Report your experience with getting insurance via ACA (2 Viewers)

[TheIronSheik]

Is Sibelius going to resign?

Probably promoted to Website Design Czar.

 

[matttyl]

Wow, just checked out e-health and the plans for 2014 are about double 2013.

I've been saying that for months. That's what happens when you go to a guaranteed issue no pre-ex situation. It's happened in each and every state that has gone guaranteed issue, including Rhode Island years ago which is why the rates Flying Elvis was complaining about have been so high for him. If RI didn't go GI years ago, his premiums would be much less. That's now happening in every state across the country.

 

[Flying Elvis]

Wow, just checked out e-health and the plans for 2014 are about double 2013.

I've been saying that for months. That's what happens when you go to a guaranteed issue no pre-ex situation. It's happened in each and every state that has gone guaranteed issue, including Rhode Island years ago which is why the rates Flying Elvis was complaining about have been so high for him. If RI didn't go GI years ago, his premiums would be much less. That's now happening in every state across the country.

I wasn't bent out of shape. The comments & tone read the way they read, if you get me. I'll let it go as comments & tone being easy to misconstrue online.

I don't see guaranteed issue as such an obvious cause of rate increases, though. RI went to small group market guaranteed issue in 2000. My rates were relatively unaffected and, across the 2 small firms where I was employed, the premiums were between $120 per month (1998) and $220 per month in 2008 and they skyrocketed from there. Adding women to the "group" had an impact on that, but the point remains that for nearly a decade of GI, the premiums were still stable. The annual leaps of 20% or more started in 2009 and, with no change to the group from 2009-2012, the premiums doubled.

Basically, in one decade the prices didn't quite double. Then in a quarter decade they more than doubled and had far less coverage & payout by the provider. The race to the deductible was on!

 

[avoiding injuries]

Actually, disregard that last post. I'll simply disprove the "Like under half that, easily" part, instead.

Individual market premium average was $344 per month in 2010. Add the annual 20-30% bump I mentioned and we get to roughly $410 per month in 2011.

Source for 2010 figure: http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/individual-premiums/

EDIT: Sorry - I didn't realize it wasn't a unique URL. Scroll down and select Rhode Island.

Just as I thought. Rhode Island (along with a few other states in the Northeast) is a guaranteed issue state (which the ACA now mandates) and that comes with higher premiums.

I posted you exact list a week ago to show just how expensive Massachusetts is, as they are by far the most expensive state on that list. Mass operates under the "Romneycare" system, which the ACA is based on. That's where the premiums will go in the other 44 or so non guaranteed issue states very quickly.

For reference, if you lived here in Virginia where I do, a healthy male 37 year old could buy a plan with BCBS with a $750 deductible for only $121 a month.

The rates are so high for you only because you live in a guaranteed issue state, no real other reason. In truth, the best thing for you would be if Rhode Island did away with things like Guaranteed issue and went back to underwriting, your premiums would drop in half or more.

Well thank goodness it's just as you thought. For a bit there I was certain the actual costs that I was actually paying were made up, or that perhaps I was too stupid to price shop for health insurance.

It's just been a huge increase over the last several years. At the rate it's increasing, we're all going to be poor eventually or just go w/o insurance.

As I've been saying for months, I'm not so sure this ACA will end up with a whole lot more people being insured than we have now. People like you will just drop all of it and be charged a penalty that's not really collectable.

"People like you" . . . That explains a lot. I can only hope you know BassNBrew well enough to make such a statement. However, considering you don't know me at all and were quite willing to call me a liar and/or stupid, I'll just assume the worst and discontinue conversing with "people like you."

Why are you getting so bent out of shape here? I posted to you why the rates in Rhode Island are as high as they are, and the list of states that you posted shows it quite well. States like New York, Mass, New Jersey, Vermont and Rhode Island are "guaranteed issue" states - they can't deny anyone coverage. That is why they are, by far, the most expensive states on average on the list you posted. If everything else about you were the same, but you lived in a different state your insurance options would cost you less than half of what they do currently. Guaranteed issue is the reason your cheapest option is as high as it is. Next year, this will be the case nationwide and everyone will be dealing the the high rates you've been seeing for years in RI.

I'm sorry you're so upset about it, I'm just trying to be the voice of reason in these discussions. You told me your age, approximate health and where you live. That's enough to tell me that your options currently are limited to guaranteed issue only pricing which everyone will face going forward. So if you've been upset about those high rates....well now the rest of the country will be as well.

This makes sense. I was a little confused by the earlier interaction as well.

