California-funded effort pitches Obamacare to college students

[TomCADem]

Source: LA Times




Interest in the insurance marketplaces is strong among young people, according to some polls. But nearly 60% of 18-to-29-year-olds without insurance disapprove of the healthcare changes, according to a report released last week by Harvard University's Institute of Politics. Fewer than a third said they were likely to enroll through the new exchanges, and 41% said the chances of that were "50-50."

* * *
demystify and pique interest in new healthcare options.

Cal State campuses are a prime venue to woo younger insurance customers. Many of the system's students — disproportionately Latino, modest-to-lower-income and under-insured — stand to benefit from the healthcare changes, Zelman said. He rejects the "invincibility" notion: that young people don't buy insurance because they doubt they will need it. He points to surveys suggesting millennials don't buy insurance because they can't afford it.

Up to 75% of Cal State students have incomes that would qualify them either for federal subsidies to help pay insurance premiums or for California's Medi-Cal program, which will offer care for childless adults earning less than $16,000 annually starting Jan. 1. At Cal State L.A., a 2011 student survey supervised by Zelman's department found that 41% of students polled were uninsured and nearly a third of families of incoming freshmen earned less than $20,000 a year.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-cal-state-obamacare-20131215,0,2366177.story?page=1#axzz2nUJnH7Pb

---

This is better than most, but it still illustrates the misleading nature of MSM coverage. I quoted the key bit of information that many young people would qualify for federal subsidies. But, notice that this is buried in the story. Many MSM stories ignore key information about the benefits of the ACA and how people are eligible for subsidized coverage or bury it deep in the story after reciting problems about the website and the political battle over repeal.

[SoapBox]

1. I love my California!

Just say'n!

[Iliyah]

2. True, the misleading of information is rampage

but overall I think slowly the young adults will pick up on it and get the coveraged that they need.

Corporate media is now now now, not the future, and once people realize the benefits of Obamacare they will apply. Also it took many years for SSI and Medicare to catch on and those mandates are automatically taken out of paychecks so you know all the misleanding whoopla about that back in the day when they were being implemented.

[proverbialwisdom]

3. Eligibility for a subsidy is determined by a person's income only, not assets (including familial).

FIX IT, DON'T NIX IT.

If an individual earned less than ~$16K, that person is not eligible for an insurance premium subsidy, period. The choice is whether to enroll in California medicaid, or pay the full premium for other coverage.

(If participating in the federal exchange, because a state exchange is not offered, medicaid is the automatic and ONLY OPTION for an individual earning less than the poverty limit, OTOH. It is my understanding that a person cannot even purchase another policy at full price, eg. working at start-up, etc)

Not so great, frankly, for that age group, and for anyone who might lose employment due to a serious illness.

Please provide links to information if this is in any way inaccurate.

[pnwmom]

4. This is incorrect.

"It is my understanding that a person cannot even purchase another policy at full price, eg. working at start-up, etc)"

Anyone can still apply for private coverage, even if their state is using the Federal Exchange, except for residents of D.C. and Vermont (which is going to single payer). And the private insurers -- whether they sell a policy on or off the exchange -- are no longer allowed to bar people with preexisting conditions or charge them more.

Why should I provide a link? You didn't.

But here is one anyway. It was easy to find so you must not have looked.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/your-money/health-insurance-options-arent-limited-to-obamacare-exchanges.html?_r=0

WITH so much attention being paid to the troubled debut of the Obama administration’s health insurance exchanges, another alternative has largely gone unnoticed: unless you live in Washington, D.C., or Vermont, you can also buy insurance outside the exchanges — by going directly to insurance brokers, agents or company Web sites.

In general, health policies effective Jan. 1, whether sold on the exchanges or off, must comply with the Affordable Care Act. That means they have to offer the same menu of essential benefits, like drug coverage and maternity care, and can’t deny you coverage if you’re already sick. And, insurers who sell policies both on and off the exchanges must sell the same plan for the same price.

