Covered California (Obamacare) site

[SHRED]

Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2013, 10:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Nice:
http://www.coveredca.com/



ADDED LINKS:


http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/Pages/Default.aspx

http://www.cahba.com/exchange/covered-california.htm

http://cal-span.org/cgi-bin/archive.php?owner=HBEX&date=2013-02-13

[bluestateguy]

1. I'm assuming this is the insurance exchange

nt

[SHRED]

2. yes

[still_one]

3. It is bullshit. It is still too expensive for a hell of a lot of people. In order to qualify for

Medical, which is Medicaid in other places, your family needs to earn less than 22k a year

If your family makes 50k a year your premium is about 400 a month, and your out of pocket maximum is 12800

Of course they say you may qualify for tax credits which might reduce it to 290 a month

They have created an overly complicated system that will make insurance companies millions

Oh, and in case most people do not realize, the last two years insurance company rates have gone up 10 to 15%

Now that they have retained the filibuster, There won't be a public option now or in the foreseeable future

The one thing about California is that during the primaries, whichever two candidates get the most votes, will be in the general election. That means we can have a true progressive running against an establishment candidate

[SHRED]

4. I agree...

...but what else do we have?

For many in my shoes it will mean instead of $1800 per month or at worst no insurance (pre-existing condition) there will be affordability.
Not good affordability but much better.

--

[still_one]

6. The premium is 1723/month for 2 people with annual income of 75k. That is just outrageous

For a high deductible policy and no pre-existing conditions you would be paying about 350 to 400/month

It is a very sad state that we are in today

Oh and by the way using their calculator, that person would not qualify for any tax credit

Shame on the Democrats for allowing a half-assed piece of legislation to occur

[CreekDog]

39. You just wrote that and you don't even understand what you wrote

you said that you can get a cheaper policy if you have "no preexisting conditions".

DUH.

don't you get it?

you can get a cheaper policy if you have no preexisting conditions.

if you have preexisting conditions, without the healthcare law, you are SCREWED.

you don't get it. yeah the law is not strong enough nor does it provide enough help.

but what you don't get is why.

[kestrel91316]

7. It's NOT bullshit for those of us who got completely priced out of the market years ago.

I'll be able to qualify for subsidies that will keep my premiums down to less than $100/mo, with an out-of-pocket annual cap of about $2500.

You cannot begin to imagine how wonderful this is, and potentially lifesaving at my age.

[still_one]

9. Good for you, for 2 people making 75k they will pay 1723/month. Not affordable at all

Let me put it into perspective. Rent where I am is 1500 to 2k/month. So between rent and medical premiums you are left with 23k to cover, energy, food, water, garbage, car insurance to drive to work life insurance, and other expenses

If they really wanted to help people they would have done Medicare for all


I suspect health insurance companies are going to be raking in major profits because of this

[kestrel91316]

12. Cry me a river. I'd kill for that kind of income. And I am in an extremely expensive area, too.

A family of two with an income of $75k isn't poor. They probably just have to actually learn to live within their means instead of pretending they are rich and trying to keep up with the Joneses.

If this turns out to be a big mess and too many people still can't afford insurance or medical care and medical bankruptcies don't dwindle away to nothing then we WILL eventually get Single Payer. It's certainly what I would prefer in the long run.

But for now, with some health issues I have that desperately need attention, I am very grateful for the fact that I am no longer going to be shut out.

[still_one]

13. So in other words good for,you and screw everyone else

[savalez]

23. I'm getting concerned about this.

The calculator shows a huge increase for me over what I am paying now. It went from barely affordable to not affordable at all. It seems like it's only good for those in the subsidy range. Am I reading this right?

[still_one]

24. You are reading it right. I will assume they screwed up and give them the benefit of the doubt, and

see what happens when it really takes effect in 2014, but if this is the way it is, then we have been sold down the river to subsidize health insurers.

[antiquie]

25. Subsidies are tax credits

so if you are too poor (like me) to pay income tax, you still lose.

[savalez]

35. I looked into that

and as far as I can tell they are pre-paid subsidies so you will not have to pay that part and wait until the end of the year to get it back. At least, as of now, that's what I understand.