Flying Elvis isn't seeing as big of an increase as most others will see because his baseline premiums and deductibles were in a guaranteed issue state. People in those states were already paying a higher amount, so when you compare them to the new ACA rates, they're not as drastic.

Question for you Mattyl, my employer is based out of NJ (a guaranteed issue state), but I live in a non-guarenteed issue state. My health care is through BCBS of NJ. Would the rates for my company issued policy be more similar to the ACA rates than if I had a carrier in my home state? Did I explain that ok?

 

[Flying Elvis]

My rates are dropping from $430 per month (2011 cost) to $204 per month via RI's exchange. Very similar plan - race to the deductible. $4000 / $6000 max oop.

 

[matttyl]

Wow, just checked out e-health and the plans for 2014 are about double 2013.

I've been saying that for months. That's what happens when you go to a guaranteed issue no pre-ex situation. It's happened in each and every state that has gone guaranteed issue, including Rhode Island years ago which is why the rates Flying Elvis was complaining about have been so high for him. If RI didn't go GI years ago, his premiums would be much less. That's now happening in every state across the country.

I wasn't bent out of shape. The comments & tone read the way they read, if you get me. I'll let it go as comments & tone being easy to misconstrue online.

I don't see guaranteed issue as such an obvious cause of rate increases, though. RI went to small group market guaranteed issue in 2000. My rates were relatively unaffected and, across the 2 small firms where I was employed, the premiums were between $120 per month (1998) and $220 per month in 2008 and they skyrocketed from there. Adding women to the "group" had an impact on that, but the point remains that for nearly a decade of GI, the premiums were still stable. The annual leaps of 20% or more started in 2009 and, with no change to the group from 2009-2012, the premiums doubled.

Basically, in one decade the prices didn't quite double. Then in a quarter decade they more than doubled and had far less coverage & payout by the provider. The race to the deductible was on!

I'm curious as to what you mean by "had far less coverage and payout by the provider". Did the insurance carrier change plans on you, or did you change your group plan?

Also, group plans are a very tricky thing, I thought you were talking about your individual policy eligibility when you sent me the link to average costs per state for individual plans (http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/individual-premiums/)

If you look at that list, realize that the average nationwide is only $215, but the average in RI is $344 (exactly 60% higher). The other very high states when compared the average are Mass., Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont - all guaranteed issue states. Those states average a good 50-70% higher rate than the other states, and it's because of guaranteed issue where the insurance company can't deny coverage to anyone (it comes at a cost to everyone else). That is what is going to happen, and is happening, nationwide right now.

Flying Elvis, if you lived in any other state as a healthy 37 year old male, you could obtain coverage for less than half of what you're paying now. So if you've been upset at your high rates over the last few years, realize that is what will happen nationwide going forward.

 

[matttyl]

My rates are dropping from $430 per month (2011 cost) to $204 per month via RI's exchange. Very similar plan - race to the deductible. $4000 / $6000 max oop.

And isn't that $430 per month from a group policy?

 

[matttyl]

Question for you Mattyl, my employer is based out of NJ (a guaranteed issue state), but I live in a non-guarenteed issue state. My health care is through BCBS of NJ. Would the rates for my company issued policy be more similar to the ACA rates than if I had a carrier in my home state? Did I explain that ok?

I think I get you - but since your coverage is with a group it doesn't matter (all groups policies are "guaranteed issue"). If NJ is like my state (and it may not be, I know New York is a total disaster for insurance), then your group plan's rate is based on the health of people in your employer group. If you have a 10 person group and 5 of them are in very bad health, your rates will be really high. If you have a 10 person group of all young and healthy folks, your rates for the exact same plan could be half or even lower than that.

If you live in a state that still underwrites policies today, that rate will likely be far less for you than any ACA rate you could get (especially since you aren't eligible for a subsidy if you're eligible for a employer group plan which you obviously are since you are currently on one).

 

[Flying Elvis]

My rates are dropping from $430 per month (2011 cost) to $204 per month via RI's exchange. Very similar plan - race to the deductible. $4000 / $6000 max oop.

And isn't that $430 per month from a group policy?

Yes. My employer has been draggin' ### on actually getting quotes so I can't give you the difference between the two.

EDIT: Though, as mentioned previously, the rates were not cheaper back then going for an individual plan.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Is anyone going to report their experience getting insurance via the ACA?

We just have to hope one of the 6 people who could sign up on day 1 are FBGs.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/national/only-6-enrolled-obamacare-first-day-documents/nbfKT/

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I have a couple of friends wondering how the subsidy is applied. Does anyone know if it reduces your premium payment, is credited on tax reurn, etc?