Of course, the main attraction of the exchange is that plans sold there may come with subsidies that can substantially lower your monthly premiums. (Premium credits are for people making up to $46,000 for an individual and up to $94,000 for a family of four.)

SNIP

[proverbialwisdom]

5. Premium credits for an individual are ONLY for those earning $16,000-$46,000," age/asset independent

I've seen the NYT link you provided, and both WSJ critiques, below. The DailyKos link includes the story about the federal exchange I came across elsewhere and offers an explanation, which I regard as a miss. Is the medicaid enrollment automatic (person unable to decline once entering and applying on the federal exchange site)? If so, that's a bug. Also, IMO, triggering full freight premiums or medicaid as the only alternatives for a seriously ill person (with savings) who loses employment due to health is a baaad idea.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/23/1257918/-Another-dumb-ACA-story-on-Fox#

<>

Now, what I suspect may be happening here is a classic AGI vs. MAGI misunderstanding.

Consider.

$5-Million house.
Kids (unknown number but, well, plural) going to expensive schools, in Virginia - implies five figures per child, per annum.

Now, unless this fellow intends to bleed down his fortune (already acquired) he is surely making that egg (nest or other) work for him - that means other income streams have to be coming into the family's hands: capital gains, interest income, income from real estate holdings, etc.

All which count toward MAGI.

Now, I may be wrong about that, but, even if I am there is nothing stopping this man from going outside the exchange to buy a (now ACA compliant) insurance policy for his family. It might cost him more, but given his sensitivity to accepting Medicaid (probably because of poorly characterizing his real MAGI) it would be a small price to pay.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303531204579207724152219590

OPINION
Nicole Hopkins: ObamaCare Forced Mom Into Medicaid
By NICOLE L. HOPKINS
Nov. 20, 2013 7:13 p.m. ET

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303936904579175611438302596

OPINION
Carl Schramm: How ObamaCare Rips Off the 'Young Healthies'
If universal coverage is the goal, inexpensive, simple catastrophic health plans will do.
Updated Nov. 6, 2013 7:39 p.m. ET

<>

A Manhattan Institute analysis of Health and Human Services numbers notes that a 27-year-old male will pay 99% higher premiums under ObamaCare than he would under previously prevailing market rates. One reason is that the law now limits insurers to charging the sickest seniors no more than three times the amount they charge their youngest customers. Given that 64-year-olds use on average six times as much health care as 19-year-olds, the Affordable Care Act forces young people to pay considerably more than the cost of their own care.

<>

[pnwmom]

8. Single payer, the preferred choice of most DUers, would go even farther

in the direction of young people subsidizing older people -- just as currently happens with Social Security and Medicare. (Sixty-five year olds on Medicare are treated the same as ninety-five year olds.) But nobody complains about that. And the higher premiums would only apply to young people with high incomes -- the rest would benefit from their own subsidies.

I haven't seen the Manhattan Institute analysis, but I know when I checked the numbers for my young adult son, he will be able to pay considerably less than he is now on COBRA. So I'm suspicious of their numbers.

[proverbialwisdom]

6. Thanks, I'm glad to hear this is incorrect. I have been reading about this, it's a little confusing.

(If participating in the federal exchange, because a state exchange is not offered, medicaid is the automatic and ONLY OPTION for an individual earning less than the poverty limit, OTOH. It is my understanding that a person cannot even purchase another policy at full price, eg. working at start-up, etc)

[pnwmom]

7. Are you saying that a Medicaid-eligible person would be barred from purchasing

another policy from an insurance company at full price? This is not true. The only thing that would prevent the person is not having enough money. But if the low-income person was working at a start-up and had another way of paying the full price, there would be no problem. Insurance companies don't require people to provide proof of income in order to buy health insurance. And now they will all be bound by the rules of the ACA.

[onpatrol98]

9. Okay...I've been wondering about this.

When I was in college, I had no money, no income. My friends were like me. A monthly expense would have been out of the question. I would have had to borrow money from someone to pay the penalty. So, a subsidy, unless 100%, would have been pointless.