Skip to main content

Blood pressure measuring. Doctor and patient. Isolated on white background. Health care.
Everybody wants in on this.
Most observers expected a lull after the December rush in Obamacare enrollments to meet the first deadline. But that hasn't been the case in a number of states, which report that the high pace of enrollments has continued in the first few weeks of 2014.
The Washington Health Benefit Exchange has had about 8,000 enrollments in private health plans since late December, bringing the total to just over 73,000. "We doubled our call-center staff in December" to handle the end-of-year surge, said Richard K. Onizuka, chief executive of the exchange, in a conference call arranged by the nonprofit healthcare advocacy group Families USA. "And now we're almost doubling it again." [...]

Kentucky, whose Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has been an enthusiastic supporter of Obama's Affordable Care Act, has been logging about 2,000 simultaneous users on its website in January, said Carrie Banahan, executive director of the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange. That compares with 600 before the December surge, when "Kynect" topped 33,000 enrollments in private health insurance. Banahan did not release January enrollment figures.

New York is enrolling as many as 7,000 people per day this month, and California reports "a tremendous amount of interest," though the state didn't provide updated numbers in that call. Six states which are using the federal exchange—North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Idaho, New Hampshire and Maine—are currently ahead of their target enrollments. That's notable in part because none of the states has yet implemented the Medicaid expansion. Medicaid enrollments have accounted for a big chunk of enrollments in other states.

Furthermore, the pace of enrollments for the ACA is faster than it was for Medicare Part D, the last big federal health care expansion effort under the Bush administration. That's according to research done by House Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee. But if you really need convincing that, despite the completely botched early rollout of the exchanges, participation is hitting targets there's this: The insurance companies aren't just not panicking, they think everything's going to be fine with the new law.

So House Speaker John Boehner might have to rethink his whole strategy of "sit back and bet on Obamacare collapsing under its own weight.”

You can always keep track of enrollment numbers with Brainwrap. Here's his update for Thursday.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 10:39 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (58+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 10:39:38 AM PST

  •  Good. (17+ / 0-)

    Apparently no one's listening to the flocks of trolls on Facebook busily lying about it.

    •  It helps to counter them with facts (9+ / 0-)

      Which I am doing now and then, in a low-key  tone that just presents facts with links, etc.. I figure there are lots of lurkers wondering how to find out what's what.

      Women create the entire labor force.
      Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 12:40:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Every time I see you signature line... (0+ / 0-)

        I wonder if those who have no sympathy are, therefore, not human.

        Are they, rather, a genetic mutation or reversion to a previous stage of evolution.

         It would be ironic if the diminishing prevalence of sympathy turned out to be irrefutable proof of evolution.

        "An egg is not poultry.” An old Blues tune's brilliant insight into the notion that a zygote can, in any sense, be "a person."

        by carbonman1950 on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 03:05:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've concluded this a long time ago... (0+ / 0-)

          ...sociopathy is a mutation which would have died out a long time ago if we were still living in caves.  The sociopathic could have been expelled from society and would not have bred (unless, of course, they followed the Republican/Duck Dynasty model and kidnapped a child to breed with).

        •  The more that girls and women (0+ / 0-)

          Have reproductive rights, the fewer sociopaths we will have in the population.

          If they are not forced to bear the offspring of rapists, abusers and otherwise awful men, they will do the culling of the bad genetics themselves with birth control and abortions.

          Most girls/women would not want to keep those genetics going, if only to cut loose from the creeps.

          Women create the entire labor force.
          Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

          by splashy on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 06:40:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Remote Area Medical (17+ / 0-)

    Anyone who saw pictures of the huge lines for free care at Remote Area Medical clinics knows there is a huge backlog of people who want help. As word of mouth spreads ACA will increase. By November things will look much better.

  •  Actually, conservatives are reworking their (8+ / 0-)

    strategy.  If you listen to them (which I don't do too often), they are focused on the fact (as I've heard it -- didn't verify) that overall, about 24% of the people signing up are under 35.  The ACA needed that number to be 38% or 40% for the economics to work for insurers.  Insurers aren't panicking because the ACA provides that the taxpayers will foot part of the bill for the insurers' losses due to the fact that not enough young healthy people are enrolling.