 

[matttyl]

I have a couple of friends wondering how the subsidy is applied. Does anyone know if it reduces your premium payment, is credited on tax reurn, etc?

It's my understanding that it's your choice, but that could depend on the carrier. I've heard that if your premium is $400, and you qualify for a $200 subsidy, that you can choose to have it paid directly to the company and you get billed for the other $200. I've also heard you'll have the option of paying the entire $400 and getting the $2,400 back as a "tax refund" of sorts.

Keep in mind, though, that subsidy amount is based off of your 2014 income (and I doubt many people here know exactly what their 2013 "Modified Adjusted Gross Income" or MAGI will be, much less next year's). If you "claim" that your household will make $40k, and then get a subsidy of lets say $5k or whatever, but you actually end up making $65k (and thus shouldn't have been eligible for a subsidy), that you will owe that $5k subsidy that they paid on your behalf back (I believe via your taxes when you file). I guess you got to hope you don't get a raise!

Also, had a guy ask me something interesting yesterday - if a subsidy will in any way be based off of "assets" instead of "income". He asked me this as a guy who retired early (age 59 1/2), with quite a bit of retirement asset built up, so he can pretty much dictate his income - with a $1.5M farm paid off with a 3 "pleasure" (non-racing/showing) horses for his wife and a pair of Porches. He said he doesn't really need to draw any income for his lifestyle, as he has accumulated enough "liquid wealth" that he can use for living expenses. He asked if he doesn't draw any "income" next year if he'd qualify for subsidized coverage - and according to the law he will. He's now a registered Democrat.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Thanks, matty. I'll pass that along.

 

[matttyl]

Thanks, matty. I'll pass that along.

Personally, I'd choose to get it all in one lump sum in my tax return if I were them. If nothing else, should they end up not being eligible for the subsidy after all (they ended up making more than they claimed), they won't get a huge bill - they will just get less of a tax return.

 

[tom22406]

Questions for matttyl(or anyone else in the know).

I keep hearing this 7 million healthy people number of people they need to enroll to make this system work properly so I have a few questions regarding this.

How do you see this working out(premium levels)if they don't meet that number the first year?

So let's say they only get 3 million to sign up what does this do to everyone's premiums the following year and in years past that?

And also the opposite.

If the number goes over the 7 million what does that do for premiums?

Just doing a little sloppy math it seems they would need around 30k users a day until the end of enrollment to reach this goal.

Thanks in advance and I do appreciate all of your(and others)input into this as this hits home for me and my family.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Keep in mind, though, that subsidy amount is based off of your 2014 income (and I doubt many people here know exactly what their 2013 "Modified Adjusted Gross Income" or MAGI will be, much less next year's). If you "claim" that your household will make $40k, and then get a subsidy of lets say $5k or whatever, but you actually end up making $65k (and thus shouldn't have been eligible for a subsidy), that you will owe that $5k subsidy that they paid on your behalf back (I believe via your taxes when you file). I guess you got to hope you don't get a raise!

This is the kinda of logic we've all grown to know and love mattyl.

 

[matttyl]

Questions for matttyl(or anyone else in the know).

I keep hearing this 7 million healthy people number of people they need to enroll to make this system work properly so I have a few questions regarding this.

How do you see this working out(premium levels)if they don't meet that number the first year?

So let's say they only get 3 million to sign up what does this do to everyone's premiums the following year and in years past that?

And also the opposite.

If the number goes over the 7 million what does that do for premiums?

Just doing a little sloppy math it seems they would need around 30k users a day until the end of enrollment to reach this goal.

Thanks in advance and I do appreciate all of your(and others)input into this as this hits home for me and my family.

It will all depend on the makeup of the 3 million or 7 million or however many people enroll. It was widely assumed (and obvious when you think about it) the the first people to enroll on these exchanges were going to be people who previously couldn't obtain coverage because of being sick or older folks. If those are the only people who sign up, and there are lets say 2 million of them, the claims per person in that group will be extraordinary (the insurance companies will go out of business trying to support those claims). They have to be "diluted" by healthy people - people who pay premiums and don't have claims which exceed them (which are technically most people).

The original numbers said that they needed 7 million people at least to enroll so that the pool would be large enough to "dilute" the older/sicker folks they knew would be enrolling first. That's the problem now that the website is really causing - by in large the people dealing with the hours of headaches to enroll and such are those who couldn't obtain coverage previously for medical reasons. Anyone who is relatively healthy and had coverage that's now canceled is too upset about that situation to go through the hours it apparently takes to enroll on the exchange to now pay more.