[antiquie]

36. Thanks for your response

but I don't understand what that means. Pre-paid subsidy to the insurance company even if I won't owe taxes for the subsidy to be deducted from? So much seems guesswork -- hard to comprehend why California is making this so confusing on their consumer websites.

[savalez]

38. I know.

It is confusing. I hope that they are grossly overestimating the cost because it looks like my insurance is going to go up a lot. They say that they will be more accurate in May. I hope so.

[onpatrol98]

27. They aren't rich, either.

No one wanted a system to help some and hurt others. At least I didn't think so. The point was to help everyone.

[still_one]

31. Exactly

[antiquie]

37. Well, they failed.

We have already seen a lot of hurt. The hurt started this year, no chance of help until 2014, and that is iffy.
I am happy that a lot of people are being helped although it does appear that 40% of the middle class is being ripped by premiums so 60% of the middle class can be subsidized -- and the low income people can suck eggs if we have them.

[CreekDog]

40. talking to someone making less money than you as if they are "lucky" is appalling

i understand the health care law is not good enough.

but to tell someone making far, far less than you that, is really over the top.

[CountAllVotes]

30. You are totally right

Even at the highest point of my career, a joint income for a 2-person household was ... a whopping $30K.

Where in the HELL is someone in this category going to get enough money to pay for this?

And, if they do not enroll, they'll be fined!?

[kestrel91316]

5. Awesome!! I am so excited for this to be actually happening.

[still_one]

8. A family of 2 making 75k will pay 1723/month in premiums. It may fit your profile well

But for a heck of a lot of people it is unaffordable

[kestrel91316]

10. If that's too expensive, they are free to buy insurance on the non-exchange market, which

is not going away.

I'm excited for myself and the huge number of people I know who are in the same boat as me. I'll get a nice subsidy so that I can actually HAVE medical insurance for the first time in years.

If you want me to feel sorry for a household with $75k in income, you are not going to succeed. That's a king's ransom to me these days (and frankly always has been). They can cut back on the extravagant lifestyle. Unless they are older folks living in my expensive area and buying a Gold plan, they won't be paying any silly $1700+ per month anyway.

[still_one]

14. It isn't me, it is going to be the middle class in this country that will be pissed

And as far as you saying they won't be paying 1700/month, put numbers in their calculator at different values and see

[onpatrol98]

28. Well, I will feel sorry for them...

No matter what people earn, they have expenses. I think that option stinks for them. And, I don't think that's the impression given when they were touting the plan. The goal should be to help everyone. Not help one group and strangle another.

[SHRED]

15. I think work needs to be done on that calculator

$1723 comes up with a family of four also.

[Zorro]

16. It's only $635/mo for a single person with a good income per the calculator

I think the calculator needs some tweaking.

[still_one]

17. 636/mo for a single person is more than cobra, and for those with a high deductable plan

Of 5k a single person would pay about 300to 400 a month

My whole point is I would rather pay more and have something like Medicare for all than pay more to protect the insurance company profits because just putting different values in, it may cover a lot of people who could not get it before, but it seems a lot more people will be paying a lot more so the insurAnce companies can maintain their profits, and hospitals can charge 8 to 20 dollars for an aspirin

In all honesty if an associate complains to me that they are paying significantly more than before the ACA, and getting less service for it, I will have a tough time convincing them

I really hope the calculator is wrong like some said

That is why Medicare for all is so much better. Not only does it satisfy the moral obligation, but everyone has the same coverage

[PasadenaTrudy]

18. How about

two people, a couple, that live together and aren't married? Guess we just get separate policies? Still for him, at 50 and making close to $50K, he would be paying $530 a month! He has no ins. now due to pre-existing conditions. We shall see...

[SHRED]

19. UPDATE

I contacted them about the numbers $635 for single and $1723 for two our more. They said that the actual numbers will be out in May and that these were there as examples to show the tax credit/subsidies to get an idea.

Why they don't have a disclaimer on that webpage explaining this ...they did not answer me yet.

Hope this helps.

[SalviaBlue]

20. Thanks for checking

I was getting all bent out of shape... now I'll cool my jets until next year when my plan expires.

