Why No One is Signing Up for Insurance Coverage on the Healthcare Exchanges
It seems virtually no one has signed up for health insurance after having logged on to the websites set up by the Health Care Exchanges in each State under a federal government mandate. These all went went "live" on October 1st.
Okay, so it's early in the game. The press has had fun with the initial glitches some states experienced. For example New York's Exchange website immediately crashed, but it's apparently back on line now.
Then there was that first report from California that 5 million people had accessed their Exchange, when in fact it was only 675,000 - something they later admitted.
And now we find stories about how, whatever the real number of hits were on the Exchanges, hardly anyone has actually signed up.
People may have had an idea that the insurance would be "cheap" - and it's not.
A lot of people who don't have health insurance don't have it because they' can't afford to pay the premiums. And maybe they thought that the insurance offered through the Exchanges would be a lot less than it actually is. In other words, they've now experienced "sticker shock."
But, you may say, aren't there discounts for people who have lower incomes? Yes, there are. But are these discounts being accurately and clearly calculated on the Exchanges? We don't know. We do know that some of the calculators provided by Exchanges have either crashed or been found to be incorrect. (How could that be, when the Exchanges have had years to plan ahead on this?)
On the other hand, maybe even the discounted rates are more than people are willing to pay or feel they can afford to pay - in which case they're probably not going to sign up.
And since the penalty for not signing up in 2014 will be "only" $95, they may figure they'll just wait and see whether premiums go down over the coming year.
In any case, for some reason, no one I've read or heard has brought up this point. But doesn't common sense tell us that this may be a factor, if not a major factor, that explains the initial reluctance of people to sign up?
If not, it's all technical stuff having to do with the Exchanges themselves. But that calls into question both the preparation by the federal government and the states, who have had years to figure this out and (one would assume) test their systems. Of course, you can't eliminate this as a factor, because we are, after all dealing with a totally new program created by and run by governments - both of which factors add up (perhaps) to strike one and strike two. All that's left now would be strike three. Let's see how things progress.
Okay, so it's early in the game. The press has had fun with the initial glitches some states experienced. For example New York's Exchange website immediately crashed, but it's apparently back on line now.
Then there was that first report from California that 5 million people had accessed their Exchange, when in fact it was only 675,000 - something they later admitted.
And now we find stories about how, whatever the real number of hits were on the Exchanges, hardly anyone has actually signed up.
On October 1, Obamacare’s subsidized insurance exchanges went live. Most of the exchange websites crashed on the first day, a development that led some of the law’s supporters to conclude that there was overwhelming demand for Obamacare’s insurance products. But the Obama administration isn’t releasing figures as to the number of Americans who have actually signed up for exchange-based coverage. “Very, very few people that we’re aware of have enrolled in the federal exchange,” said one anonymous insurance industry official to the Washington Post. “We are talking single digits.”Initial glitches we can understand. But why (if these reports are true) aren't people singing up now? Here's something I haven't seen considered by any reports so far:
People may have had an idea that the insurance would be "cheap" - and it's not.
A lot of people who don't have health insurance don't have it because they' can't afford to pay the premiums. And maybe they thought that the insurance offered through the Exchanges would be a lot less than it actually is. In other words, they've now experienced "sticker shock."
But, you may say, aren't there discounts for people who have lower incomes? Yes, there are. But are these discounts being accurately and clearly calculated on the Exchanges? We don't know. We do know that some of the calculators provided by Exchanges have either crashed or been found to be incorrect. (How could that be, when the Exchanges have had years to plan ahead on this?)
On the other hand, maybe even the discounted rates are more than people are willing to pay or feel they can afford to pay - in which case they're probably not going to sign up.
And since the penalty for not signing up in 2014 will be "only" $95, they may figure they'll just wait and see whether premiums go down over the coming year.
In any case, for some reason, no one I've read or heard has brought up this point. But doesn't common sense tell us that this may be a factor, if not a major factor, that explains the initial reluctance of people to sign up?
If not, it's all technical stuff having to do with the Exchanges themselves. But that calls into question both the preparation by the federal government and the states, who have had years to figure this out and (one would assume) test their systems. Of course, you can't eliminate this as a factor, because we are, after all dealing with a totally new program created by and run by governments - both of which factors add up (perhaps) to strike one and strike two. All that's left now would be strike three. Let's see how things progress.
Comments