What this will lead to, I believe, is that the insurance "pool" being created here will be much sicker and definitely older than was initially anticipated. This will lead to drastic increases in premium going forward (larger than the ones that insurance policies have seen in the past). If, though, each and every person who has had their policy canceled already or that will be canceled in the next 14 months (likely tens of millions) and each and every person who previously was without coverage (~48 million) all enroll in time for 1/1/14 coverage this won't be an issue because the pool will be large enough and "diluted" enough to offset the older and sicker folks - but I don't see that happening at all. Also, if the only people who enroll are younger and healthier (the ones being hit with the highest increases) then this won't be an issue - but I don't see that happening either.

 

[matttyl]

Keep in mind, though, that subsidy amount is based off of your 2014 income (and I doubt many people here know exactly what their 2013 "Modified Adjusted Gross Income" or MAGI will be, much less next year's). If you "claim" that your household will make $40k, and then get a subsidy of lets say $5k or whatever, but you actually end up making $65k (and thus shouldn't have been eligible for a subsidy), that you will owe that $5k subsidy that they paid on your behalf back (I believe via your taxes when you file). I guess you got to hope you don't get a raise!

This is the kinda of logic we've all grown to know and love mattyl.

What's your issue with it? That's the system that's in place that you've been raving about for months here, but apparently don't know much about.

 

[tom22406]

Questions for matttyl(or anyone else in the know).

I keep hearing this 7 million healthy people number of people they need to enroll to make this system work properly so I have a few questions regarding this.

How do you see this working out(premium levels)if they don't meet that number the first year?

So let's say they only get 3 million to sign up what does this do to everyone's premiums the following year and in years past that?

And also the opposite.

If the number goes over the 7 million what does that do for premiums?

Just doing a little sloppy math it seems they would need around 30k users a day until the end of enrollment to reach this goal.

Thanks in advance and I do appreciate all of your(and others)input into this as this hits home for me and my family.

It will all depend on the makeup of the 3 million or 7 million or however many people enroll. It was widely assumed (and obvious when you think about it) the the first people to enroll on these exchanges were going to be people who previously couldn't obtain coverage because of being sick or older folks. If those are the only people who sign up, and there are lets say 2 million of them, the claims per person in that group will be extraordinary (the insurance companies will go out of business trying to support those claims). They have to be "diluted" by healthy people - people who pay premiums and don't have claims which exceed them (which are technically most people).

The original numbers said that they needed 7 million people at least to enroll so that the pool would be large enough to "dilute" the older/sicker folks they knew would be enrolling first. That's the problem now that the website is really causing - by in large the people dealing with the hours of headaches to enroll and such are those who couldn't obtain coverage previously for medical reasons. Anyone who is relatively healthy and had coverage that's now canceled is too upset about that situation to go through the hours it apparently takes to enroll on the exchange to now pay more.

What this will lead to, I believe, is that the insurance "pool" being created here will be much sicker and definitely older than was initially anticipated. This will lead to drastic increases in premium going forward (larger than the ones that insurance policies have seen in the past). If, though, each and every person who has had their policy canceled already or that will be canceled in the next 14 months (likely tens of millions) and each and every person who previously was without coverage (~48 million) all enroll in time for 1/1/14 coverage this won't be an issue because the pool will be large enough and "diluted" enough to offset the older and sicker folks - but I don't see that happening at all. Also, if the only people who enroll are younger and healthier (the ones being hit with the highest increases) then this won't be an issue - but I don't see that happening either.

Thanks for the reply and your explanation.

We share a lot of the same fears it seems and I hope we're both wrong.

 

[matttyl]

Questions for matttyl(or anyone else in the know).

I keep hearing this 7 million healthy people number of people they need to enroll to make this system work properly so I have a few questions regarding this.

How do you see this working out(premium levels)if they don't meet that number the first year?

So let's say they only get 3 million to sign up what does this do to everyone's premiums the following year and in years past that?

And also the opposite.

If the number goes over the 7 million what does that do for premiums?

Just doing a little sloppy math it seems they would need around 30k users a day until the end of enrollment to reach this goal.

Thanks in advance and I do appreciate all of your(and others)input into this as this hits home for me and my family.

It will all depend on the makeup of the 3 million or 7 million or however many people enroll. It was widely assumed (and obvious when you think about it) the the first people to enroll on these exchanges were going to be people who previously couldn't obtain coverage because of being sick or older folks. If those are the only people who sign up, and there are lets say 2 million of them, the claims per person in that group will be extraordinary (the insurance companies will go out of business trying to support those claims). They have to be "diluted" by healthy people - people who pay premiums and don't have claims which exceed them (which are technically most people).

