For reference, only 123 managed to sign up for Romneycare in the first month . There are clearly large technical issues, but early on it seems that people also do a lot of "let's see how much it'd cost" and sign up later.
Link? Would love to read up on that, if in fact it's true.
Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov
31–40 of 77 posts
Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov
#32Look I am the first to be upset at how much healthcare.gov management and dev sucked. But I don't give a darn how many signed up on the first day. I care how many sign up by December 31st. Then we can discuss enrollment problems.
No, the date is Dec. 15th. If your one of the apparently millions whose plan didn't meet the new guidelines then you must sign up by Dec. 15th.
The Dec 15th date is for open enrollment and coverage starting January 1. The mandate deadline is March 15. I think you have them confused.
Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov
#33Perhaps because of the sticker shock and because, if you can get them, pre ACA plans are cheaper and offer more value. For example if you go to ehealthinsurance.com and compare the lowest cost pre-ACA 2013 plans with ACA-compliant 2014 plans for a healthy individual in their late 20's early thirties you get the following very affordable options pre-ACA... BlueCross BlueShield; Deductible: $5,000, Co-Insurance: 0%, Do…
Aren't you comparing conditionally-issued insurance with guaranteed-issue health insurance? The big problem I had with sites like ehealthinsurance.com is that a family using it to find insurance had a coinflip chance of actually getting one of those rates after completing an application.
I've also found it's like viewing interest rates on Zillow, it will be the lowest possible number that almost no one could qualify for but, it looks nice when shopping and gets people thinking they can afford it so the small increases later are accepted.
Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your assertion is that Massachusetts has an unusual aversion to signing up in the first month that the rest of the nation lacks?
My assertion is that the comparison made is not a good comparison.
And my question is, based on what? What makes Massachusetts a bad comparison? Why do you believe people would flock to Obamacare enrollment on the first day when that didn't happen in the state plan that Obamacare is based on?
Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but what's the hurry? If you don't really want to buy insurance but are doing it to avoid the penalty, you might as well wait until the deadline is closer.
Definitely. However the concern here is that people ignore the individual mandate's penalty. Precisely nobody wants that, and the hope was that the ease of signing up and looking for insurance via exchanges would provide a carrot or at least a smooth road to go along with the stick of the penalty. Whoopfail.
The carrot isn't really in play either, yet, since there's no advantage to signing up before December. Coverage starts at the same date either way, so why bother now?
Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what they are referring to is the impact of the individual mandate. Sure you'd expect people to rush into the free option, but everyone who is uninsured and doesn't qualify for Medicaid will have have to pay a penalty if they don't buy insurance.
The goalposts have already been moved to March 31st, 2014 and could be delayed further. What's the rush?
Adverse selection death spiral (https://www.google.com/search?q=obamacare+Adverse+selection+...), and moving the goalposts too far forward means insurance companies, which have to submit 2015 plans in the January through March (as I recall; maybe April) period will have very poor data to do that with, very possibly resulting in higher than needed costs.
And while I don't think you were addressing this, millions will lose their now outlawed plans on January 1.
Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov
#37Perhaps because of the sticker shock and because, if you can get them, pre ACA plans are cheaper and offer more value. For example if you go to ehealthinsurance.com and compare the lowest cost pre-ACA 2013 plans with ACA-compliant 2014 plans for a healthy individual in their late 20's early thirties you get the following very affordable options pre-ACA... BlueCross BlueShield; Deductible: $5,000, Co-Insurance: 0%, Do…
I thought the law was supposed to encourage preventative care. Not offering at least one low cost doctor visit seems to betray that goal.
Health insurance is supposed to keep you from going bankrupt when your appendix bursts.
Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov
#38Perhaps because of the sticker shock and because, if you can get them, pre ACA plans are cheaper and offer more value. For example if you go to ehealthinsurance.com and compare the lowest cost pre-ACA 2013 plans with ACA-compliant 2014 plans for a healthy individual in their late 20's early thirties you get the following very affordable options pre-ACA... BlueCross BlueShield; Deductible: $5,000, Co-Insurance: 0%, Do…
The case the administration is making is that these old plans had invidious characteristics such as lifetime spending limits and missing "essential" no-deductible coverage for preventative services and birth control. Not sure whether that's an accurate claim for the pre-ACA plans you listed. Presumably ACA's no-deductible requirement applies to the new plan, so while you might pay for irregular doctor's visits, your scheduled preventative checkups should have no out of pocket costs.
But I think that's small potatoes (the number of patients likely to exceed any reasonable lifetime coverage limitations has got to be tiny, and cheaply re-insurable by BCBS if needed). The real cost is likely coming from BCBS' estimate of the change in the risk pool characteristics of this new plan. Namely, it doesn't matter how healthy you are to sign up for the new one, so presumably on average it will be made up of less healthy people. There's also the cost-shifting that has to happen: Plans for older people can only be a set multiple (3x?) more expensive than for younger people, so the younger person's plan must be made more expensive. This is called cost-sharing if you're being polite, and a redistribution scheme if not.
Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov
#39Perhaps because of the sticker shock and because, if you can get them, pre ACA plans are cheaper and offer more value. For example if you go to ehealthinsurance.com and compare the lowest cost pre-ACA 2013 plans with ACA-compliant 2014 plans for a healthy individual in their late 20's early thirties you get the following very affordable options pre-ACA... BlueCross BlueShield; Deductible: $5,000, Co-Insurance: 0%, Do…
$5,000 deductible?
My PPO had a $2,500 deductible and I thought that was insanity.
Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the law was supposed to encourage preventative care. Not offering at least one low cost doctor visit seems to betray that goal.
Health insurance is supposed to keep you from going bankrupt when your appendix bursts.
Well, sure, but most Americans and policymakers haven't thought about "health insurance" in those terms for a long time. PPACA makes plans that only protect against that kind of thing illegal.