Obama Admin: Half Of Young Americans Could Buy Insurance For $50 Or Less

[ProSense]

Obama Admin: Half Of Young Americans Could Buy Insurance For $50 Or Less

Nearly half of young Americans eligible to buy insurance on HealthCare.gov could pay $50 or less for coverage, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a report released Monday. HHS is touting the affordability of insurance on the exchanges in part because young adults are crucial to making the health care reform law's finances work.

The conclusion was based on data from the 30-plus states where insurance is being sold through HealthCare.gov, for adults ages 18 to 34, who qualify for tax credits through the law. The analysis found that 46 percent could pay $50 or less for a bronze plan (which covers 60 percent of costs), and 66 percent could pay $100 or less.

“The health care law is making health insurance more affordable for young adults,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement.

The administration has said it hopes to enroll 2.7 million age 18 to 34 (out of 7 million total) in the first year.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hhs-half-of-young-americans-could-buy-insurance-for-50-or-less

Report: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/UninsuredYoungAdults/rb_uninsuredyoungadults.pdf

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. K&R

[Purveyor]

2. I suppose that half of young americans will also qualify for the newly expanded medicaid

(most states) and not pay a dime.

See how that works?

[ProSense]

6. The Medicaid expansion is huge. n/t

[geek tragedy]

7. The figure is actually 14%, which you would

know if you read the report instead of flailing about in your vain attempt to help the Republicans kill it by spreading their propaganda.

It will succeed. You and Ted Cruz will fail.

[Rex]

3. Hear that sound!?

*POP* *POP* *POP*!!!

[BluegrassStateBlues]

4. K&R

[NYC_SKP]

5. Recommended. (nt)

[sheshe2]

8. K&R!

More great news ProSense.

My youngest niece, who leaves her family plan in December, has been researching it tirelessly. She is adamant about coverage, after her brother had a near fatal accident a year ago. It was months of hospital and rehab. He had coverage from work and had to cover little out of pocket.

My dear niece knows what coverage will mean to her. We are all only one accident away from losing all, if uninsured.

[former9thward]

10. In the coverage described in the OP you would still lose it all.

In the accident your niece's brother had the 40% of costs he would have had to pay would destroy the finances of all but the very wealthy.

[Trekologer]

12. That is absolutely not true

A bronze plan covers on average 60% of costs. That does not mean that a policy holder must pay 40%. Each plan covers 100% of costs above a set deductible. If the OP's niece's brother hand an accident while covered by a bronze plan, they would responsible for the deductible--and that's it. The insurance companies no longer get to say that they've paid out too much for you by putting upper limits on benefits. That is the whole point of the ACA's reforms.

[former9thward]

15. Who is paying the other 40%?

What is the deductible?

[Trekologer]

17. The maximum out-of-pocket for 2014 will be $6,250 for individuals and $12,500 for families

That is the most someone who is covered would be responsible for. The actual out-of-pocket maximum varies by plan but those are the maximums.

[former9thward]

27. No, max out of pocket was waived.

Obamacare's Out-Of-Pocket Caps Waived Until 2015

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/obamacare-out-of-pocket_n_3748715.html

[Moosepoop]

34. True, the requirement has been waived for a year...

... but apparently not all insurers are dropping it for the year just because they can. I signed up on the healthcare.gov site today, and am still reviewing the plans and deciding which one to go with. Most of my options are one or another form of BlueCross/BlueShield, and each of the plans still has the caps in place.

Maybe some insurers who had already incorporated the caps into their rates for the exchange didn't want to mess with recalculating it all for only a year, then having to readjust again? Whatever the reason, the caps are in place on the plans I have to choose from.

[Trekologer]

36. That article is really poorly written

The original, published by Forbes, is a (poor) summary of a NY Times article which itself is a summary of a FAQ on the Department of Labor website.

It is incorrect to say that out-of-pocket maximum is waived for 2014, because it isn't. The intent of the ACA is to put a total out-of-pocket limit, including prescription drugs. Plans, for 2014, are allowed to have separate out-of-pocket limits for prescription drugs in certain circumstances IF they have separate administrators for medical and prescription drugs.

You can read it yourself here http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-aca12.html

[moonlady0623]

35. and that's good?

How many of us have $6250 extra in the budget to pay that? When my late husband's kidneys failed, it was impossible for us to come up with the almost $5K out of pocket maximum. His sister paid it one year and his life insurance paid it the next. and I had top of the line corporate insurance.

And what about those young healthy folks who look at it all and say screw this, for $95 a year I can have NO insurance! that won't pay into this plan at all.

It looks like a giant snafu to me. We should enforce the good elements - pre-existing condition coverage, for example - and scrap the rest of it.

[sheshe2]

13. Where are you getting those figures?

You are, not being clear.

My nephew will remain on his employer based insurance. His insurance covered most of his care, he owed far far less than the 40% you mention, and no he is not wealthy. I have not asked them directly, as we are all still getting over a near loss. Yet in talking to my sister, about 95% of the bills were covered.