The original numbers said that they needed 7 million people at least to enroll so that the pool would be large enough to "dilute" the older/sicker folks they knew would be enrolling first. That's the problem now that the website is really causing - by in large the people dealing with the hours of headaches to enroll and such are those who couldn't obtain coverage previously for medical reasons. Anyone who is relatively healthy and had coverage that's now canceled is too upset about that situation to go through the hours it apparently takes to enroll on the exchange to now pay more.

What this will lead to, I believe, is that the insurance "pool" being created here will be much sicker and definitely older than was initially anticipated. This will lead to drastic increases in premium going forward (larger than the ones that insurance policies have seen in the past). If, though, each and every person who has had their policy canceled already or that will be canceled in the next 14 months (likely tens of millions) and each and every person who previously was without coverage (~48 million) all enroll in time for 1/1/14 coverage this won't be an issue because the pool will be large enough and "diluted" enough to offset the older and sicker folks - but I don't see that happening at all. Also, if the only people who enroll are younger and healthier (the ones being hit with the highest increases) then this won't be an issue - but I don't see that happening either.

Thanks for the reply and your explanation.

We share a lot of the same fears it seems and I hope we're both wrong.

I've been hoping I'd be wrong about this for going on 3 years now, though - and not only have my fears been realized, but ones that I didn't think would be an issue have been; like the website, small employers having their plans canceled in addition to individuals, moronic ways of defining eligibility for subsidies, and the "reshuffling" of insurance networks to keep prices at least somewhat competitive.

 

[Schlzm]

Paging Foos!

Didn't want to drop this into the other ACA thread since it is focusing on the law and policies more than the site. Also I have no idea which section of the development you are involved with though I know it is nontechnical but figured you could probably make this suggestion to someone in the security side of things.

The backend communication channels of healthcare.gov, it's attached databases, and links between the state exchanges need to be using a whitelisting scheme. The data handoff from the non-public facing side is a huge and vulnerable attack surface and does not appear to be getting the attention it deserves at this time and I think it would be in everyones best interest to really put it on lock scorched earth style for now. Just my professional opinion.

Schlzm

 

[Foosball God]

Paging Foos!

Didn't want to drop this into the other ACA thread since it is focusing on the law and policies more than the site. Also I have no idea which section of the development you are involved with though I know it is nontechnical but figured you could probably make this suggestion to someone in the security side of things.

The backend communication channels of healthcare.gov, it's attached databases, and links between the state exchanges need to be using a whitelisting scheme. The data handoff from the non-public facing side is a huge and vulnerable attack surface and does not appear to be getting the attention it deserves at this time and I think it would be in everyones best interest to really put it on lock scorched earth style for now. Just my professional opinion.

Schlzm

I don't deal with the security aspects much. I see if I can figure out a way to raise this. Thanks,

 

[The Commish]

Keep in mind, though, that subsidy amount is based off of your 2014 income (and I doubt many people here know exactly what their 2013 "Modified Adjusted Gross Income" or MAGI will be, much less next year's). If you "claim" that your household will make $40k, and then get a subsidy of lets say $5k or whatever, but you actually end up making $65k (and thus shouldn't have been eligible for a subsidy), that you will owe that $5k subsidy that they paid on your behalf back (I believe via your taxes when you file). I guess you got to hope you don't get a raise!

This is the kinda of logic we've all grown to know and love mattyl.

Is he wrong? I have no idea what my bonus is going to be for the year. It can be anywhere from $5K to $50K depending on company performance. My bonus could easily disqualify me from the subsidy.

 

[matttyl]

Keep in mind, though, that subsidy amount is based off of your 2014 income (and I doubt many people here know exactly what their 2013 "Modified Adjusted Gross Income" or MAGI will be, much less next year's). If you "claim" that your household will make $40k, and then get a subsidy of lets say $5k or whatever, but you actually end up making $65k (and thus shouldn't have been eligible for a subsidy), that you will owe that $5k subsidy that they paid on your behalf back (I believe via your taxes when you file). I guess you got to hope you don't get a raise!

This is the kinda of logic we've all grown to know and love mattyl.

Is he wrong? I have no idea what my bonus is going to be for the year. It can be anywhere from $5K to $50K depending on company performance. My bonus could easily disqualify me from the subsidy.

Does your company offer you health benefits? If so, you're likely already disqualified from getting a subsidy.

