p>BTW, Ron Pollack, the author of the SF Gate article, is an ACA sycophant whose credibility on this issue should be taken with a large grain of salt.</p>
<p>“But let’s be clear. These notable achievements do not belie the need to address the concerns of people who have received termination notices. Those notices were sent to people with private individual insurance policies, many of which fail to meet new consumer protection standards. For example, many of these substandard plans place arbitrary limits on how much they will pay out in claims in any year. Many consider these plans insurance that doesn’t really insure”</p>
<p>I can’t speak about other states but in Ca this drivel is totally untrue. California consumer protection standards were probably the most stringent in the country. Most individual plans in Ca were not substandard by any stretch of the imagination.</p>
<p>So people who were uninsured heretofore are going to be penalized if they don’t buy insurance, but if you were insured and had your policy cancelled, then you are not subject to the individual mandate. This is one example of an absurdly arbitrary and unfair mishmash of regulations carried out under a law that can only be characterized as a shambles.</p>
<p>CF, you wrote: “People who earn $23K won’t pay more than $121 a month anywhere, if they are eligible for subsidies. That’s how the subsidies work. A given income anywhere in any state has the same maximum, and nobody with that income has to pay more than the maximum.” </p>
<p>Is this referring to the 2nd least expensive silver plan?</p>
<p>IllinoisMom, good catch. People who earn $23K won’t pay more than $121 a month for the reference plan, which is the 2nd lowest Silver.</p>
<p>GP, do you happen to know what the regulations were, if any, about yearly limits and lifetime caps for insurance in California? This is not a snark; I really don’t know the answer to the question. I do know that Calfornia had and has a laundry list of treatments that have to be covered, including chiropractic.</p>
<p>dstark and GP - We don’t really care for Koch or Steyer. No need to refer to them.</p>
<p>You can argue the points without bringing in political affiliations or allegiances.</p>
<p>So, I had insurance in CA and it never covered chiropractic That can’t be right.</p>
<p>You’re right, actingmt; thanks for catching the error. I had heard that chiropractic was required in California, but I now see I was mistaken. Chiropractic was not required in California plans, though a lot of plans included chiropractic benefits.</p>
<p>This is the new error message: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yippie freaking skippie.</p>
<p>Romani, haven’t you already talked to the insurance company? </p>
<p>Do you think this might be from an old application? The old application where you were in verification hell? And meanwhile, with your new application you’ve picked a plan? I wonder if it’s possible to kill the old application.</p>
<p>Cf, prior to 2010, my plan had a $6 million lifetime cap and no annual cap. Because of ACA, all plans post-2010 had no lifetime caps. The law phased-out annual caps but the lion’s share of plans in the Ca individual market had no annual caps and were much less expensive than what 2014 ACA-compliant plans cost without the subsidies.</p>
<p>All plans on the individual market also had maternity benefits because that was mandated by state law. These plans were hardly substandard. I am getting tired of hearing this stuff about how bad the pre-2014 plans were from the supporters of the law.</p>
<p>CF, this is for my mom. I made her a new account and everything yesterday because she was also stuck in verification hell.</p>
<p>She is NOT a procrastinator but she can’t read computer screens well so she had to wait until she got home so I could help her.</p>
<p>GP - Are you considering the catastrophic plan?</p>
<p>Romani - you mentioned 3 plans with issues this morning. Were you able to complete the other 2?</p>