Colorado is releasing their menu of plans for the Exchanges for 2017. Unsubsidized rates went up and the number of offerings declined. That is bad news.
The good news is Colorado seems to have adopted a Silver Gap strategy which should lead to higher enrollment and healthier pools.
The spread between the #1 and #2 Silver must have increased significantly to produce this type of cost savings.
Major Major Major Major
What’s the deal with Colorado Care? Good? Bad? Abortion?
Miss Bianca
@Major Major Major Major: From what I understand, Coloraod Care would replace the current exchange program with a single-payer program. Not sure whether Connect for Health Colorado would remain as the administrators or not. Richard? Any professional insight you can shed on this question would be gratifying!
Richard Mayhew
@Major Major Major Major @Miss Bianca: : I’m not sure yet what I would do if I was a Colorado voter for Colorado care.
balloon-juice.com/2016/08/31/a-note-on-colorado-care/
There are two major questions.
a) Does Colorado Care expand the reach of Hyde/Stupak etc. NARAL thinks it does. I trust NARAL’s judgement on this.
b) Does the 1332 and 1115 waivers work the way that the Colorado Care proponents think it does? If it does, the financing makes enough sense. If not, the financing is a fiasco. Given that I have seen no firm commitments from anyone at the Federal level concerning 1115 and 1332 applicability nor even very strong wink-wink/nudge-nudge on this matter, I am reluctant.
If I had to vote in Colorado this afternoon, I would vote against it. If question B is resolved favorably, I would be spending a lot of time talking to people I trust and who would get kicked in the ovaries if Hyde/Stupak expands plus lawyers to determine if NARAL is actually right. I really need to see both issues resolved favorably to be completely on board.
Miss Bianca
@Richard Mayhew: thank you for that wonderfully clear-headed response. These are EXACTLY the questions that I wanted to have resolved before I did any work on that campaign, and no one of the CC proponents could actually answer them to my satisfaction – instead I got a whole lot of “well, it will save people money!” (but HOW, if the answer to question (b) is “no”?) and “Look at how much money insurance executives are making!” (well, maddening perhaps, but how is this relevant to the point of “how is Colorado Care going to be financed if the answer to question (b) is “no”?).
As for question(a), the answer I get is, “well our lawyers say that this amendment supercedes the state amendment forbidding ‘public money’ to be used for abortion, and anyway, even if it doesn’t, women can still get private insurance to cover abortions – let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good!” Which I found to be utterly fatuous as a set of arguments. The state amendment against ‘public financing’ of abortion is one thhing, but the Hyde Amendment is another. And as for insurance – hell, who’s going to get “abortion insurance”? Nobody PLANS on getting an abortion!
These are just two of the things that are making me uneasy about this Amendment 69. I’d love to feel like I could vote for it, but I think there’s a lot of hand-waving going on about how it’s supposed to be structured and financed, and the “let’s just pass it and worry about the details later” approach seems destined for failure.
Mnemosyne
@Miss Bianca:
Living here in CA, I am very wary of voter initiatives. They’re often poorly written and have unexpected poison pills in them. I usually vote “no” unless someone I trust can give me a very good reason not to.
Major Major Major Major
@Mnemosyne: I vote no on every voter initiative unless it’s highly, highly recommended by something I trust, like the redistricting commission.
Greenergood
Looking at this from the perspective of the UK, I cannot believe how bewildering this is – it seems to be designed to perplex all but the most attentive, even OCD, people who are willing and able to fathom the depths of the US medical insurance system – when a single-payer, eliminate-the-insurance-companies, approach would be the goal, I know why this insurance regime has been sustained, but it makes me despair, especially because the stupid, greedy English Conservative Party is gleefully trying to import the heinous US medical example, to the point of attracting US companies to bid for chunks of our health service.
Dennis
So, with refundable tax credits you still have to pay the full premium and get your subsidy back when you file your taxes, right? That’s still a big problem for cash-strapped households. Why does ACA have to have so much Rube Goldberg in it?