[Le Taz Hot]

21. I checked the calculator.

Let's see, we'll be paying $380.00 a month with a $12,800 out-of-pocket expense PER YEAR. And get this -- out-of-pocket is described as the following:

The most you pay during a policy period (usually a year) before your health insurance or plan begins to pay 100% of the allowed amount. This limit never includes your premium, balance-billed charges or health care your health insurance or plan doesn’t cover. Some health insurance or plans don’t count all of your co-payments, deductibles, co-insurance payments, out-of-network payments or other expenses toward this limit. In Medicaid and CHIP, the limit includes premiums.

Yeah. I'm all a-twitter. The only thing I can afford to do is pay the penalty and hope I stay alive until Medicare, assuming that THAT won't be "bargained" away as well.

[BlueCaliDem]

22. How about the fact that the U.S. is set to sponsor Health Insurance nationally?

That is not one but two public options.

U.S. Set to Sponsor Health Insurance
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 27, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/health/us-to-sponsor-health-insurance-plans-nationwide.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will soon take on a new role as the sponsor of at least two nationwide health insurance plans to be operated under contract with the federal government and offered to consumers in every state.
Enlarge This Image

These multistate plans were included in President Obama’s health care law as a substitute for a pure government-run health insurance program — the public option sought by many liberal Democrats and reviled by Republicans. Supporters of the national plans say they will increase competition in state health insurance markets, many of which are dominated by a handful of companies.

The national plans will compete directly with other private insurers and may have some significant advantages, including a federal seal of approval. Premiums and benefits for the multistate insurance plans will be negotiated by the United States Office of Personnel Management, the agency that arranges health benefits for federal employees.

-- snip --

This is what the Heritage Foundation says about this that eludes to this act by the Obama Admin that there may be a Public Option on the way:

Robert E. Moffit, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he worried that “the nationwide health plans, operating under terms and conditions set by the federal government, will become the robust public option that liberals always wanted.”

[antiquie]

26. Please provide a link not to NYT.

I have searched and read every site SHRED provided a link for without finding reference to Nationwide Healthcare Plans. That could be a lifesaver for many of us, but...

[BlueCaliDem]

29. The fact that this article appeared in the NYT on page A23

should tell you that this is serious. But since they're still working on the details, of course the Whenever there's news that benefits the average person, it's industry standard to always bury it within their pages, just as this one has been.

The footnote: "A version of this article appeared in print on October 28, 2012, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. Set to Sponsor Health Insurance."

But the fact that the Heritage Foundation got a whiff of it and is up in arms about it, should tell you enough. You always gauge the validity of anything through the reactions of the opponents.

Oh, it's coming all right. Most likely opening this October when the exchanges are set to open.

[antiquie]

32. I'll wait until California acknowledges it.

I do not have access to NYT and a lot of what we thought we understood last October does not appear to be the case now.

[pinto]

33. The Government Employees Health Association has been mentioned as one possible non-profit source -

from the NYT article -

Under the Affordable Care Act, at least one of the nationwide plans must be offered by a nonprofit entity. Insurance experts see an obvious candidate for that role: the Government Employees Health Association, a nonprofit group that covers more than 900,000 federal employees, retirees and dependents, making it the second-largest plan for federal workers, after the Blue Cross and Blue Shield program.

The association, with headquarters near Kansas City, Mo., was founded in 1937 to help railway mail clerks with their medical expenses, and it generally receives high scores in surveys of consumer satisfaction.

Richard G. Miles, the association’s president, expressed interest in offering a multistate plan to the general public through insurance exchanges, but said no decision had been made.

[Hoyt]

34. Looks to me that the adjusted premiums are reasonable for folks with lower income. Considering

In fact, they look pretty reasonable from current rates for upper income folks compared to today's rates.

Considering insurers can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, many of us would have been much better off if this plan had been enacted years ago.

Health insurance is never going to be cheap unless we make some major changes in this country, including our own expectations. Even if we were all under the current Medicare system, I doubt the premiums would be less than about 10% of private insurers' rates when they are up against stiff competition (as under the exchages), and a Medical Loss Ratio cap.

While I support single payer too, truthfully I'm not sure premiums would be a bit cheaper unless Medicare were dramatically changed from the current system where you can go to any doctor you choose, as often as you choose, and they can order just about any test they want, etc. I think the Accountable Care Organization provisions in the ACA might make a difference, if people are willing to give up some freedom of choice. But, how many are willing to do that without griping?