Oh, and the math isn't wrong at all. An extra $1 of income could cause you to be ineligible for the subsidy, so if you did actually receive one you will owe all that money back. What is wrong, though, is TGunz' spelling of my name.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

NPR has been running a lot of these stories.

This morning it was about how Alaska has had 38 people successfully sign up.

One woman they interviewed said it took her maybe 6-8 attempts over several weeks to succeed.

She said she only learned she could go through the hoops by double clicking the required buttons. She said she only learned this accidentally, there was no instruction re: double clicking.

She also said she was lucky because she did not have to get a subsidy because that would have complicated things even further. She said she only landed on the final "success" message page seemingly by random.

She also said she has a degree in computer programming.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Keep in mind, though, that subsidy amount is based off of your 2014 income (and I doubt many people here know exactly what their 2013 "Modified Adjusted Gross Income" or MAGI will be, much less next year's). If you "claim" that your household will make $40k, and then get a subsidy of lets say $5k or whatever, but you actually end up making $65k (and thus shouldn't have been eligible for a subsidy), that you will owe that $5k subsidy that they paid on your behalf back (I believe via your taxes when you file). I guess you got to hope you don't get a raise!

This is the kinda of logic we've all grown to know and love mattyl.

Is he wrong? I have no idea what my bonus is going to be for the year. It can be anywhere from $5K to $50K depending on company performance. My bonus could easily disqualify me from the subsidy.

You tell me. If you're making $40k, and your boss offers you a $25k raise so that you're now making $65k, would you turn down that raise due to the fact that you would lose the $5k health insurance subsidy?

That was mattyl's example, and his advice was "better hope you don't get that raise".

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Keep in mind, though, that subsidy amount is based off of your 2014 income (and I doubt many people here know exactly what their 2013 "Modified Adjusted Gross Income" or MAGI will be, much less next year's). If you "claim" that your household will make $40k, and then get a subsidy of lets say $5k or whatever, but you actually end up making $65k (and thus shouldn't have been eligible for a subsidy), that you will owe that $5k subsidy that they paid on your behalf back (I believe via your taxes when you file). I guess you got to hope you don't get a raise!

This is the kinda of logic we've all grown to know and love mattyl.

Is he wrong? I have no idea what my bonus is going to be for the year. It can be anywhere from $5K to $50K depending on company performance. My bonus could easily disqualify me from the subsidy.

You tell me. If you're making $40k, and your boss offers you a $25k raise so that you're now making $65k, would you turn down that raise due to the fact that you would lose the $5k health insurance subsidy?

That was mattyl's example, and his advice was "better hope you don't get that raise".

So what would be the outcome in that scenario? Instead of a raise, let's say you estimate you will make 40K in sales/commissions but you have a great year or a big sale and it's really 65K.

What happens to the subsidy you received? Do you get to keep it? If so do you lose it next year?

 

[matttyl]

So what would be the outcome in that scenario? Instead of a raise, let's say you estimate you will make 40K in sales/commissions but you have a great year or a big sale and it's really 65K.

What happens to the subsidy you received? Do you get to keep it? If so do you lose it next year?

No, you owe it back. Unfortunately for them, it's only as collectable as the individual mandate is. I would assume you'd lose it the following year.

As for my example, it was only am example. If you want another one you could be making $43k and qualify for a huge subsidy (especially if you're older), but actually make $45k and you owe it all back. Same idea, TGunz.

 

[Schlzm]

Paging Foos!

Didn't want to drop this into the other ACA thread since it is focusing on the law and policies more than the site. Also I have no idea which section of the development you are involved with though I know it is nontechnical but figured you could probably make this suggestion to someone in the security side of things.

The backend communication channels of healthcare.gov, it's attached databases, and links between the state exchanges need to be using a whitelisting scheme. The data handoff from the non-public facing side is a huge and vulnerable attack surface and does not appear to be getting the attention it deserves at this time and I think it would be in everyones best interest to really put it on lock scorched earth style for now. Just my professional opinion.

Schlzm

I don't deal with the security aspects much. I see if I can figure out a way to raise this. Thanks,

You're welcome. Also found two more forward facing exploit paths launchable from the landing page. I'm not going to post any details here in the open but if you are interested shoot me a pm and I can provide what I have. I will say however that this is pretty much webserver security 101 and it is embarassing that these vulnerailities exist.Schlzm

 

[tom22406]

What are the chances the website is going to be in working order come the end of the month?You got any inside info on this Foos?

When do we learn the total of people that have gotten insurance so far?