    The new strategy is that the Republicans are going to introduce legislation saying that the taxpayers don't "bail out the insurers" (their new talking point) for those losses.  Krauthammer put that strategy out there for Democrats to see. Google "insurance company bailout."

    They think they can get red-state Democratic Senators who are being hammered by "Obamacare" ads to go along with a "no bailout for insurance companies" thing as a way to try to help themselves in November.  

    In this deal, Democrats need to keep up with their changing strategy.

    •  Isn't there a reinsurance fee that takes care (10+ / 0-)

      of the issue already in the law?  And I read that the rates established by the insurance companies did not assume an unrealistically optimistic demographic mix. IOW, like most GOP outrages, much ado about nothing.

      “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

      by ahumbleopinion on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 11:09:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  N.B., Krauthammer complains about (6+ / 0-)

      a lack of enforcement of the mandate, and not ending conforming plans, in a reversal of prior complaints about the ACA.  But I guess that's the advantage of the off year election: nobody has to be consistent with others or even with themselves.

      Christie: "I'm going to find the real bullies!"

      by Inland on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 11:09:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you want enforcement of the mandate (4+ / 0-)

        (which really doesn't happen for another year, when people do their 2014 tax returns), Step #1 would be adequate funding of the IRS which is charged with enforcement.

        Instead, the newly approved budget makes further cuts to the IRS, Issa continues to hammer on what a politically partisan disaster the IRS is, and they coolly continue to undermine its enforcement capacity.

    •  Josh Marshall at TPM has a good story up ... (12+ / 0-)

      On the 24% figure.  He says that was the same in Mass. in the early days, and will go up, because early signees are almost always the ones in most need.

      That was the aim. But it didn't work. Relatively little noticed this week, we got the first look at the demographic breakdown of the first round of sign ups (those through Dec. 28th, 2013). They weren't great. 24% of enrollees were 18 to 34. The administration was and is aiming to have 40% of enrollees in that category.

      But that's not the end of the story. A key Kaiser Foundation study recently found that the key threshold for Obamacare success was 25% of enrollees in that age group. At that number you could have 1% to 2% premium rises. Not great, but not enough to fundamentally break the program and not enough to cause the dreaded 'death spiral.'

      The people who sign up first tend overwhelmingly to be the people who need care most - i.e., the sick and the old. So the demographic distribution almost always gets better over time. It already appears to be happening in the Obamacare pool. That's what happened during initial implementation in Massachusetts. Every indication is that this is the floor for the percentage of youth enrollment. It will almost certainly go up. How much is unclear ... [But] Even if the enrollment ratios in January, February and March were identical - something that is extremely unlikely - it would still be good enough to avoid a death spiral and program collapse.
    •  Well no wonder they had those youth-targeted ads (5+ / 0-)

      I always wondered why the Republicans were running those ads targeted at college kids telling them to "burn their Obamacare cards." Now it makes sense.  

      It will fail and as others have stated already the 24% number is the floor for young enrollment but at least now I see why they had that ridiculous push to get young people not to sign up.

      [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

      by rabel on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 11:32:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Youth sign-ups and the next worry (6+ / 0-)
      The first factor to consider is that we still have two-and-a-half months of eligible enrollment left before Obamacare's 2014 coverage cutoff period ends. Americans are notorious procrastinators when it comes to paying their bills, so it would come as no surprise if we saw the bulk of enrollments on the back end of the coverage cutoff date.

      With that being said, perhaps no age group procrastinates more than young adults. I should know – I am one, and I can tell you firsthand that quite a few of my friends in that age range are still pondering what they're going to do with regard to purchasing health insurance for themselves.[...]

      Instead of worrying about the shortfall in young adult signups that could very well be rectified by late March, I would instead be concerned for hospital providers and pricier medical device makers, which may have something to worry about with the number of bronze and silver plans coming in at 80% combined.

      Whereas this figure works in the favor of insurers, hospitals run the risk of patients simply being unable to pay for services rendered.

      So it looks like the next thing they'll be worrying about is will patients be able to pay for the provisions in their lower cost healthcare.

      Then it will be something else and then something else.

