Ever hear of temporary health insurance?
Articles such as this one puzzle me somewhat:
Nelson, who will be 62 in January, said he had been without health insurance since 2009 and is trying to get coverage for him and his wife…
He was skeptical about Covered California’s offer of a grace period for those who were unsuccessful in signing up for coverage Monday.
“But that’s predicated upon, among other things, getting the first step done so that I can apply. But I can’t get the first step done, so I don’t think it would apply,” said Nelson, who has a doctorate degree in natural sciences. “And I’m sure there will be a lot of people like me.”
I have no doubt there are. And, having spent a great deal of time on the California website myself doing research, I’m not defender of the site (nor of Obamacare, as anyone who reads this blog regularly knows).
But my point is this: why are so many people such as Nelson so very frantic at the moment? I fully understand why people who already had coverage that’s ending in January would be scrambling and almost desperate to get coverage that picks up where theirs left off. And I understand why those with pre-existing conditions who had trouble getting it before would be chomping at the bit as well. But for someone such as Nelson, who had no coverage before and who appears to have no pre-existing health condition that would drive him pronto to the doctor, why the terrific rush to get covered immediately? The Obamacare penalty doesn’t kick in unless a person hasn’t enrolled by March 31, 2014, and by my math that’s a full three months away. The present deadline (whatever it was or is) is only for coverage beginning on January first of 2014. If a person isn’t ill, and hasn’t had coverage in years, there’s nothing exceptional about that date, although it’s understandable to want to be covered as soon as possible.
But if a person is really eager to be covered tomorrow (and I mean “tomorrow” literally) there are temporary alternatives. Most people don’t seem to realize, and most newspapers don’t appear eager to tell them, that if they don’t have pre-existing conditions they can sign up in the meantime for what’s called “temporary” health insurance. It’s catastrophic insurance and non-compliant with the Obamacare regulations and therefore does not protect against the penalty if it’s held past March 31, 2014, but it’s better than nothing, and it’s relatively inexpensive (and, by the way, gives you choice of any doctor you want).
Several reputable companies sell it; it hasn’t been outlawed yet. The buyer pays month-to-month or in one lump sum for up to six months in California (a person can sign up for two 6-month periods, but that’s the limit in California and many other states). A person can drop it as soon as he/she obtains permanent coverage from Obamacare or elsewhere.
So someone like Nelson (who appears to have no pre-existing conditions; at least, the article doesn’t mention any) could buy temporary insurance, and as long as he drops it by March 31, 2014 and picks up Obamacare-compliant insurance instead, he won’t even be liable for the Obamacare penalty. For a 62-year-old man in California in the San Luis Obispo area such as Nelson, a policy with a $7,500 deductible would cost about $275 a month (I checked) or about $199 a month if paid for by the lump-sum method. For a man of 32, living in the same area, that same policy ($7,500 deductible) would cost about $77 a month, or a little over $52 a month if paid for in one 6-month lump sum (and not much more for a deductible of $2,500, although the differential for someone of Nelson’s age would be much greater).
That’s a lot less than either person would pay for regular insurance under Obamacare. It’s even less than most would pay with subsidies under Obamacare. And although temporary insurance only pays once the buyer meets that deductible, and therefore everything prior to that must be paid for out-of-pocket, it offers some peace of mind against catastrophic loss. Isn’t that what insurance was originally supposed to do?
Not a perfect solution, to be sure. But many people might prefer it to nothing and to anxiety while waiting for the recalcitrant website. Not only does it protect from catastrophic events, but it would buy time to let the Obamacare situation sort itself out at least a bit, if such a thing ever happens.
So I repeat: what’s the big rush to get Obamacare for those who don’t have pre-existing conditions? I think it’s because most people don’t even know about the existence of temporary insurance. Why the newspapers seem to be keeping mum about this option I’m not sure, but my guess is that they either are unaware of it too, or they are reluctant to say anything that would lessen people’s motivation to buy Obamacare ASAP.
I’ve had temporary health insurance myself in the past (I think I’ve mentioned that I’ve had almost every kind of health insurance under the sun), and I really liked it. It was exactly what I was looking for: low premiums, protection from the worst, with everything else out of pocket. My only regret was that I was forbidden by law keep on buying it past the two 6-month periods. Somehow the government decreed—even years ago, before Obamacare—that there needed to be rules to “protect” people from this sort of thing.
“Somehow the government decreed–even years ago, before Obamacare–that there needed to be rules to “protect” people from this sort of thing.”
I get a tingle up the leg whenever I think about government protecting me from myself.
I’ve been ‘informed’ that I’m in — I’m out — I’m in another program — and then I’m back in the original program — depending on the date.
That’s the California way.
BTW, the ‘system’ is hiring like mad to staff up for the flood. So, if you’re a new entrant, expect to see fresh bodies everywhere in the ‘system.’
Said ‘system’ appears to be totally broken.
