I waded through the whole mess today in order to check out the Texas offerings. While the site is probably not as bad as many are complaining, it is a challenge to get through.
First, you've got to be VERY patient. It's slow to load up, though not impossibly so. Just don't expect an instant response.
My bigger beef is just with the design of the site. You can sure tell the form was put together to appease a bunch of bureaucrats. It's extremely tedious and repetitive. For example, it asks for your birthdate, address and phone number multiple times. Why?
And why do you have to go through 45 minutes of waiting and page after page just to see what's offered?
I already knew when I looked that it wasn't going to be of any benefit to me personally, but I felt a duty to at least look.
The Affordable Care Act isn't for me, because I fail on two fronts to qualify for subsidies.
1. Surprise! I make *JUST* enough money not to qualify on the income front. (No surprise, really, because the feds never do anything to help people in my income group, which is actually just above low wages.)
2. The income didn't matter anyway, because since my employer offers plans, I wouldn't qualify for a subsidy anyway. (They thoughtfully neglected to tell us this at work when they were encouraging us to check out the government programs!)
Anyway, when I looked over the offerings, I found that the insurance companies were not offering platinum plans in Texas, at least not for people in my age group.
For the Gold plan, which is roughly the equivalent of the best plan offered at work, the plans ranged from $618 to $901 per month. At work, it's $120.
For the cheapest, disaster only plan, coverage for someone in my age group is $359 per month.
I can guarantee you that at these prices, Obamacare will have VERY few takers who don't qualify for subsidies. There is no way I'd be able to afford it.
Here's one theory on why the healthcare.gov site is so fucked up:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/14/opinion/bellovin-ob … ?hpt=hp_t4
I suppose I'd try to come up with the money for the $359 a month catastrophic plan. The full plan would cost 25% of my salary, and I have WAY too many bills to possibly be able to afford a chunk like that.
Or I might roll the dice and try to make it to Medicare. That's the kind of call a lot of people are going to have to be facing.
Basically, the ACA isn't going to help people in my income bracket who don't have employer-provided insurance. There is also supposed to be a problem with people making too little to qualify, but I'm not sure on the details on that ....
The numbers don't work out for you--i.e., there's no savings for you with the ACA. You also state that you're not against the ACA, which is great, and my post here is only offering another way to view the ACA. I agree with you that for a lot of people that it's going to be difficult. From your perspective--someone who has employer provided health insurance--it does not seem like a great deal. I remember from an earlier comment of yours (not about health insurance) about the rollback of gov't stimulus and the loss of unemployment benefits. To paraphrase, you stated that unemployment benefits were not meant to last for ever, which is correct. At some point, there's a time where we have to pay our own way. Your healthcare cost is partially subsidized through your company, which you're fortunate, but for others who draw a comparable salary to you and do not have the opportunity to purchase company healthcare and will not qualify for a gov't health subsidy--they will have to pay there own way. It's just how it works. The gov't, like a cap on unemployment benefits, will only cover so much.
From another perspective, I think about a 57 year old who has been having health problems, has not had health insurance, and makes a comparable salary to you. Prior to the enactment of the ACA, if a company would have offered health insurance, the costs would have been so prohibitive it would truly had been beyond difficult for that person. Now with the ACA, while the costs will be high, the cost of the premium, in good probability, will be less than the out of pocket costs that 57 year old person is spending. That does not even began to cover the added benefits of peace of mind, the ability to seek out help, and knowing, because of your health, you're not a paycheck away from disaster. I also think about the 57 year that's living at poverty's edge--in TX, it's around up to $11,400 for a single person--and now that person will have access to healthcare. I think it's best to look at what it does for everyone--no, it's not going help a lot of people, such as yourself (for that matter, me too), but it's going to help a lot of other people, who before the passage of the law had no chance in hell of accessing healthcare. That's great. Right now you have healthcare through work, but you might not think the costs so outrageous if you did not have it, and forking out $6200 a year would be a bargain if you had to pay for 10 days in a hospital. Just as an aside, what would you think a reasonable cost for health insurance would be if you had to pay on your own?
