<p>Bay, the short answer to your question is “yes”.</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>I don’t know what happens, but I’ve heard this being discussed. I already mentioned that I thought mnsure rates were very good. My understanding was that our state was able to get those rates because they expected to bring many people onto exchange to spread the risk.</p>
<p>MNsure will pay “consumer assistance partners” $70 for each person enrolled into commercial plan. But for people whose income is so low that they cannot afford to pay for health insurance and must rely on Medicaid, MNsure will pay just $25. </p>
<p>To me it seems like people enrolling into commercial plans are of greater importance for MNsure. It is also interesting that MNsure needs to actively recruit people to sign up on exchanges. I suspect that it is for reasons I stated above.</p>
<p>I also suspect that if the numbers of enrolled do not meet insurance companies expectations, the rates will go up next year dramatically.</p>
<p>How things are doing on the state run exchanges article:</p>
<p><a href=“Uninsured Find More Success via Health Exchanges Run by States - The New York Times”>Uninsured Find More Success via Health Exchanges Run by States - The New York Times;
<p>$150 a month for a health insurance plan? I paid more than that 20 years ago as a public school teacher (yes…we had to pay a cost share for insurance…and copays too). I would LOVE a policy for $150 a month. So would each of my 20 something kids.</p>
<p>It is a done deal Bay. You don’t have to worry. The 7 million is going to happen. </p>
<p>Goldenpooch, for many people paying for the cost of health care is going to be difficult. I understand this. I understand that BS has cut the number of providers. Your plan you have now looks pretty good to me. I am sure you would like to pay less. Who wouldn’t?</p>
<p>My $1380 a month does include my wife and two adult kids. One of my kids is eligible for medicaid. I dont want to go the medicaid route. However, I reserve the right to change my mind. $2,000 a month premiums may give me the impetus to change my mind. :)</p>
<p>I know many people have supported gradually cutting subsidies instead of just cutting subsidies at certain income levels. I have probably supported this myself. </p>
<p>If subsidies are gradually cut, one of two things is going to happen. The subsidies of those that presently are going to receive them have to be cut. Or… We have to increase the funding of ACA. We can do this by raising taxes or raising the costs for those that won’t get subsidies if we switch to gradual subsidies. </p>
<p>Just cutting subsidies gradually instead of abruptly increases the cost of ACA.</p>
<p>NY has already enrolled more people for next year than exist in the private individual insurance market in NY.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Technically, they have until March 15 of next year to sign up (as least in California) to avoid the penalty/tax.</p>
<p>“Does anyone know what will happen if a majority of the expected 7 million of the total 30 million uninsured either don’t or cannot sign up by December 31? What if most of them that do, are the sickest, as would be expected?”</p>
<p>If healthy people don’t sign up, the risk pools won’t work. That’s true of any group plan run by a non-governmental insurance company (whether for-profit or NFP). It would be true if all the healthy Microsoft employees decided not to sign up on their employer’s plan. This is why we have the ads urging young people not to sign up – because keeping healthy people out is one way to make it fail. And failure is theoretically possible, though it is now looking very unlikely, based on how who’s already signing up.</p>
<p>If the system were doomed, of course, it wouldn’t make any sense to spend money on ads urging young people not to sign up – it would fail whether they do so or not. Seems that the opponents believe there’s a real risk that the system will work.</p>
<p>And ACA is going to work because it is in the health insurance companies interests to sign up as many healthy people as possible. Even if the insurance companies have to rebate some money back, it is in the insurance companies interests to sign up as many healthy people as possible. </p>
<p>So those with employer based health insurance can relax. :)</p>
<p>Wow…good about NY state! Guess their exchange computer system is running well. Not so everywhere else!!</p>
<p>NY had trouble in the first day, when it was deluged with people trying to get on, so they added additional servers and that seems to have taken care of the problem.</p>
<p>Wow, $150 a month for premiums would be a dream come true! We’re at $1,470 a month right now and expect it to be more next year.</p>
<p>Artslover…is that $150 for an individual plan or a family plan (I think it’s a deal either way…just curious).</p>
<p>I am not as sanguine as you guys about signing up healthy young people. Many of them will not be amenable to paying a couple hundred a month for health insurance they don’t think they need. Also, many unsubsidized older people who have to pay an arm and a leg for this insurance will not sign up because they can’t afford it. The only people currently entering the exchange are poor people needing subsidies, many of them with preexisting conditions. Either the unsubsidized will pay monthly rates of $2,000 a month for crummy insurance or the system will implode.</p>
<p>NY doesn’t really have a private individual marketplace. Many years ago they instituted community rating and guaranteed issue, and individual insurance became so expensive it almost went the way of the dinosaur.</p>
<p>All you had to do was go to ehealthinsurance.com and it was obvious no one was buying individual health insurance in NY. I don’t think there was more than a few policies.</p>
<p>Goldenpooch. With all due respect. I think you are underestimating young, healthy individuals. My very healthy almost 26 year old wouldn’t go for one minute without health insurance. She works two part time jobs, neither offering health insurance benefits to her (oddly she is an EMT…you would think the companies would want their EMTs to have insurance). She is aging out of our family plan and will shop the exchange, as well as the individual plans off exchange. She won’t get a bottom of the line policy either. She will not be eligible for a subsidy. She fully expects to spend about $200 a month for her plan…and that looks to be in the range in our state.</p>
<p>thumper1, good for you daughter but she is not typical. Most young people will not buy insurance.</p>
<p>And you know that MOST young people won’t buy this…because?? Because you think so? </p>
<p>Many young people won’t buy because they will remain on parent plans until age 26. Many young people will be on college plans. </p>
<p>Are you suggesting that MOST 26 year olds will opt NOT to buy health insurance of some kind? Where is the study that supports this? That is not what my 20 somethings and their friends think…or plan to do.</p>
<p>Are we sure? If a young person does not buy insurance and only pays the penalty can they immediately enroll in an insurance plan if they have an accident or get a serious illness or do they have to wait for an open enrollment period?</p>
<p>My guess is they can enroll…but the policy will NOT pay for things that already happened. In other words…if the kiddo has an emergency appendectomy, and THEN applies for insurance…that operation won’t be covered.</p>
<p>My kid saw her medical bills from two emergency surgeries and a six day hospitalization her senior year of college. She KNOWS what the insurance paid. She knows that is what insurance is for. It was well into the six figures. Insurance cost is a bargain compared to the costs of hospitalization.</p>
<p>No, they can’t enroll until Oct 1 under the new law. Most kids think they are invincible and don’t need insurance. They also can’t afford it. There was a study done awhile back of the possible reasons for why the estimated 30 million people didn’t have insurance. It was discovered that the majority voluntarily chose not to pay for it. It was not because of preexisting conditions.</p>