Somewhat related to your post is something I’ve also wondered about. Why have insurance companies not offered bare bones, high deductible policies for young and relatively young people that do not meet ACA requirements but would be cheaper even with the penalty. Throw in sales across state lines and many people would be well served.
Are such policies already available? Are the insurance companies afraid of pissing Obama off?
“Are the insurance companies afraid of pissing Obama off?”
Yes, they are afraid… afraid of the messiah, the IRS, the NSA, and DHS. It is so ironic that the leftists who perpetually whine about a police state when repubs are in charge are in fact the cheerleaders for a police state.
He is frantic the way thieves are frantic.
The people who supported Obamacare know they are stealing from others. They want to do the deal before it changes.
Nelson is an ass. No insurance x 4 years, 62 years old, holds a ‘natural sciences’ PhD. Where do the literati find such folk for their writeups? With want ads? Where does he work? In academia or at a grubby for-profit, he’d have been covered these past four years, his economically most-productive years. It is possible he “consults” or is otherwise semi- or un-employed. I have a sneaking suspicion he tilts Left.
Why does he not find, or at least seek direction to an Exchange Navigator? Why is he stuck on stupid?
OK, now I read the story. He was a part-timer at Cal State San Luis Obispo, basically a contract prof without any renewal clause. He subsists at the pleasure of the Cal State administrators. Implicitly, he didn’t make it a long time ago, when he could have achieved tenure.
The insurance companies aren’t allowed to offer plans to the youths, because they have to provide for maternity leave, contraception, abortion, hip replacement, you know the works.
But Obama’s Full Gold coverage does that. But that’s only for the elites. The poor get to have what is left. Trickle down effect.
I hadn’t heard of it either, but the current issue of Weekly Standard informed me of its existence. Also, that temporary insurance was NOT affected by ObamaCare, so it can still be purchased (in those States that permit it) by anyone. However, it does not meet ObamaCare standards, so the ObamaCare penalty/tax would have to be paid in addition to the premiums. (Still a better deal.) (You may have to be subscribed to read the article on-line: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/escape-obamacare_771532.html
The penalty for not being a Muslim was called the jizya.
If you pay the tax, you will be allowed to keep your women and house intact.
Don Carlos nailed it; why is this guy “stuck on stupid?”
Nice and good updates I found here. Really remarkable thing for me and I am really happy to see it here.
Y. said “The insurance companies aren’t allowed to offer plans to the youths, because they have to provide for maternity leave, contraception, abortion, hip replacement, you know the works.”
I get the impression that restrictions apply to the individual buying or the company buying for employees. I seems that insurance companies can sell what they wish, but the buyer may pay a penalty. In the case of a low income young person the penalty can be as little as $95. That is why I wondered why insurance companies would no jump into that market.
“Why the newspapers seem to be keeping mum about this option I’m not sure, but my guess is that they either are unaware of it too, or they are reluctant to say anything that would lessen people’s motivation to buy Obamacare ASAP.”
I’ll bet there’s some Obamacare boosterism going on, but I’m often appalled at the astonishingly low-quality reporting that newspapers serve up. Frequently a story will state something that makes no sense whatsoever, thus raising an obvious question that would clarify matters. But it never occurs to the genius who wrote the story to provide the one piece of vital information to make sense of the damn thing.
In this case you ask a question that is only semi-obvious: why don’t people just buy temporary insurance until things settle down a bit? Given that newspapers often fail to address blatantly obvious things, I’m not at all surprised that they didn’t think to address the above question–which was not 150%, totally smack-you-in-the-face obvious.
Prob with temp coverage.
Pre-existing issues are not covered.
Still useful, but not a full answer.
Richard Aubrey:
Yes, I made that clear in the post.
I also said that it does not exempt a person from the Obamacare penalty. However, the penalty doesn’t kick in till after March 31, 2014. The entire idea of this post is that if a person doesn’t have pre-existing conditions it is a good stopgap measure to take away the frenzy of having to get regular coverage right away.
I checked a Bronze plan in MD for my wife and I. $337 per month with a $6K deductible for she and I and a $12K family deductible. All out of pocket until the deductible was met. Sounds like one of those evil catastrophic plans people once wanted and liked.
We have only once, I believe, ever hit the deductible limit on our original Aetna policy and that was a $1000 per person and $2000 per family even when we had 4 kids at home. So we wanted catastrophic coverage for reduced premiums after the kids left home but couldn’t get it though our employer and chose to say with our employers policy for health insurance security, not trusting government regulation/insurance changes without the possible intervention and protection of our employer. Well that didn’t work out too well in the long run, did it.
I never thought I would say this but we fortunately escaped to Medicare just before this Obamacare disaster hit Americans.
My attending rallies, writing letters and speaking to people to do the same, never made a dent in this program.
I didn’t trust government before, but now I know it doesn’t represent the people; just those who want something for nothing with other people’s money paying and who are willing to vote to keep that largess coming.