      "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." (From "You Said a Mouthful" by Bishop Desmond Tutu - South African bishop & activist, b.1931)

      by FiredUpInCA on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 11:40:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a lot easier to pay 20% or 40% of the bill (6+ / 0-)

        than to pay 100% of it as we (the uninsured) have been doing. And BTW if the people doing the whining look at their own (employer-provided) coverage, I bet they have a similar copay and/or deductible. Shhhh!

        The other factor -- a big one -- is that you'd be paying 20% of the insurance company's negotiated lower price, not 100% of the hospital's sticker price.

        So yes, on a day-to-day basis, having to shell out $20-40 to see a doctor is still an impediment for people who are just over the Medicaid line. But if you need a knee replacement, or a bullet removed from your leg, or a Cesearean section, it's going to cost you a lot less than it would have pre-Jan. 1.

      •  I thought that even the plans with high co-pays (0+ / 0-)

        have a limited maximum out of pocket amount.  
        Is this true?  And if so, won't this limit costs to hospitals?

    •  I believe someone (Chris Hayes?) said that if the (9+ / 0-)

      24% held up (and he thinks the percentage will go up) that it would only change rates by about 2 1/2 %.

    •  Staying on parents plan until 26 (4+ / 0-)

      Wasn't the entire purpose of increasing the age that children can remain on their parents plan to increase the young/healthy population that are insurance - which would thereby help to offset the sick/unhealthy population that insurance companies would now have to cover?

      I think keeping this in perspective is important.  Those 3+ million younger, healthier people have been in the insurance pools for years now and I think they are a huge factor in the overall picture.

      Even if "only" 25 percent of private enrollments are under 35, the insurance pool has at least 3 million more young people than it would have had before.  I would think this would help to balance it... hence why this was part of the health law to begin with.  

      ... right?

      •  *that are insured (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tb mare
      •  I've wondered this too (4+ / 0-)

        How in the world do you get 35% of the policies issued to people under age 34, when most of them are on their parents' policies to age 26? That's expecting people from 26-34 to buy way more policies than people ages 34-64.

        Unless, of course, you count in those under-26s as "newly insured" and include them in the 35%. And even then -- what were they thinking? Were there figures showing that a huge number of 26-34 year olds were uninsured, compared to a tiny slice of 34-64s?

        •  I believe they must be "dependents" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tb mare, Mr MadAsHell

          to stay on their parent's policy to age 26.

          So, not every person under 26 is automatically on a parent's policy.

        •  And adding (or keeping) an under-26 aged kid (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          on the parents' policy is definitely not as sustaining to the overall pool of insurance premiums. Because   " family" coverage doesn't cost, per person, the same amount as a free-standing policy of one - no matter what the age of the newly-insured person.

          And on a slightly different tack, I wonder about the recent, steady high January numbers in NY.  I'm a case in point: I signed up (and paid) in December (on the 20th) with a direct pay/ off-Exchange plan.  But only on the 15th of January did I finally badger my insurance company into locating and fixing the slight defect in my application so I could actutally become a member, get a number/card etc. that enables me to use my insurance.  Although, according to their customer service reps,  my insurance was "retroactive" to the first of January, I didn't have it to use, therefore I didn't.  So maybe the steady state of post-December "sign-ups" reported by NY is simply the post-December resolutions of applications filed before the deadline.  If so, the numbers don't indicate continued interest by new subscribers as much as tardy problem-fixing for pre-deadline enrollees.  And if that's the case, once that cohort is worked through, there may be crickets to follow.  Time will tell, I guess.

          Certainly I was finally moved this week to force the issue with my insurance company, because I knew that I was facing another deadline - the 15th - if I gave up on my December insurance company and wanted to pick another plan to start in February.  In fact that was the explicit threat that I made that finally got 'em to stop mindlessly saying, I was covered (but couldn't use the benefit???) and that I should just be patient.  Once it was clear to them that I had my coat on and hat in hand, they found someone to identify the problem and clear it up. And before the ACA, I wouldn't have had any guaranteed-issue alternatives so it would have been an idle threat on my part.  So bravo for the ACA!  All I wanted to do was get darned flu shot in time to have immunity before a big community event in mid-February. Of course, I could have paid cash for the shot - it's only $20-30, but that's part of what I'm paying my $532/mo premium for goodness' sake. My plan was to get the shot this week and then deduct the retail cost I paid for the shot from my next month's premium. But in the end, I'm good to go and tomorrow when I go into town I'm gettin' vaxed as despite having no member ID, I do have a number, now..


