HHS in 2010: 40-67% of those with individual insurance won't be able to keep it

[jaichind]

I think people that buy their own health insurance before Obamacare comes into effect do not quality for Obamacare subsidies given their likely income.  I think the main issue here is not as much about cost which is obviously an issue as a lot of my self-employed friends got the "letter" and are all very angry about the whole situation.  That the NY state Obamacare website is pretty crummy does not help.  Their anger after losing their existing policies is that the plans on the Obamacare website does not give transparency on if their existing doctors will be available on those plans.  The cost was higher for some of them and actually a bit lower for others.  But without the doctor they are used to now they are stuck and spending time calling those plans to see if their doctors are in those plans.  Sometimes they could not get a straight answer as the plans themselves are still figuring out which doctors will take the Obamacare plan payments and which ones do not.  

[jaichind]

For comparable insurance, prices will be lower because of competition and other measures in Obamacare.  Costs will certainly be lower for a large group of people who receive subsidies.

Actually both your statements cannot be true at the same time.  If for a plan most people on it are getting subsidies, then there is no reason for the plans to compete on price.  Note that the way the subsidies work is that you pay a price which is linked to your MAGI as a percentage of FPL and the subsidies will pay the rest.  In such a case there is an incentive for the health plans to raise their prices to give the impression that their plans are better since the buyer does not pay extra one way or another.  If said plan has mostly people that do not quality for subsidies I agree the competition for prices is there but lets drop talk about all those people getting subsidies.

[jaichind]

There is another set of people losing health care plans which clearly has nothing to do with the quality of the plans they have.  Several friends of my are individual contractors that buy group health insurance as part of a professional group.  They had health care plans they like which are quite comprehensive and from a feature point of view clearly were in compliance with Obamacare regulations.  But because the Obamacare law said that sole proprietors with no other employees are no longer eligible for employer-based health insurance, these friends of my lost their health care insurance and now have to go to NY state healthcare exchanges.  They found that either the doctors they like were not available or were available only on plans which were much more expensive than what they have today.  This is a clear case of "if you like your plan, do DO NOT get to keep it, period."

[jaichind]

So people are pissed off about having more money and better care?

Lets be clear, for some a similar plan might be cheaper and for others a similar plan might be more expensive on the exchange.  The main issue is there is no easy way to verify that the doctor they prefer is on the plans.  This violates "if you like your doctor you get to keep it, period."

[jaichind]

They found that either the doctors they like were not available or were available only on plans which were much more expensive than what they have today.

Who cares?  You want the country ossified in a completely unworkable system simply because someone doesn't want to go out and find a new doctor?  I've moved so much for school and work it's unusual for me to have the same doctor for more than 2 or three years at a time.  People really need to get over it and become adults.

That would be fine as a point of view.  But Obama said "if you like your doctor, you get to keep that doctor. period" when he was selling Obamacare law.  Now if he said "if you like your doctor, you need to get over it and become adults and look for another one" during the Obamacare bill debates and then the bill gets passed then of course people now should no reason to complain as the consequences were made transparent.  But that was not what took place.

[jaichind]

To some extend I can understand the Obama/Dem prospective.  By passing Obamacare on their own without GOP votes they now ended up "owning" the healthcare systems.  Any issues/problems in the healthcare system including standard annual premium increases now has the potential for it to be blamed by Obama's political enemies onto Obama.  But on the other hand Obama/Dems kept on claiming that because of Obamacare healthcare cost growth last couple of years has slowed down.  So if they want to "own" positive changes in the healthcare sytsem they they has to own negative changes too.  I agree some of the people losing coverage could be because insurance companies using Obamacare as an excuse make changes they wanted anyway.  But it is one of those "your broke it, you own it' situations.

[jaichind]

That would be fine as a point of view.  But Obama said "if you like your doctor, you get to keep that doctor. period" when he was selling Obamacare law.  Now if he said "if you like your doctor, you need to get over it and become adults and look for another one" during the Obamacare bill debates and then the bill gets passed then of course people now should no reason to complain as the consequences were made transparent.  But that was not what took place.

