Sounds to me like they can't afford it!
First off, this policy has deductibles and not everything is covered. Second, we are talking about CALIFORNIA. They have high taxes, high rent, high gas prices, high everything. This 40K salary, that's not what they take home, that's before taxes! This family is certainly "working poor" and while they certainly would love health insurance, it's just not something they can cough up, another $164 every month? ...may as well be a few thousand a month, same result that most certainly is not good for the economy! If they manage to find a way to come up with this extra payment, will they be eating out? Will they be going to the movies? Going on vacation? will they get their hair cut very often? How is this going to be "good for the economy"?

df

Throw in a deductible . . . you're better off with an employer-supplied HMO

Why?
What if the person is self employed or working in a job he doesn't qualify for benefits?
What if the HMO has so many exclusions or limitations that his family can't get treatment it requires?
SO many assumptions on your part without the curiosity to actually check on them....


df

Then, you complain that there are "estimates," "forecasts," and "confusing" links, so you supply a link that . . . gives estimates

A huge difference though. The California "esitmator" is providing real world estimates based on specifics. All of the "estimates" providd by you fellows is based upon "experts" guessing at what the actual details of programs offered would be... They make all kinds assumptions about what shape the state programs will take. Guesses really.
The California calculator provides calculations based on the actual policies in the California plan.
Reality versus guess work.

tom

This family is certainly "working poor" and while they certainly would love health insurance, it's just not something they can cough up, another $164 every month?

So your alternative is no insurance?
Consider life withour insurance for someone with this income.
What happens when someone require surgery?
An appendicitomy in California is $30,0000?

rickyp wrote:df

Throw in a deductible . . . you're better off with an employer-supplied HMO

Why?
What if the person is self employed or working in a job he doesn't qualify for benefits?
What if the HMO has so many exclusions or limitations that his family can't get treatment it requires?
SO many assumptions on your part without the curiosity to actually check on them....

Why so many "What ifs?"

You posited a bare-bones scenario. Come up with a "real world" scenario.

df

Then, you complain that there are "estimates," "forecasts," and "confusing" links, so you supply a link that . . . gives estimates

A huge difference though. The California "esitmator" is providing real world estimates based on specifics. All of the "estimates" providd by you fellows is based upon "experts" guessing at what the actual details of programs offered would be... They make all kinds assumptions about what shape the state programs will take. Guesses really.

No, it's not a real world estimate. If so, please tell me what assumptions they put into their calculations to determine NEXT YEAR'S rates.

Read this article. All of it--it destroys the assumptions California "officially" made.

But Obamacare has actually doubled individual-market premiums in the Golden State.

How did Lee and his colleagues explain the sleight-of-hand they used to make it seem like they were bringing prices down, instead of up? “It is difficult to make a direct comparison of these rates to existing premiums in the commercial individual market,” Covered California explained in last week’s press release, “because in 2014, there will be new standard benefit designs under the Affordable Care Act.” That’s a polite way of saying that Obamacare’s mandates and regulations will drive up the cost of premiums in the individual market for health insurance.

But rather than acknowledge that truth, the agency decided to ignore it completely, instead comparing Obamacare-based insurance to a completely different type of insurance product, that bears no relevance to the actual costs that actual Californians face when they shop for coverage today. Peter Lee calls it a “home run.” It’s more like hitting into a triple play.

The problem you have is that you really want to believe in pixie dust.

The California calculator provides calculations based on the actual policies in the California plan.
Reality versus guess work.

No, it's pixie dust versus guess work. CA's costs are going to climb dramatically.

rickyp wrote:tom

This family is certainly "working poor" and while they certainly would love health insurance, it's just not something they can cough up, another $164 every month?

So your alternative is no insurance?
Consider life withour insurance for someone with this income.
What happens when someone require surgery?
An appendicitomy in California is $30,0000?

Perfect--under Obamacare pre-existing conditions are covered!

fate

If so, please tell me what assumptions they put into their calculations to determine NEXT YEAR'S rates

.

Next years rates....

Estimated premiums without subsidies reflect the statewide average second most affordable silver plan premium based on Covered California Health Plan and Rates for 2014 (May 23, 2013). Age-adjusted premiums for each household member who would enroll in coverage are aggregated into a family premium, using the methodology outlined in final federal regulations released in February 2013.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthp ... logy.shtml

Fate

Why so many "What ifs?"

In the real world, there are lots of what ifs....

rickyp wrote:fate

If so, please tell me what assumptions they put into their calculations to determine NEXT YEAR'S rates

.

Next years rates....

