Predictions of an Obamacare apocalypse seem a little less credible today, thanks to California.
On Thursday, officials in that state offered the first detailed glimpse of what consumers buying health benefits on their own can expect to pay next year. And from the looks of things, these consumers will be getting a pretty good deal.
Based on the premiums that insurers have submitted for final regulatory approval, the majority of Californians buying coverage on the state's new insurance exchange will be paying less—in many cases, far less—than they would pay for equivalent coverage today. And while a minority will still end up writing bigger premium checks than they do now, even they won't be paying outrageous amounts. Meanwhile, all of these consumers will have access to the kind of comprehensive benefits that are frequently unavaiable today, at any price, because of the way insurers try to avoid the old and the sick

rickyp wrote:Maybe your famous "low information voters " have something to do with this?

Health-care reform is unpopular. But if you actually tell people what's in the health-care reform bill, then it becomes quite popular. A recent Newsweek poll found the same thing: "The majority of Americans are opposed to President Obama's health-care reform plan — until they learn the details."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... pular.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... ction.html

people won't really make up their minds until they personally experience either something negative or positive from the reforms. One of the positives has been consumers receiving rebate checks from their health insurance providers...

ok, so a person who is POOR, who has no job

It’s hard to provide a precise figure on premiums in the new exchange, which is officially called Covered California, because so much depends on individual circumstances, plan selection, and region. But you can get a sense of the prices by looking at what a 40-year-old single person would pay, on average, for the second cheapest “silver” plan on the new market. Such a plan, which would cover about 70 percent of a typical person’s medical expenses, would go for about $300 a month or around $3,600 a year. That compares favorably with what insurance costs today. The typical employer plan, for example, presently costs about $5,500 a year. Employer plans are generally more generous than the silver plans would be, so you’d expect them to be more expensive—but not by such a large margin.

rickyp wrote:tom

ok, so a person who is POOR, who has no job

They would qualify for medicaid, would they not?


As to affordability, did you read the article. ? If not...

It’s hard to provide a precise figure on premiums in the new exchange, which is officially called Covered California, because so much depends on individual circumstances, plan selection, and region. But you can get a sense of the prices by looking at what a 40-year-old single person would pay, on average, for the second cheapest “silver” plan on the new market. Such a plan, which would cover about 70 percent of a typical person’s medical expenses, would go for about $300 a month or around $3,600 a year. That compares favorably with what insurance costs today. The typical employer plan, for example, presently costs about $5,500 a year. Employer plans are generally more generous than the silver plans would be, so you’d expect them to be more expensive—but not by such a large margin.

The point is that generally speaking the ACA is proviing good news to consumers as the plan rills into states that have adopted it. And states that are fighting it are likely to face a backlash as their citizens compare what they have ....with what adopting states offer...
Texas for example:
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/23/186303141 ... d-billions

bbauska wrote:If a person is POOR and thus approved for Medicaid, why do we need the ACA?

You asked Tom to compare what he has. I will tell you what I have, and you tell me if Obamacare is better than what I and my family currently have.

I pay zero per month for insurance
I pay a 20% co-pay on service
I have a catastrophic cap of $3000
I have $9 co-pay for 3 month med prescriptions.

You tell me, RickyP. Can Obamacare beat that? If it can personally help me and my family, I will change my tune. I do not want to hear about the POOR (You say Medicaid has them covered anyway). I do not want to hear about "undocumented" workers. I want a personal comparison.

After all... "When I look around"

The White House is gearing up for a massive campaign this summer that will cover all 50 states, plus Washington, D.C. And the president's legacy may hinge on whether it succeeds or fails.

The Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare," has been through more life-and-death cliffhangers than a season finale of Homeland. After squeaker votes in Congress and a 5-4 ruling upholding the law at the Supreme Court, now there's another big hurdle: getting uninsured people to buy health care when it becomes available Oct. 1.

. . . There's another key part of this campaign: Sicker and older people without insurance may be eager to sign up Oct. 1. But to make the system work financially, young and healthy people who don't need much medical care have to get into the pool, too.

So you can expect administration officials around the country to give lots more commencement speeches this season, telling captive audiences of 20-somethings: Congratulations on your diploma. Now make sure to sign up for health coverage in the fall.

Ray Jay wrote:How do you pay $0 per month?