<p>The seven million number is for March 31. We don’t know what will happen then. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that seven million people will have signed up on the exchanges by the end of March.</p>
<p>And actually, what is “needed” is not a certain number of signups, or a certain number of signups of young people. What is necessary is a good percentage of healthy people buying individual health insurance, on and off the exchanges. We don’t, right now, have a good handle on the health of people signing up, and we also don’t know what mix of healthy versus sick the insurance actuaries assumed when they set premiums. </p>
<p>A reasonable guess was, they thought sick people would be overrepresented. At the end of 2014, we’ll have a better handle on how well the companies did in setting premiums. If premiums go way up for 2015, insurance companies were overoptimistic about the health of their subscribers. If refund checks go out, they were overpessimistic.</p>
<p>I don’t know, but “Piper, a former official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.” claims that he is hearing the number is between 5-10%. But I am sure people here know more about what the actual numbers are.</p>
<p>What I do know is that for some reason these numbers are not released and for some reason there is a reluctance to do so.</p>
<p>They enrolled, OK? They didn’t just look at prices. By the way, healthcare.gov now has a feature that allows you to shop without entering your information, and has had it for a month, a month in which almost a million people ENROLLED just on the federal exchange.</p>
<p>How could the federal exchange release this information? They don’t have it. You buy a plan on the federal exchange. Your info gets transmitted to the insurance company. The insurance company sends you a bill. You pay (or you don’t). </p>
<p>We know that already about half the people who signed up in Washington have paid… and remember, the bill is not due yet. We have no reason to believe matters would be different on the federal exchange.</p>
<p>Well after all the worrying I did today, my account seems to be back on track.
I am covered. The right plan is listed. It’s a terrible plan… I can’t wait to get my tax returns and get a good plan on the Marketplace once I know my income for this past year :D</p>
<p>From that link you provided:
“The fact that they have about 2 million enrolled is not that far off from 3.3 million”</p>
<p>Comedy gold!</p>
<p>By the way, should that 7M number be changed to include the number of people who lost their insurance? Or did they already know that would happen and account for that? e.g. that there really would be a net enrollment of 2M out of the 50M uninsured?</p>
<p>How many of the people whose plans were cancelled were eligible for subsidies? If they weren’t eligible for subsidies, they probably wouldn’t purchase on an exchange.</p>
<p>Calculating the net change in uninsured is difficult. We’ll have the net change in Medicaid, and we’ll have the number of people who signed up on the exchanges, but we don’t have the number who’ve signed up off-exchange. I’d guess that most people whose plans were cancelled signed up for new plans off-exchange, like GP.</p>
<p>I want to make it clear that while all this discussion about whether signed up people pay or not is interesting to ACA supporters and detractors, it is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to this thread. </p>
<p>Next poster about that topic will no longer post on this thread.</p>
<p>I don’t understand that statement.<br>
Are you saying that plans on the exchange are more expensive than non-exchange plans? Are exchanges just meant for people getting subsidies?</p>
<p>The troubles with the healthcare exchanges have been well publicized. Moreover, there are some plans offered off the exchange, but not on the exchange. Therefore, people who are sure they are not going to qualify for subsidies under any circumstance might as well just go to a broker or buy directly from an insurance company.</p>
<p>(However, as Calmom has emphasized, if you think it is possible that your income might drop into subsidy territory-- maybe your job is not secure, maybe you are self-employed and your income varies, or something-- you would be well-advised to purchase on the exchange to be safe, so that you can get your subsidy at tax time if your income does drop.)</p>
<p>I would have thought that the exchanges have the highest number of participants and hence more risk sharing which would result in lower premiums.</p>
<p>That coupled with new rules that tended to standardize health plans seems to make it harder to find a “specialized plan” that was cheaper.</p>
<p>How is it then more expensive to be on the exchange vs. a private plan?</p>
<p>ccdaddio, the insurance companies sell the same plans, at the same price both direct to consumers and on-exchange. (The law REQUIRES that the plans be priced the same – though the companies are also free to sell additional, ACA-compliant plans off exchange that vary in price). </p>
<p>ONLY the plans bought on-exchange are eligible for advance tax subsidies. </p>
<p>So if you think that there is any chance at all that you might qualify for a subsidy at any time in the coming year, it makes sense to buy on the exchange. </p>
<p>But it’s a hassle dealing with the exchange, so people who are sure they don’t qualify for subsidies for the plans they are buying might save a lot of time by buying their policy direct from the company.</p>
<p>As someone who is self employed, I’d always go for the exchange, even if I think that I might make too much to qualify – because nothing is really certain. </p>
<p>But for people who are pretty sure that they can’t get subsidies, then the greater array of insurance options off exchange might be attractive. For example, I want an HSA plan, but on exchange they are only available for Bronze ($4500 deductible). However, I think Kaiser offers a Silver HSA ($2000 deductible), so that’s an example in California of a good plan for some people that is only available off exchange. (HSA’s come with some nice tax advantages, especially for people in higher tax brackets)</p>