Estimated premiums without subsidies reflect the statewide average second most affordable silver plan premium based on Covered California Health Plan and Rates for 2014 (May 23, 2013). Age-adjusted premiums for each household member who would enroll in coverage are aggregated into a family premium, using the methodology outlined in final federal regulations released in February 2013.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthp ... logy.shtml

Fate

Why so many "What ifs?"

In the real world, there are lots of what ifs....

Yes, but what we see, in nearly every situation, is that Obamacare is hurting the economy, not helping it.

Insurance rates are going up just as rapidly as before, if not more so.

Employers are cutting hours to get below the 29 hour threshold or not hiring.

Employers are stopping coverage.

Where are the major "good" sides to this program? Not theoretically down the road, but now?

Doctor Fate wrote:Where are the major "good" sides to this program? Not theoretically down the road, but now?

Capping maximum profits insurance companies can make? I think that's GREAT, not good.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Where are the major "good" sides to this program? Not theoretically down the road, but now?

Capping maximum profits insurance companies can make? I think that's GREAT, not good.

Why stop there? Why not cap your salary?

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Where are the major "good" sides to this program? Not theoretically down the road, but now?

Capping maximum profits insurance companies can make? I think that's GREAT, not good.

Why stop there? Why not cap your salary?

Let me translate:

"Job Creators are taxed too much, most especially when we employ people. The Creators not only have to pay wages and payroll taxes on those wages, but we have all kinds of insurance: Workman's comp 'insurance', disability 'insurance', unemployment 'insurance; and health benefits our workers expect. I say 'insurance' because these are not optional, they're required and they function exactly like a tax. To encourage employment we need to cut the taxes the Job Creators pay, and health insurance is one of them. If we limit how much the leeches suck out of our productive enterprise, we will be able to employ more people, make more money and grow our economy. You can't grow your economy by making either Government or the Insurance industry bigger: they suck from the productive and give to the victims."

geojanes wrote:Let me translate:

"Job Creators are taxed too much, most especially when we employ people. The Creators not only have to pay wages and payroll taxes on those wages, but we have all kinds of insurance: Workman's comp 'insurance', disability 'insurance', unemployment 'insurance; and health benefits our workers expect. I say 'insurance' because these are not optional, they're required and they function exactly like a tax. To encourage employment we need to cut the taxes the Job Creators pay, and health insurance is one of them. If we limit how much the leeches suck out of our productive enterprise, we will be able to employ more people, make more money and grow our economy. You can't grow your economy by making either Government or the Insurance industry bigger: they suck from the productive and give to the victims."

Not even close.

I simply wonder if the government can limit the profitability of a company, why not your own private income? What's wrong with that?

The bigger issue is the foolishness of believing the government can bring efficiency to 1/6th (or 1/7th) of our economy.

I have a relative who works for a pharmaceutical company. I asked him if the government forcing down prescription drug prices across the board (as rickyp has suggested) would have any ramifications.

"Well, it would halt a lot of R & D. Anything that cannot be recouped won't be spent."

Ah, the glories of government!

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:Let me translate:

"Job Creators are taxed too much, most especially when we employ people. The Creators not only have to pay wages and payroll taxes on those wages, but we have all kinds of insurance: Workman's comp 'insurance', disability 'insurance', unemployment 'insurance; and health benefits our workers expect. I say 'insurance' because these are not optional, they're required and they function exactly like a tax. To encourage employment we need to cut the taxes the Job Creators pay, and health insurance is one of them. If we limit how much the leeches suck out of our productive enterprise, we will be able to employ more people, make more money and grow our economy. You can't grow your economy by making either Government or the Insurance industry bigger: they suck from the productive and give to the victims."

Not even close.

I simply wonder if the government can limit the profitability of a company, why not your own private income? What's wrong with that?

---

Ah, the glories of government!

You just don't get it. The insurance companies are agents of the government. They sell a product/service that the Government requires. They are, for all intents and purposes, government and the premiums we pay are taxes. In fact, many of the services they provide are provided by governments in other parts of the world.

Drug companies do something productive. Even Government does some things that are productive. Insurance companies do absolutely nothing productive. NOTHING. They don't make anything. They don't do anything. They are as productive as the lottery, just a redistribution of wealth, with a hefty cut for themselves. Defending insurance companies and their profits. You're better than that!

geojanes wrote:You just don't get it. The insurance companies are agents of the government. They sell a product/service that the Government requires.

They were not "agents of the government" until Obamacare passed. Actually, you still don't have to have insurance, so not sure your whole analysis is valid. You can pay the fine or dodge the real "agents of the government" (aka "The IRS").