What's your point?  The people complaining the most about this are the same crowd that fervently defend "Iraq has WMDs pointed right at our throats."  In the long list of lies that politicians have told me in the last 10 years or so this ranks as not worth mentioning.

I hear you.  I did not approve of the Iraq War either WMD or not.  The day of the Iraq invasion was the day I broke with the GOP and did not vote for for GOP in any election until 2008 when I still planned to vote Libertarian and my wife who was very negative on Obama convinced me to vote McCain despite his position on Iraq.  Sorry if I am going off topic, I am equally negative on the "non-truths" Bush II have on Iraq and Obama on Obamacare.  Both are equally not acceptable.  That one took place does not justify the other.

[jaichind]

Muon, interesting. If she doesn't qualify for subsidy, her income must be $70,000 a year or more, no? How much of that is annual interest from the nest egg (meaning a principal well over $1 million) and how much is his Social Security?

Definitionally, if she is not qualifying for subsidy, the "great expense" is within her range for the small number of years until she turns 65 and qualifies for Medicare.

This seems like a rather exceptional case that we can take at face value given the caveats that she can afford the hike in costs and it will only affect her until age 65, and then weigh against the millions and millions of people unable to buy individual insurance under the old regime because of cost, preexisting conditions, and failed markets who now enjoy meaningful health insurance.

To qualify for subsidies ones MAGI has to be less than 400% of FPL which is $45,960.  In this case perhaps she lives in a high cost area like the Greater NYC area so a MAGI of around $50K does not leave her with much money left for medical insurance. 

[jaichind]

Folks, you can't make this stuff up.



Link

Her heartfelt letter made it to the President's hands and then into his October 21 speech.

"'I was crying the other day when I signed up. So much stress lifted.'" Obama said, reading from Sanford's letter.

The president said Sanford's story was proof, despite the technical problems with the healthcare.gov website, that the Affordable Care Act was working.

A cheaper "bronze" plan, Sanford said, came in at $324 per month, but also with a high deductible - also not in her budget.

Then another letter from the state exchange with even worse news.

"Your household has been determined eligible for a Federal Tax Credit of $0.00 to help cover the cost of your monthly health insurance premium payments," the latest letter said.

"This is it. I'm not getting insurance," Sanford told CNN. "That's where it stands right now unless they fix it."

Yes, although if this women did some research ahead of time, like using one of many subsidies calculators online and knowing her MAGI, she should have figured out ahead of time she did not quality for subsidies.  Of course that her insurance plan will be more expensive was something she would not be able to know ahead of time.

[jaichind]

So, here's a question: If she doesn't qualify for any subsidies, she's making over $50,000, or $4,166 a month. But somehow, she doesn't have $300 a month to spend on health insurance? Everything else she's spending money on is a higher priority than her health?

Who are these people?

Well, she could be living in a high tax high real state cost area. 

One can even look at a $100K income family (although in this case it is one income one dependent) budget at

http://www.mybudget360.com/family-budget-how-to-go-broke-on-100000-a-year-why-the-middle-class-has-a-hard-time-living-in-expensive-urban-areas/



And she is more likely to be around $60K. 

Of course she can cut back other things and make it work and she should.  I think what took place here is she heard the Obama regime propaganda that this will help the middle class and lower insurance premiums by $2500 via subsidies.

[jaichind]

I think what is missing the most from the budget I provided is child care.  The women in question seems to have a child that needs medical care so I am not sure about the age of the child but baby sitters can be very espensive and she has to work to make the $60K.  So I think her budget can be very tight if her housing is expensive (this is Washington State so I can see that), if her real estate taxes are high (my impression is that Washington State is not that bad), and if her child care expense are high (I suspect this is the one which makes it hard for her to pay more for health insurance.)

[jaichind]

The same blog has a $46K budget

http://www.mybudget360.com/the-perfect-46000-budget-learning-to-live-in-california-for-under-50000/



Again this is in a high price area and is for a single person.  This has no health insurance and no child care costs.  So in that sense it is an underestimate.  On the other hand an extra dependent would mean less taxes although not enough to make up for the child care costs.