5 States Potentially Headed for Obamacare Disasters

Don't let it get away!

Keep track of the stocks that matter to you.

Help yourself with the Fool's FREE and easy new watchlist service today.

Is disaster on the way for your state?

When it comes to the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, some states appear to be in much worse shape than others. For certain states, total enrollment has been nothing short of abysmal -- particularly when compared with the potential market size of uninsured individuals.


As The Motley Fool's Brian Orelli noted recently, experts say that ideally around 40% of Obamacare enrollees should belong to a younger demographic. That figure counts on younger Americans to generally be healthier. Insurance companies need a solid pool of healthy individuals to enroll in order to offset less healthy enrollees.

How many states have achieved that 40% mark so far? Zip. Nada.

The District of Columbia reported 44% of its enrollees were between the ages of 18 and 34, but D.C. technically is not a state. Massachusetts came the closest, with 31% of individuals signing up for Obamacare in the desired young age range. 

The biggest potential for disaster, however, stems from a combination of relatively high total enrollment and low enrollment of younger residents. If a state has low overall enrollment, insurers might not generate much in terms of revenue -- but at least they also won't lose a lot if there aren't enough healthy individuals signing up to subsidize the less healthy members. But if there are high levels of enrollment combined with low numbers of healthier enrollees, it could make for a disaster.

So which states appear to be most likely to be headed for this potential Obamacare disaster? Here are the top five.

North Carolina
As of Dec. 28, The Tar Heel State counted nearly 108,000 residents who have selected a plan on the federally operated Obamacare exchange. That figure ranks North Carolina in fifth place among the states in terms of enrollment. 

But when we look at the number of younger North Carolinians between the ages of 18 and 34 who have signed up for health insurance, there's a problem. Only 23% in that demographic have enrolled in Obamacare plans so far. That's far below the hoped-for 40% level and slightly below the national average enrollment percentage for the age range of 24%.

The state of Texas lays claim to being among the top states in job growth over the last several years. It can also boast one of the highest Obamacare enrollment levels, with more than 118,000 residents signing up for health insurance through

Texas reported 26% of its enrollees were in the age 18-to-34 range. While that's a little better than the national average, it still means that there are many more older individuals than younger ones in the state's Obamacare insurance pool. 

New York
New York ranks third in the U.S. for total enrollment in Obamacare. Nearly 157,000 residents signed up on the state's health insurance exchange through late December.

Unfortunately, only 27% of those individuals are in the coveted younger demographic group. Like Texas, New York beats the national average for younger enrollees. It's still not great, though, and insurers in the state could experience pain because of the higher overall enrollment combined with relatively low participation by younger residents.

The No. 2 spot in the nation for Obamacare enrollment belongs to Florida, with more than 158,000 residents selecting a health plan on the federally operated website. However, it's not all sunshine and roses for The Sunshine State. 

Florida ranked among the lowest of all states in terms of enrollment by individuals between the ages of 18 and 34. Only 21% of the state's residents in that desired demographic group signed up for an Obamacare-approved plan.

California leads the pack by far in total enrollment, with almost 499,000 residents signing up on the state's exchange. That's the good news -- sort of.

The bad news is that only 25% of those enrollees belong to the younger age group that insurers really want. While this percentage stands a tad higher than the national average, it's still much lower than experts expected. And because California's total enrollment is huge relative to all the other states, there could be difficulties ahead with such a low number of younger, healthier individuals signing up.

Few tears will likely be shed for the most visible "victims" of the potential Obamacare disasters that could befall these states. Insurance companies don't receive much sympathy from most Americans.

Aetna (NYSE: AET  ) participates in the exchanges for three of these states -- Florida, North Carolina, and Texas. The nation's third-largest health insurer opted to market insurance on the Obamacare exchanges for 16 states. 

Cigna (NYSE: CI  ) and Humana (NYSE: HUM  ) both sell their individual insurance products on the exchanges for two of our listed states -- Florida and Texas. Cigna probably won't feel too much pain, however. The company doesn't rely heavily on the individual insurance market as a revenue source. 

Humana, though, has already publicly stated that it expects Obamacare enrollees to be less healthy and more expensive than anticipated. The large insurer will probably lose more money than it originally counted on with Obamacare, but Humana is still sticking with its forecasted 2014 earnings for now.

There is another victim of the potential Obamacare disasters facing these and other states, though: the American taxpayer. Obamacare was created with with a mechanism called "risk corridors" that shields health insurers from huge losses. Some have termed this provision as a "bailout" for insurance companies.

Part of the tab for these risk corridors is covered by taxes on insurers who actually make more money than expected from Obamacare plans. At this point, though, low overall enrollment probably means that there won't be many insurance companies in this category. That leaves the rest of the bill to be paid by taxpayers -- millions of Americans who don't benefit from a risk corridor program.