    •  Hell I don't even understand this talking point (5+ / 0-)

      How will your average dittohead/teabagger explain the "bailout"?

      ie, I think it's complete FAIL.  Let them go down with their anchor.

      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

      by sacrelicious on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 12:35:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The ACA does not need young adults (9+ / 0-)

      as much as conservatives insist in the latest talking point.

      The insurance companies need to have priced right for the mix of young vs old, and more relevantly healthy vs sick. They say they have.

    •  Assuming the 24% enrollment figure is accurate... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It seems to me likely that after a few years go by and a few of their uninsured friends are injured or become seriously ill and  go bankrupt from the medical bills, an increasing percentage of young people will decide that maybe medical insurance is not a bad idea.

      Of course, I assume that we stop letting the right-whingers trickle-down on America before the economy has completely collapsed. No matter how attractively priced medical insurance may be, they won't be able to pay for it if they haven't got a job.

      "An egg is not poultry.” An old Blues tune's brilliant insight into the notion that a zygote can, in any sense, be "a person."

      by carbonman1950 on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 03:11:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  update (0+ / 0-)

      Actually,the last authoritative estimate I heard from an ACA administrator was closer to a minimum of 26-27% are needed to make a break even benchmark. The 38-40% number was a early goal to insure a healthy atmosphere for cost reductions. At this point, closing the 3% gap to insure solvency doesn't seem like a heavy lift. Anything beyond that will paint an even rosier picture.

  •  It's just a matter of people figuring out... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pinto Pony, True North, TofG, tb mare, Lawrence

    ...that OC insurance is a good deal money wise -- both because it is affordable and because it provides good coverage. And we know it does that already, so I'd say it's just a matter of time for our side, and not for Boehner's.

    “I’m able to fly, do what I want, essentially. I guess that’s what freedom is — no limits.” Marybeth Onyeukwu -- Brooklyn DREAMer.

    by chuco35 on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 10:53:43 AM PST

  •  the delay in healthy young signing up (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, Limelite, tb mare, annecros

    will be most true when signing up is still glichy.

    After all who will put up with making multiple calls, each one taking over an hour in just wait time; unless one is desperate for coverage.

    fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

    by mollyd on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 11:26:48 AM PST

  •  The Republicans lost...for the remainder (9+ / 0-)

    of Obama's term.  When Obama leaves office the law will have been fully implemented for 3  years.  It will be a lot harder to go back.  However, if the GOP were to recapture the WH in 2016 they could end up suspending the exchange and force states to do it themselves. We would have blue state health care and red state health care systems embedded in our national economy.  That's as big a reason as any to make sure Hillary Clinton wins in 2016 and is able to make inroads into the rural/working class white vote.  Getting a candidate that can win more of such voters will break the GOP as we know it and put an end to this culture war.

    Global Shakedown - Alternative rock with something to say. Check out their latest release, "A Time to Recognize": Available on iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Spotify and other major online music sites. Visit

    by khyber900 on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 11:32:26 AM PST

    •  i hear you... (0+ / 0-)

      ...and i don't want that to happen, but at least everybody will see that embracing the law leads to lower rates of uninsured and a healthier population in blue states.

      "An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war." -Mark Twain

      by humanistique on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 06:59:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Feb. 15 is youth enrollment day (13+ / 0-)

    Feb. 15 has been declared youth enrollment day by the White House. There will be a big push on that day to make young people aware of the health care exchanges and to get them to sign up.

  •  These numbers predate... (17+ / 0-)

    the release of the Senate Benghazi report yesterday, so we don't yet know what impact that'll have on the rate of enrollments.

  •  The ONLY thing keeping me from signing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    up on the ACA is 'cause, for me, it's not really A (as in affordable).

    My budget can't even squeeze the lowliest, bronze, bare-bones, $6,000 per person deductible crap "insurance" much less something that will actually provide me and my son with C (as in care).

    I work a full-time job for a small employer who thought that the ACA would give his employees a reasonable option for insurance that would save him some money.

    Oh well, some of us win, some of lose.  

    Now my son and I are UNinsured.

