IOW, I finally created an account, but the glitchy website is unable to verify my identity and asks that I contact Experian to correct the problem. Today when I tried, it told me to upload a form of ID and I would be contacted by an official. Well, I don’t trust that either of these will work, so I’m going to wait.
But that got me thinking: How many times do you go onto a website just to browse for prices, and then when/if you don’t like the price, you go somewhere else? If I see that Amazon is asking too much for an item, they never have to deal with my web traffic (as it relates to that item) again.
From my understanding of the law, all the site needs to give me a quote is my age, tobacco-use status, and state of residence. That’s it, right? I can’t think of any other relevant information that would be needed. Maybe an optional field for income and family size and a “yes/no” if my employer offered insurance in case I was seeking information about a subsidy.
If it was set up that way, then millions could find the price, and a significant number of those might never visit the site again (not a slam against the exchange, but they might choose another option and forget about it).
But instead of this, the servers have to process mounds of personal identifying data, verifying it with credit bureaus and the like, only for millions to find a price they might not like. Skip step one, show the prices, and only require the data intensive parts to run when a user has seen the price and STILL wishes to continue, cutting down a ton on the server load.
You’re missing that they didn’t want to make it easy to browse the prices.
Seriously, I’m the biggest supporter of Obama and ObamaCare there is, but I don’t see any other reason for it to be so convoluted. It has to be by design; they knew that forcing people to create complex accounts AND verify their identity would cause a huge amount of traffic and require a lot of bandwidth, and they did it anyway. No real company would even consider such a thing. Yet, they did it.
For what it’s worth, I’m stuck at the same place you are; I created an account, but it won’t verify it’s me, and hell if I’m going to go through the trouble of uploading a copy of my driver’s license just to browse the prices (I have employer coverage, so I’m not eligible.)
I’m one of the biggest opponents of Obamacare, but can’t imagine why they would hide the prices. If they are low or very competitive, I would want that front and center. If they are high, people will find out soon enough. Why have high prices AND an inconvenient method of purchasing it? What is to gain from that?
(Although I suspect that some of those opinion pieces are a bit biased towards finding anything wrong with Obamacare that they can, so take that with a grain of potassium chloride.)
Interesting. Still, make my optional fields mandatory so that consumers don’t see a the sticker price without a subsidy so as to scare them away. Put up a big disclaimer that these prices are valid only so long as the income, family size, and employer coverage are found to be accurate in a subsequent validation process. There’s no need for my social security number to save me from the sticker price.
That’s a start. But it didn’t ask my age or my tobacco status, and only gave an estimate. Further, you can’t get details of the individual plans which the prices run from “seemingly reasonable” to “atrociously high” but how would anyone know since you can’t get the details? There is no reason I shouldn’t be able to get an exact quote, complete with details of the plan, by providing the 6 simple pieces of information described in the OP.
Also, Due to Technical Difficulties, the dental plans weren’t able to be shown.
“Sticker shock” is right. As I pointed out before, I am intimately familiar with the Maryland MHIP plans that the state provided to those that couldn’t find insurance otherwise. Those MHIP plans were designed to cost 2.5 to 3 times what the “normal” health insurance cost.
After having looked at the Obamacare plans right now on the Maryland Exchange web site, they are about the same cost or MORE in terms of premiums, and have higher deductibles or out-of-pocket expenses than the MHIP plan. Which means that every plan on the Exchangs costs as much or more as the plans for “uninsurables” used to cost. 3 times more expensive than the normal individual insurance was. And in addition the plans are much more restrictive than the MHIP plan was - with the “in network” providers only, having to get referrals (MHIP didn’t require them) etc.
Agreed, you should really be able to see the plan details.
I went through the whole process before it made an inaccurate determination of me being medicare eligible (which prevents you from seeing the plans), and I don’t think it asked your tobacco status at all.
But here’s my situation. I’m divorced with one child. My wife has insurance through her work. I have insurance through mine. Both employer provided at reasonable rates.
But if we want to insure our daughter, both of our workplaces charge us full price, which is very high. From my understanding, since we both have affordable coverage for OURSELVES through work, we are not eligible for subsidies, even though my wife’s income is not meager, but not luxurious either.
So, depending on the prices if they ever show up, even without subsidies, it may be a better deal to shop on the exchanges.
Does anyone know if I’m even allowed to pay sticker price on the exchanges if it turns out to be a better deal?
This whole “affordable coverage” calculation that only looks at the employer and not his spouse or children is a terrible loophole. Imagine a guy with a stay at home wife and child who makes $35,000 /yr:
Scenario 1: His employer could pay his premiums but charge him $1500/month for his wife and child.
Result: No subsidy.
Scenario 2: His employer forces him to pay sticker price for himself, but pays the premiums on the wife and child.
Result: Subsidy.
A subsidy is certainly needed in the first scenario but not the second. Maybe we will see companies offering “spousal benefits only” policies.
Do you get a subsidy with the MHIP plans? The amounts on the Federal site don’t include the subsidy, but they do have a link to the Kaiser Family Foundation site which has a calculator. As a 51 year old making decent money for this part of the country, I could get $2700 in subsidies, bringing a Silver plan to about the same I pay for my insurance every month to my employer. With comparable benefits. I am in Ohio, so have to use the Federal site.
I was asked if I was over 50, which is the only cut off they have for age. You can get an idea about increases in premiums from tobacco use using the Kaiser calculator I linked above. Or you can go to Value Penguin and check out their calculator.
So the only way to make it reasonable is to get government handouts. And guess what - those handouts apply to premiums. The higher-than-MHIP coinsurance payments, bigger deductibles and bigger out-of-pocket expenses the handouts don’t cover. And not being able to go to the doctor you want unless he signed up with the particular insurance company the government handout doesn’t help you with.
You can get a plan, just don’t fill out the income stuff when it asks you to and then don’t apply for a subsidy when you fill out your taxes for April 2015. But you don’t need to go on the exchange at all if you don’t need a subsidy - if you see a plan you like contact the insurance company directly and get normal individual insurance.
You won’t see spousal benefits only because the company has to pay a penalty if they don’t offer affordable health insurance/employees go on the exchange. It is indeed a huge loophole of affordability, although to be fair the company can’t charge you more than the actual cost of the insurance, so it’s not like they can be “Free for employees” and “$100,000/yr” if you want your spouse and kids on.
The subsidies were always part of the ACA, right from the beginning. Part of my tax money is being kicked in and used to help my friend, who is a single mother with 3 kids and a part time job, stop paying $900 a month for insurance. I like that a lot more than I do the billions in subsidies the oil company gets every year.
I don’t know how you are sitting for insurance coverage already, but the complaints you are making about the actual plans? Same exact ones I have heard people making about the insurance their employers have been providing for decades. You are complaining that the insurance plans in the exchanges have the same properties as insurance plans is not really productive.
From my understanding, though, under the old system that single mother with 3 kids who had a tubal ligation could save money by choosing a plan that didn’t cover unneeded contraception and maternity benefits. Not so anymore. All policies must cover those things even if the policyholder is infertile, under age, or male.
And with traditional underwriting rules, an insurance company could price based upon risk, which for a male needing maternity benefits is zero. The new system doesn’t allow such price discrimination. It forces millions to pay for “benefits” they don’t need and raises their premiums and make them unable to “keep their current plan.”
It would be like requiring a homeowner who lives on a mountaintop to buy flood insurance to subsidize those living by a river. So, no, I don’t think the complaints are the same as before.
I can sympathize. My insurance expenses (not employer-provided) for my family - that is, premiums plus coinsurance etc., will go up, in my estimate, at least 30%, and possibly more than 50% under Obamacare.