 

[TheIronSheik]

What are the chances the website is going to be in working order come the end of the month?You got any inside info on this Foos?

When do we learn the total of people that have gotten insurance so far?

I asked the same thing. I don't see it happening. As for the second part of your question, reports out today are saying the numbers are south of 100,000. They had projected 800,000. Of course, there are a lot of numbers "south of 100,000."

 

[tom22406]

What are the chances the website is going to be in working order come the end of the month?You got any inside info on this Foos?

When do we learn the total of people that have gotten insurance so far?

I asked the same thing. I don't see it happening. As for the second part of your question, reports out today are saying the numbers are south of 100,000. They had projected 800,000. Of course, there are a lot of numbers "south of 100,000."

Did a little digging and found this

It appears fewer than 50,000 people successfully signed up for health coverage through the federally run Obamacare website during the first five weeks of open enrollment, falling well short of expectations for the period, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

http://newday.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/12/obamacare-enrollment-number-reportedly-well-under-administrations-goal/

 

[matttyl]

And there are a lot of numbers "fewer than 50,000" as well.

 

[Sarnoff]

What are the chances the website is going to be in working order come the end of the month?You got any inside info on this Foos?

When do we learn the total of people that have gotten insurance so far?

I asked the same thing. I don't see it happening. As for the second part of your question, reports out today are saying the numbers are south of 100,000. They had projected 800,000. Of course, there are a lot of numbers "south of 100,000."

I also asked. The only answer I got was that if everything was running perfect at 3AM on 12/1, the GOP would still say "Obama missed the deadline". But no one wants to chime in and say that 11/30 is completely unreasonable. I don't think it's fully correct before 1/1/14.

As far as the second part of the question, something I want to see at the end of the year is number of signups vs. number of people who lost insurance due to ObamaCare. The ratio is going to be staggering.

 

[TheIronSheik]

What are the chances the website is going to be in working order come the end of the month?You got any inside info on this Foos?

When do we learn the total of people that have gotten insurance so far?

I asked the same thing. I don't see it happening. As for the second part of your question, reports out today are saying the numbers are south of 100,000. They had projected 800,000. Of course, there are a lot of numbers "south of 100,000."

I also asked. The only answer I got was that if everything was running perfect at 3AM on 12/1, the GOP would still say "Obama missed the deadline". But no one wants to chime in and say that 11/30 is completely unreasonable. I don't think it's fully correct before 1/1/14.

As far as the second part of the question, something I want to see at the end of the year is number of signups vs. number of people who lost insurance due to ObamaCare. The ratio is going to be staggering.

I agree. I also would say that putting the deadline to Spring of 2014 might be tough to meet.

 

[[icon]]

I've seen roadside lemonade stands that were more competently run than this trainwreck

 

[Statorama]

Now that the site is working a little better, I ran my information for giggles. It's open enrollment time here at work, so I figured I'd compare my new 2014 rates to comparable plans on Healthcare.gov

My dental plan would escalate from $17 a month to $64.10 per month

My healthcare plan would escalate from a little less than $200 per month to $518.17 per month

No longer laughing. Very glad my employer is allowing me to lock in my rates for 2014.

Edit: I'm a FBG so I do not qualify for a subsidy

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Okay, I am now signed up for 2014 OFF-Exchange. DId it directly with Anthem via phone. (Hold times are still pretty long) With all of the issues about reduced networks and increased security risks, I gave up on even considering an exchange plan without a subsidy.

I raised my deductible by $1500, so premiums will be less, but I still think that overall costs will be in the same ballpark - lower in years where I just go for check ups, but higher in those with testing/procedures. Will revisit next year or whenever things settle down and more accurate infor is available. Just glad to be able to forget about ut now for awhile.

 

[Godsbrother]

My son finally enrolled -- here are the details: 27 year old in PA with preexisting condition. He is a homeowner with a salary around $30-$32K

2014 Obamacare: $175/mo, $1200 Deductable, $3,700 OOP max, $20 copay. $30 specialist copay, $8 generic drugs

(Highmark)

2013 Individual plan:$324/mo, $2750 Deductable, $5,000 OOP max, $25 copay, $50 specialist copay, $14 generic drugs

(UPMC)

He ends up with better coverage with less than half of the deductible at almost half the cost so things worked out well for him.

 

[Flying Elvis]

I received an email stating there was a message for me (presumably, asking why I haven't completed a purchase) but I forgot my password. When I requested a new one, I accidentally requested U/N instead of password. I received a message that included the info I requested and the following contact info. Copied exactly as it appeared in my email.