[former9thward]

14. The figures are from the OP.

I said IF your nephew had insurance described in the OP. I know HE has employer insurance. YOU made the statement about "losing it all". Yes, a person would lose it all in a life-threatening accident if they had to pay 40% in costs.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. An important aspect of the ACA is the requirement for out of pocket maximum limits

which means after you've paid that amount 100% of costs are covered.

[former9thward]

28. That has been waived.

Obamacare's Out-Of-Pocket Caps Waived Until 2015 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/obamacare-out-of-pocket_n_3748715.html

[paulkienitz]

40. not true

The source of this idea is this story, which says that a grace period has been granted on this rule. But the rule is far from "waived". First of all, only certain insurers qualify for the exemption, and second, even the worst case scenario only means that the out-of-pocket max is doubled, since it gets counted once for major medical and again for perscriptions.

So no, it does not in any way mean that families can still be stuck with 40% of catastrophic costs.

[jazzimov]

18. No, sir - YOU made the "lose it all" statement

in the title of your post #10.

So, if you don't remember what you just said, why should any of us believe anything else you have to say?

[former9thward]

24. "We are all only one accident away from losing all,"

From post #8. And I don't care what or who you believe.

[sheshe2]

19. No sorry, those figures are not in ProSense's OP....(40%????)

I said that my niece would not lose it all if she were insured, without any insurance, yes she would.

[former9thward]

25. Sorry you didn't read thje OP.

a bronze plan (which covers 60 percent of costs) From the OP. 100-60 = 40

[ProSense]

9. Kick! n/t

[Scurrilous]

11. K & R

[flamingdem]

20. Less than a cell phone payment

doable I'd say

[Rex]

21. Separating work from a persons worry about their health is a huge step.

And one less thing the GOP can slave over the working class. A very progressive move, in it's infancy. No wonder the GOP wanted to kill the bill at all costs...it helps common people out and that goes against their charter.

[flamingdem]

22. I totally agree with this

For many it's a yoke that's been lifted. I've been pissed for years about my premiums and poor care. It was an outrage, could easily leave you wiped out, yet legal..

[ProSense]

23. Krugman made that point

"Separating work from a persons worry about their health is a huge step.

And one less thing the GOP can slave over the working class. A very progressive move, in it's infancy. No wonder the GOP wanted to kill the bill at all costs...it helps common people out and that goes against their charter."

....earlier in the year:

Insurance and Freedom

By PAUL KRUGMAN

<...>

It goes without saying that Republicans oppose any expansion of programs that help the less fortunate — along with tax cuts for the wealthy, such opposition is pretty much what defines modern conservatism. But they seem to be having more trouble than in the past defending their opposition without simply coming across as big meanies.

Conservatives love, for example, to quote from a stirring speech Reagan gave in 1961, in which he warned of a grim future unless patriots took a stand. (Liz Cheney used it in a Wall Street Journal op-ed article just a few days ago.) “If you and I don’t do this,” Reagan declared, “then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”...conservatives make very similar arguments against Obamacare. For example, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has called it the “greatest assault on freedom in our lifetime.” And this kind of rhetoric matters, because when it comes to the main obstacle now remaining to more or less universal health coverage — the reluctance of Republican governors to allow the Medicaid expansion that is a key part of reform — it’s pretty much all the right has.

As I’ve already suggested, the old trick of blaming the needy for their need doesn’t seem to play the way it used to, and especially not on health care: perhaps because the experience of losing insurance is so common, Medicaid enjoys remarkably strong public support. And now that health reform is the law of the land, the economic and fiscal case for individual states to accept Medicaid expansion is overwhelming. That’s why business interests strongly support expansion just about everywhere — even in Texas. But such practical concerns can be set aside if you can successfully argue that insurance is slavery...46 years have passed since Medicare went into effect; as far as most of us can tell, freedom hasn’t died on either side of the Atlantic.

In fact, the real, lived experience of Obamacare is likely to be one of significantly increased individual freedom. For all our talk of being the land of liberty, those holding one of the dwindling number of jobs that carry decent health benefits often feel anything but free, knowing that if they leave or lose their job, for whatever reason, they may not be able to regain the coverage they need. Over time, as people come to realize that affordable coverage is now guaranteed, it will have a powerful liberating effect.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/opinion/krugman-insurance-and-freedom.html

[B Calm]

26. K&R

[Scurrilous]

29. Boink

[lark]

30. Not true for states that didn't expand Medicaid.

Fl. doesn't have any premiums near that level since the Repugs didn't implement the Medicaid change.

[ScreamingMeemie]

31. Texas does. Texas had a $75 Bronze policy for a 43-year-old woman with a child.

(Yes, I can show proof if you are going to demand it)

[lark]

32. Good for TX.

I'll tell my son to look again, but in this program, all states are far from equal. Guess that even goes for the red ones.

[ScreamingMeemie]

33. I just reread what I wrote, and I didn't mean to sound snarky, but he should really look again.

My daughter is in Orlando. Makes $16K a year and was able to find a policy for $39/month. She's 23.

[TBF]

37. K&R nt

[KAESNO2]

38. How good can $50 insurance be. nt

[SnakeEyes]

41. n/m

misread the thread