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

[opebo]

But isn't 'individual insurance' just some kind of con the insurance companies sell to the uninformed poors and then decline to cover them when they actually get seriously ill?

[opebo]

But isn't 'individual insurance' just some kind of con the insurance companies sell to the uninformed poors and then decline to cover them when they actually get seriously ill?

No.

Really?  I doubt that!  Why would companies pay out unless forced to by the State?

[opebo]

Private, for profit insurance seems like it would inherently be 'junk' - the motivation of the provider is to avoid paying.

[opebo]

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.

What made this interesting to me was that this was was the second woman I spoke to within a week around 60 who faced this sort of increase in cost for a reduction in the benefits that mattered to them. They did get new benefits that were not part of there old plan (both mentioned that they now would have to have pregnancy care at 60). But both are pretty savvy selectors of insurance and had worked to put together the policy that best covered their risk.

What I glean from this limited sample is that the few-sizes fit all approach of the exchange means that many people who have some understanding of their risk can no longer deploy that knowledge. They must pay for coverage that can not possibly be needed, but can't select coverage that they do need with buying even more features they don't want. This is a stark contrast to our normal experience with insurance, including online insurance where you can layer on different levels of coverage in different areas to design a custom policy.

But again, isn't the real improvement that in fact one actually has coverage (that is, payouts mandated by government) rather than just the farcical pretense of care that 'private insurance' provides?

[opebo]

That is the most ridiculous budget most of us have ever seen.  If these people want to live in a half million dollar home on a $100K salary they deserve any @$$ reaming that comes their way.

What now?  Houses cost a lot in places where high incomes are available.  $100,000/year is an unusually high income, and not redily available in cheap places like Missouri, where the houses cost less.  In economically vibrant states $500,000 is a cheap house.

[opebo]

If you...

Yeah.  There's the catch.  Always the catch.  Median income is very low, Link.