It's ironic, the gov't shutdown for the Republicans was about the defunding of the ACA. If the Republicans had let the date pass, the front page news since October 1st would have been how truly awful the healthcare.gov site is to navigate and all the negative setbacks. That said, it's not surprising; unfortunately the gov't did not get to run out a beta version before Oct 1, but still someone's head is going to roll for this one. For a technical and pragmatic look at the site's failure, here's a good piece from Steve Bellovin: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/14/opinion/bellovin-ob … hpt=hp_t4.
Veering off topic, for a social look and one of the better pieces that's come out about the ACA is the one here by Bill Keller of the Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/opinion/keller- … mp;emc=rss
Staying way off topic-an excellent piece in the National Journal by Ronald Brownstein on the ACA and why the tea party/extreme right dislike the ACA so much. http://www.nationaljournal.com/political-connecti … d=MostRead
It should be noted that many companies are offering cheaper plans -- but not necessarily better. My company actually CUT coverage to avoid the "cadillac tax" provision of the ACA. They are also offering a lower-cost high-deductible plan. Companies are really trying to push employees onto these as they can save the employer as much as $562 per year per employee, according to AP.
Look, I'm not saying the ACA is a bad thing. It's going to be beneficial to many people. But it's not a good deal for everyone. Wasn't designed to be and it isn't.
BTW, I don't think the GOP position in TX has affected rates for the public here. What the Republicans did was refuse to accept Medicaid expansion, effectively denying health care coverage to approximately 1 million poor Texans. Nice.
They also made the feds set up the insurance exchange, as most Republican states did, but I don't think that should have had any effect on rates here.
BTW, the folks paying $850 and $1800 a month are obviously MUCH better off financially than the average American. I know I'd have to go without if I were forced to pay that much.
As you know, there are several factors that may affect what you are able to get from the ACA. Your state and governor have worked very dilligently to make sure the ACA does as poorly in Texas as possible. Not sure how that would affect rates, etc. but many prople are now reporting great results from the ACA in different states. Below is a sampling from around the nation.
The following messages were taken from the PolitiFact site hosted by David Corn, Editor of Mother Jones Mag. Although some responses tell of insurance going up, in most states and for most people, the costs are going down.
Cat Lady Darcy @CatLadyDarcy
. Several factors in play, but my employer-provided plan lowered premiums & deductibles for 1st time in 15 years.
cynthia kouril @cynthiakouril
. According to the NYS Premium estimator I can get Platinum for less than I pay now for equivalent of Silver
John P Brennan Jr @johnpbrennanjr
. 2 man law firm in NJ. AETNA raised premium 39% on 10/1/13. We are going to ACA
Ellen Clair Lamb @ECLamb
. Here in Maine, I can now buy Gold PPO coverage for less than a $6,500 deductible policy cost me before.
Scott @scottlstuart
. In Maryland got insurance with 2500 less deductible, cheaper office visits for 30 less/month. Existing afib.
JS Martin II @JSMartinII
. Our family of 3 w/2 full time employed adults & a 15yo r fully covered thru. No way we could afford previously.
Kati Mohammad-Zadeh @katimz
. My premiums are going from 850 to 650 plus a much lower deductible.
Smokin Jay @SsMokinJay
. My mom is 63 pays $1800.00 per month now. With ACA will pay $350.00 with better coverage and lower deductible.
These prices also make it clear that the companies who drop their insurance because of the ACA are doing a tremendous disservice to their employees.
OK, that isn't all the government's fault.
However, the clunky, bureaucratic, malfunctioning website IS the government's fault. And now Congress is talking about adding more requirements for proof of income before getting a subsidy, which will make the process even slower and clunkier. (Aside: Why are Republicans always so worried about low-income people scamming the government and don't give a damned if the wealthy do?)
And I absolutely agree on this point: One of the ironies of the GOP's absolutist position on ACA is that no improvements can be made to the law. This is a tremendous disservice to the American people, but then, the GOP just wants the ACA to fail, regardless. The more problems it has, the better, from the GOP perspective.