If you did not request a username or have questions please call the Contact Center at x-xxx-xxx-xxxx.

There phone number is, apparently, highly classified.

 

[humpback]

My son finally enrolled -- here are the details: 27 year old in PA with preexisting condition. He is a homeowner with a salary around $30-$32K

2014 Obamacare: $175/mo, $1200 Deductable, $3,700 OOP max, $20 copay. $30 specialist copay, $8 generic drugs

(Highmark)

2013 Individual plan:$324/mo, $2750 Deductable, $5,000 OOP max, $25 copay, $50 specialist copay, $14 generic drugs

(UPMC)

He ends up with better coverage with less than half of the deductible at almost half the cost so things worked out well for him.

I'm assuming he got a decent subsidy- do you know how much it would have been without that (what the actual cost of that plan is)?

 

[matttyl]

My son finally enrolled -- here are the details: 27 year old in PA with preexisting condition. He is a homeowner with a salary around $30-$32K

2014 Obamacare: $175/mo, $1200 Deductable, $3,700 OOP max, $20 copay. $30 specialist copay, $8 generic drugs

(Highmark)

2013 Individual plan:$324/mo, $2750 Deductable, $5,000 OOP max, $25 copay, $50 specialist copay, $14 generic drugs

(UPMC)

He ends up with better coverage with less than half of the deductible at almost half the cost so things worked out well for him.

I'm glad to hear things worked out well for him, I really am. Is the $175 his subsidized rate?

First big claim (hitting his OOP), along with his premium is nearly $6k a year, which is nearly 20% of his pre-tax income. I understand that it's still not as bad as it would be under his current situation, though.

Also realize that a lot of 27 year olds were paying $100 a month, and who now have to pay the same (subsidized) $175 a month, or more if they aren't subsidized.

EDIT - assuming he's not a smoker, I ran a quote for a 27 year old in PA, hoping to get very close to the 1,200 deductible. I found one with a 1,000 deductible but a 6,350 OOP. It's $300 a month. Your son is getting a subsidized rate (I assume you know that). Should his income increase to over 400% of the FPL, so will his premium to the point where it will pretty much just what he was paying before. So you see that now everyone (if not subsidized) will be paying what someone had already been paying who has a "pre-exisiting condition".

 

[Mystery Achiever]

As open enrollment approaches, I was interested in others experiences on rate and coverage changes for 2015. I was prepared for a rate increase, but Anthem is also implementing additional back door increases by raising out of pocket max and all deductibles (exc generic drugs which actually went down). More for less. Yay ACA.

 

[Godsbrother]

As open enrollment approaches, I was interested in others experiences on rate and coverage changes for 2015. I was prepared for a rate increase, but Anthem is also implementing additional back door increases by raising out of pocket max and all deductibles (exc generic drugs which actually went down). More for less. Yay ACA.

But isn't this the case with all health insurance? At least that has been my experience over 30+ years of paying for insurance.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Rate increases, sure. But reducing the benefits in existing plan is new to me.

 

[matttyl]

As open enrollment approaches, I was interested in others experiences on rate and coverage changes for 2015. I was prepared for a rate increase, but Anthem is also implementing additional back door increases by raising out of pocket max and all deductibles (exc generic drugs which actually went down). More for less. Yay ACA.

Where are you from? In my area, that carrier (technically Blue Cross Blue Shield) isn't raising their rates too much (mostly under 10%), but they are doing the higher max OOP as well as shifting around their drug formulary to get people paying more out of pocket.

 

[Gianni Verscotchie]

My plan with BC/BS is going up from $411/mo to $489/mo

 

[matttyl]

My plan with BC/BS is going up from $411/mo to $489/mo

Again curious, what state? But damn, 19% is rough.

 

[Gianni Verscotchie]

Florida

 

[Mystery Achiever]

As open enrollment approaches, I was interested in others experiences on rate and coverage changes for 2015. I was prepared for a rate increase, but Anthem is also implementing additional back door increases by raising out of pocket max and all deductibles (exc generic drugs which actually went down). More for less. Yay ACA.

Where are you from? In my area, that carrier (technically Blue Cross Blue Shield) isn't raising their rates too much (mostly under 10%), but they are doing the higher max OOP as well as shifting around their drug formulary to get people paying more out of pocket.

CT, but seems similar. It is only 8% rate increase (They filed for 12% IIRC). Copay changes: Primary doc +$10, Specialist +5, Tier 2 Drug +20, Emergency Room +50. Mental health hospitalization (both in/outpatient) have $500 copay (zero before), PET scan from 75 to 400