They are, for all intents and purposes, government and the premiums we pay are taxes. In fact, many of the services they provide are provided by governments in other parts of the world.

No, premiums are not taxes. If you want that system, establish it. You go on to disprove your point by pointing to other countries where such a system does exist.

Drug companies do something productive.

Agreed, but that won't force government to stop trying to halt their productivity.

Even Government does some things that are productive.

"Productive?" Not really. What does government "produce?"

It provides roads, etc., but it does not "produce" them--it contracts out to obtain a service. And, if Democrats have their way, they will hire more expensive union labor to reward their labor buddies.

Insurance companies do absolutely nothing productive. NOTHING. They don't make anything.

Neither does . . . Facebook or the government.

They don't do anything. They are as productive as the lottery, just a redistribution of wealth, with a hefty cut for themselves.

Haha, the lottery . . . a nice example of government "production." Taking from the dumb and the poor and giving to the Beast that is "government."

Defending insurance companies and their profits. You're better than that!

The problem is the blind faith that government is going to be better than insurance companies. Had they ever had a competitive environment, we might have seen better results. Instead, the government protected them from competition and then complained they were making too much money. Of course, the only "solution" was to put government in charge . . . because government is so efficient.

The other issue with Obamacare is that it ultimately attempts to defy economic principles. We will "save money" by:

1. Lowering payment for service. Great, except doctors will be forced to see more patients in order to keep up. Many are indicating they will stop taking certain forms of insurance, or will not go into general practice as a result.

You can't just pay less and expect the same result.

2. Covering those with pre-existing conditions. It may be the moral thing to do, but it is economically unsound.

3. Forcing young, healthy people to pay for more extensive coverage than they would typically choose.

4. Covering those who currently have no insurance via exchanges, permitting them the power of group sales. Fine, except many States are refusing to pay the money to do this.

5. Taxing medical equipment. You can't do that without consequence. It's a dumb idea.

This entire bill is a Rube Goldberg contraption. It won't work because it is designed to please government bureaucrats and Big Pharma. It won't make doctors or patients happy. It also has already proven that you won't be able to keep your current insurance and, in many cases, your current doctor.

I can see both sides, but in the end, limiting a companies profits would have all sorts of unforeseen consequences. I get the idea and principal behind the thinking and yes, who wants to help an insurance company make more money?

But limit their profitability and you limit the competition. You also limit the need to save money so they simply charge more instead of looking for ways to streamline. But big profits draw more competitors, more competitors drive prices down.
Limiting regulations is the answer and Obamacare is anything but! Heaping on the ever growing regulations is supposed to save us money???

No, premiums are not taxes. If you want that system, establish it. You go on to disprove your point by pointing to other countries where such a system does exist.

As long as hospital emergency wards do not turn away people who are uninsured or can't prove they are capable of paying for service - as long as they are forced to treat people who they know will leave an unpaid tab then the United States has socialized the risk of health care without collecting the taxes to pay for that risk.

Insurance companies have been a protected industry. And in effect all they offer is health care payment administration. They have a market that is forced to have their products. The option of no insurance is really only open to the very wealthy, or the very poor who have no means to pay anyway. The relatvely few people who are willing to risk medical bankruptcy by going around unisured, when they could well afford it, aren't significant to the market size that is created by the need for insurance. The fact that private, so called free enterprise insurance companies have done nothing to affect medical costs over the last 30 years is indicative of the fact that they produce nothing. They merely administer. And they maintain their profit margin simply passing along the costs to the end users rather than by finding ways to significantly lower supplier costs.
In countries that have eliminated this private role for the majority of he
health care, the cost of the bureaucracy of managing health care payments is marginal compared to the cost of insurance administration in the US....
In effect, health insurance administration is an example where the myth of competition has contributed to far greater costs than are required to move money from the beneficiaries pockets to the suppliers pockets.

Drug companies do something productive.


Agreed, but that won't force government to stop trying to halt their productivity.

Drug companies benefit from a lot of the original science funded by government. And they benefit from very generous, probably overly generous, patent laws. They also benefit by laws that restrict how much "bargaining" medicaid and medicare bureaucracies can do to lower prices.
They also have been a protected industry in the US . Moreover, the notion that the US citizen should continue to pay enormous prices for drugs that no one else in the world pays, simply demonstrates that this protection is acceptable to those who drink the Kool Aid about R&D. Protection that would not be acceptable for electronics, clothing etc.
The problem with pharmaceuticals is that the risk reward system has been distorted by the industry who have lobbied for increasing protections of their extreme margins in the US. And really only the US.
American consumers have been suckers.