<p>
</p>
<p>The ACA is just like gun control laws. It only applies to law abiding taxpayers who are doing the right thing and can be tracked by the IRS. They are who will pay. </p>
<p>In California, pre-ACA, insurers were free to set any price they wanted for people with pre-existing conditions. And yet, they nevertheless refused to cover some people with pre-existing conditions at any price. </p>
<p>So, clearly, there are some pre-existing conditions that insurers don’t want to take on. If you enact a law that says insurers have to cover pre-existing conditions, but allow insurers to set any price, that is the same as allowing insurers not to cover pre-existing conditions. All the insurer would have to do, for those people it didn’t want to cover, would be to charge a million dollars a month. Problem solved, for the insurer. Problem not solved, for the cancer survivor who still can’t get insurance.</p>
<p>Some of you need to go back and read the 15k posts. We’re going in circles again.</p>
<p>I’m paying for your superfund clean up, highways, water needs, forest fire control, droughts, school issues and a host of other things I won’t use. We’re all paying for someone else’s unemployment. </p>
<p>If the insurers benefit, why not tighten the grip on them? Why not? One poster would say, has said, it’s useless to try. Well then it’s useless to complain. RI has controls, they don’t let the insurers fly at will. If 4.5 is a usable increase %, it is far lower than the average increases requested. Aiui, BCBS in RI also has lower margins. Not out of thin air.</p>
<p>LasMa: How old is your D? Can she still be on your plan? What is her full freight premium (young people’s catastrophic plans are inexpensive), can you provide the “subsidy” if she can not ‘afford’ it. Can she take a second job? A room mate? A cut in her COL? Why is a federal subsidy the only way you D can have insurance?</p>
<p>I just ran the numbers for a 30 year old making 100K/year (to ensure an unsubsidized quote) under Covered CA. Monthly premiums are between $250 - $260 a month. And, this if for a high cost area. MOST other places would be less than this. Could you assist your daughter at some level if her subsidies go away?</p>
<p>Some can try to make something of this, from Price Waterhouse Coopers, on filings. Still subject to approvals and or changes by commissions: <a href=“http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/aca-state-exchanges.jhtml”>http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/aca-state-exchanges.jhtml</a></p>
<p>I don’t think LasMa’s D is at home. You know we discussed various away situations. And catastrophic plans, as far as I saw, s*ck. They are for people able to foot the med care bills that are not catastrophic. YMMV.</p>
<p>Maybe the 2nd job concept could jokingly be applied to a state like CA- let everyone take 2nd jobs to afford higher taxes to pay in-state costs unique to CA? I don’t even know if I’m jk.</p>
<p>“Why is a federal subsidy the only way you D can have insurance?”</p>
<p>Good question. </p>
<p>That’s a good link, LF. And strange. What’s with Indiana? </p>
<p>Michigan, average 2015 rate $331, average increase 4.6%.
Indiana, average 2015 rate $514, average increase 15.4%.</p>
<p>I suspect those averages, though. Properly, the rates and increases should be averaged per 2015 subscriber. But they are not; they are averaged per plan, which means that small insurers with unusually high or low rates are disproportionately weighted. Probably it’s better to look at the median rate increases (9.0% for Michigan, 13.2% for Indiana) but the medians aren’t correctly weighted either.</p>
<p>Dietz, in my area, 2014, age 30, my Silver (as a plan example) would run $261, direct from the insurer. Gawd, that’s the guy earning a lot less that 100k, too. Age 25: $230. That is straight from the insurer’s price list, no machinations required.</p>
<p>And, costs for young and healthy people rose dramatically under ACA in most places. So, we are now saying we need this law to make something affordable that was much more affordable before passing said law. Crazy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This illustrates a basic lack of understanding of a representative republic governed by a constitution. Our system of government is not a silly TV show. There is something called separation of powers - inconvenient for some, I know. </p>
<p>Laws are technically written documents for a very specific reason. so that who has jurisdiction and authority is clearly defined, as to respect the separation of powers. </p>
<p>Interpretation is not up to any department or person willy-nilly. If that were the case, then any law is essentially meaningless - we would always be dealing with “It depends on what the meaning of is is.”</p>
<p>CF, seems they basing what they call averages on, what is it, age 21? So perhaps younger folks see an adjusting increase. None of these slices are enough for me, yet. Plus, for many of us, our kids will shift out- and maybe back under- our umbrella. </p>
<p>It was not affordable for everyone before. Because personal circumstances vary. To assume everyone is begging under a help wanted sign is to miss the breadth of realities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And to be more precise, the only way it will be more affordable even then to the end user is to give the insurance companies other people’s money to offset the cost increase. It is like me raising your taxes and then giving you a tax credit at the end of the year to cover the tax increase you were forced to pay. Hum… why did that tax credit come from? Someone else’s wallet, of course. </p>
<p>Awc, do you only pay for your own family’s needs? They dropped your property taxes when your kids exited the public schools?</p>
<p>LF: Nice link. No info on CA though…and we wait…</p>
<p>Yes, CA has added cost burdens upon cost burdens…did you hear the latest…now in SF if someone wants to take their own single family home back off the rental market because they want to move back in…they need to reimburse the tenants. One particular case…an older couple wants to move back into their place on Lombard St. They ‘owe’ the tenant $110K!!! Love this State. </p>
<p>SF is a city and was called a state. </p>
<p>Exact words. ;)</p>
<p>^^Yup…SF is most certainly it’s own ‘State’ since it attempts to run itself outside of several STATE laws…</p>
<p>I didn’t believe ACA would be this good. I upgraded early 2014. I have much better doctors for a fewer dollars less, better coverage, no co-insurance, It would be stupid to go back. </p>
<p>You referred to SF as a state… There are SF laws and regulations that are not Cal laws and regulations. </p>
<p>Be careful… Exact words with limited definitions only please. </p>
<p>They may be giving the “average” price for a 21-year-old (though I doubt it; I think they’re using an older age). That’s not my quarrel with the method. Rather, I object to their weighting the rate for a plan with few subscribers equally with the rate for a plan with lots of subscribers.</p>
<p>To see why it’s wrong, let’s say we wanted to know the average per capita income for people who live in Santa Clara County and Colusa County, in California. The average income in Santa Clara County is $40,700; the average income in Colusa County is $21,300. So we take the two numbers, average them, and conclude that the average income in the two counties is $31,000, right? Bzzt, wrong, that’s idiotic, that number is completely wrong. Lots of people live in Santa Clara County. Almost nobody lives in Colusa County. The average income of the two counties is pretty much the average income of Santa Clara County, though Colusa drags it down a little: $40,466.</p>
<p>Similarly, we can’t simply average the rates people pay in Colusa County with the rates people pay in Santa Clara County, and expect to get a number that is other than meaningless. Journalists routinely write down numbers and do calculations that are meaningless. It’s infuriating.</p>
<p>dstark: Ahhh…but the meaning of a word is based on intent…or…is it not? B-) </p>
<p>And…buy refusing to enforce for example…ICE laws and marijuana laws as stipulated by the STATE, our little SF has defacto declared itself above the STATE and is a state in it’s own mine…there. …I just made up a new definition based on intent.</p>