  •  I think many thought the law (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, TheLizardKing, tb mare

    Would be repealed, and now that they see it's still here they are going for it. It was a case of "why bother" if it's just going to be jerked away.

    I am getting inquiries from people who put it off because of various reasons after I declared I had gotten in on it on FB. I gave them some of the available PDFs of plans and comparisons to pass around. I'm sure the ones I gave them to will pass them to lots and lots of people.

    Women create the entire labor force.
    Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

    by splashy on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 12:39:04 PM PST

  •  All those folks buying insurance... (14+ / 0-)

    ..and not one patriotic Republican among them. Sure.

    I was in CVS yesterday setting up my new Humana plan. CVS is one of the pharmacies in its network. I was sure to say it loud and proud while in the line.

    "This is my new Obamacare card." "I was on Cobra, but Obamacare saved me $600.00 each month." "Obamacare saved my home!" "Don't let them tell you it isn't working."

    That's risky stuff to say here in Tennessee. Fuck'em.

    What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. SAM HARRIS

    by Cpqemp on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 12:42:46 PM PST

  •  I enrolled a few days ago (9+ / 0-)

    The website worked quite well except that a lot of plans that weren't really silver plans somehow were listed as that.

    Anyway, with the tax credit I'll be spending nearly $300 less per month for significantly better insurance than I had back before having to drop it last summer for inability to afford it.

    "That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything ... There would be no place to hide." - Senator Frank Church

    by jrooth on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 12:44:49 PM PST

  •  the day is coming (7+ / 0-)

    when the we live in the past and are afraid of the future republicans will no longer refer to the aca as obama care, when will that day come, when the neanderthals in the gop realize that the aca is as popular as they are unpopular.

    save america defeat all republicans and conservatives

  •  I'm certainly not surprised that the demand (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    hasn't changed. Remember a lot of these folks passed on health insurance because of cost. They will likely wait until the last minute before signing up now. Furthermore, a lot will wait until they are actually faced with a penalty before doing anything.

    They aren't in a hurry.

    "Nothing happens unless first a dream. " ~ Carl Sandburg

    by davewill on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 01:10:29 PM PST

  •  The deductible myth (0+ / 0-)

    One of the Obamascare sob stories is that a minimum wage worker can't pay the $6,250 deductible, can't and  won't pay it and the hospitals are stuck with the bill.

    Not true. The ACA has a sliding scale based on family income that determines premium subsidy. The ACA also has a sliding scale of deductibles based on family income. For example a minimum wage worker in Oklahoma City can buy a Blue Cross Blue Shield Silver Advantage policy which pays 94% of medical costs. The monthly premium after a $397 subsidy is $53 a month with a $500 deductible and a $500 out of pocket maximum. Remarkeably this is a better deal than Medicare:

  •  The House Just Passed A Bill Requiring HHS..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to notify them of the weekly Obamacare enrollment numbers.

    Hmmm......interesting they never required those same numbers when the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 aka
    Medicare Part D started up.

    Hmmmm......John Boehner also thinks it's "time to move on" re Bridgegate.  However, it's obviously NOT "time to move on" re Benghazi, the IRS or Fast & Furious.

    Truly, people......he's got to be the WORST Speaker in the history of this country.  Bozo times infinity.

  •  If anything, more people are asking. (0+ / 0-)

    It's like missing a bus for them.

    "How can we get on? When and where?"

  •  Oh please Brer Bear.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    do any thing but throw me into the briar patch....Oh please Brer Boner do anything but don't run against Obamacare!

  •  Too bad the GOP only operates on their warped (0+ / 0-)

    beliefs not the facts. With the enrollments going well they should, but will most likely will not, rethink running their 2014 campaign as a repeal Obamacare referendum.  The Democrats should only refer it this act as The Affordable Care Act, it's official name, since although the identical thing to Obamacare it does poll about 7% better.  That and the point that they are for repeal with no replacement other than the way things were before ACA should make them look ridiculous since they would be taking so much away from so many, like preexisting conditions and students continuing on their parents policy until the age of 26.

    Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. John Leland

    by J Edward on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 10:43:09 AM PST

  •  Nothing Affordable about ObamaCare (0+ / 0-)

     I tried to enroll in ObamaCare.  $640 a month with a $6000 deductible.  I was stunned when I saw that this was the cheapest plan available. I have spoken to other people that tried to enroll also.  Same problem.   We qualify for nothing else.  I lost my job and my wife makes almost nothing. No way we can even afford this.    We have no medical care whatsoever.  The Affordable Healthcare Act is a farce.  I'm convinced ObamaCare was passed with the insurance companies interests in mind, not ours.  

    •  Did you look at Silver plans? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The $6000 deductible sounds like a bronze plan. The Silver plan is where the best subsidies are for premium and deductible/max out of pocket. I'm only 130% to 150% above poverty line after business expenses, and my premium is $53.19 and subsidized deductible is $150, out of pocket max $650. That's for one person, your numbers will be different for two or more.  If your expected income is equally low, look at Silver plans. If you are lower, you may be eligible for Medicaid. You have to go through the questionnaire to give your anticipated 2014 income, you can't just browse. The subsidies show up only if you give them the right info before you go to browsing the plans. The idea is to keep insurance down to less than 10% of our incomes.

  •  I enrolled (0+ / 0-)

    I took the cheapest possible plan because right now I make $789/mo from a rental property. Minus taxes,insurance,maintenance & $125 HOA fees. I pay $508/mo. How am I supposed to eat,electrify& heat my home. Telephone,gasoline?

    •  Did you deduct your business expenses? (0+ / 0-)

      In the questionnaire before you enroll, you need to say you are self-employed and then it will ask you for your anticipated adjusted gross income minus business expenses. Everything you pay out for an income-producing rental is business income. If you didn't do this and have already enrolled, there is a place on the site to adjust your figures. Look for info on reporting an event that changes your yearly income for the subsidies. If that rental is your only income- you should be Medicaid eligible. In any case, unless you are way above the poverty line, the cheapest plan should not cost you so much. The Silver plans have the full subsidies, look at them (not just bronze). And you have to give your income figures (minus business deductions) before you will see the real premiums after the subsidy is applied (it's a tax credit that can be taken in advance by the govt sending to the insurance company). See my response to someone else above.

  •  The GOP/Fox/Koch Red Herring confusion... (0+ / 0-) at least keep the GOP/Fox/Koch regime charging down the wrong path.

    First, ACA doesn't need "young healthy people", it only needs "healthy people".  The reason is because older people still have to pay 3X more on the exchanges than young people.  So a health older person is worth 3X more to the insurance companies than a healthy young person.

    Second, everyone's focused on the exchanges.  Well guess what?  There is an entire off-exchange market like there has always been.  If you're not qualified or otherwise are not going to use government subsidies, you are free to purchase insurance off-exchange like people have been doing for years already.  You're only required to purchase on-exchange if you plan to use subsidies, and that is only to ensure that government subsidies are not used to buy plans with poor return on investment.  Nobody is paying attention to who's signing up for off-exchange policies.

    Third, under ACA the insurance companies are incentivized to risk-share between their various policies by the fact that they have to meet the 80% pay-out requirement.  That requirement is really only fair if it applies across all their plans.  So healthy people signing up on off-exchange plans can end up offsetting any imbalance on the on-exchange side.

    Fourth, remember that "you can stay on your parent's insurance" part of ACA?  That'll skew the sign-ups by young people on the exchanges to be lower than demographics.  Young people without jobs that provide insurance can still get insurance through their parent's insurance rather than on-exchange.  That isn't true of older people without jobs that provide insurance.

    What's amusing is to watch the GOP/Fox/Koch regime charge down a path that doesn't lead anywhere.  Another good sign is some Democrats starting to go on the offensive over healthcare as part of their 2014 campaigning.  Some are starting to campaign on ending the Republican ban on Medicare negotiating drug prices.  A ban which causes Medicare to pay TWICE as much as the Veterans Administration for the top 100 medications.

    Also, the GOP largely burned out their "repeal and replace" campaign slogan in 2010 by having done NOTHING toward proposing any serious "replace" option since 2010.  Why should anyone believe that slogan now?  Besides, it just leads to opponents pointing out the GOP lied in 2010 about it.

    Bigger Corporations = Smaller Individuals

    by Smeagel4T on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 06:28:16 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site