What parts of Obamacare could be disastrous -- or even delightful -- for your finances?
Obamacare affects you in more ways that you probably realize. In only minutes, you can learn the critical facts you need to know in a special free report called "Everything You Need to Know About Obamacare." This free guide contains the key information and money-making advice that every American must know. Please click here to access your free copy.

Read/Post Comments (122) | Recommend This Article (67)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 2:25 AM, ImtheBaldEagle wrote:

    Curious! I thought those young people up to 26 years old would be covered under their parents policies. I guess those who are head of household are the ones this article is talking about. Still when you take out those 18 to 26 living with parents, that's a lot of money the feds aren't getting.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 2:25 AM, TourLooper wrote:

    ALL states are headed for disaster with this law...

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 4:15 AM, wcraske wrote:

    Even if I were rich, I wouldn't sign up for Obamacare. The premiums, deductibles and co-pays are too high. Frankly, it would be cheaper to pay medical bills out of pocket. This is sad because I am 58.

    This law is repugnant to me because I detest violence, or the threat thereof. I'm just old enough to not care what the government has to say about anything, and I refuse to pay extortion. I am not a slave to be bought and sold.

    Rest assured I will be voting against Mark Begich, in the fall.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 5:02 AM, dale330 wrote:

    Huge $$$ for the insurance companies with this law that forces American citizens to buy into the program, whether they can afford to or not. Insurance companies are already hugely profitable, but they want to offset their coverage costs even further by penalizing young, healthier Americans to make up for the costs incurred from injured or unhealthy patients. Couple that to a website that was quoted as being "a hacker's dream" and I'd much rather pay the penalty than high cost insurance that I cannot afford along with a high risk of identity theft to boot. This program needs to be repealed until something much better for the people is put on the table.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 5:25 AM, Bildog13 wrote:

    If you ever notice in all these articles you will always read enrollees. You do NOT ever hear about how many actually went and paid the first month premimum!!! Because the difference between an enrollee and confirmed cover person are NOT the same!!! An enrollee is a person that visited the exchange and provided personal info. A comfirmed insured person is one that actaully paid for insurance out of thier own pocket!! Almost No one has paid from thier own money and they do NOT want you to know this truth!!

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 5:47 AM, JoeMahma wrote:



    Can we stop talking about the stupid website now and concentrate on the one overriding, glaring, obvious problem with the ACA? - That it's not *affordable*.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 6:44 AM, rayrock1 wrote:

    How many of the young folks signing up are the healthy ones and how many have chronic conditions that will costs insurers more?

    I would suspect that many of the young healthy sub 26 year olds are on their parent’s policy.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 6:55 AM, gfbarch wrote:

    There was a comment made about those under 26 yrs of age getting coverage under parents. But in that situation the gov does not give tax credits to help pay for the dependent coverage. So those younger folks would have to go the exchange for help in buying insurance. But we also must remember that there are young people who are sick too. And that is likely who signed up for exchange coverage--the young and sick. Ppl have priorities and when it comes to an unlimited talk and text plan that they use daily vs health insurance that sits unused waiting for a potential catastrophic event, we all know what the choice is likely to be.

    As for having no sympathy for insurance companies, Americans should think again. These companies provide good jobs to Americans. The grunt work such as processing claims has long been outsourced to foreign countries. When the insurance companies no longer have a need for marketing departments and underwriters, most of their operations will overseas. The new requirements for specific loss ratios and the rising cost of IT with the gov requirement for more and more technology specs will eliminate more and more jobs until there are only administrative services left to be outsourced by the government.

    That is if the government can afford to subsidize next year's premiums which should be much higher than those now seen. We don't have national health care. We have national health insurance. The current administration had neither the talent nor the spine to implement a national health care system.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 6:58 AM, frk1099 wrote:

    "Sign the bill then we'll read it."

    Sound familiar???

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 7:13 AM, cubsfool100 wrote:

    These 5 states sure add up to alot of electoral votes come 2016!!!!

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 7:21 AM, dougflem wrote:

    Anything the lib dems say or do will cost you. 5 states will grow to dozens...example = "what difference does it make?" said billery.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 7:21 AM, JePonce wrote:

    You forgot to mention the disaster to 308 million whose rights have been eliminated.

    The right to free choice of selecting from the free market a policy designed to meet their individual needs;

    The right to keep an existing policy of their choice;

    The right to keep a physician of their choice, familiar with their specific medical needs;

    Their 4th Amendment right to keep private their personal medical papers;

    Their 1st Amendment right to practice their religion as dictated by their conscience.

    When government eliminates your rights, government eliminates your freedom.

    When government owns your health, government owns you.

    Frederic Bastiat said, “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

    HL Mencken said, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”

    Our Executive branch of government, our Legislative branch and our Judiciary are the most corrupt in American history, and are hell bent on destroying our nation in their greed for absolute power.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 7:24 AM, Mathman6577 wrote:

    All states are being affected by the law. It is time to stop conquering and dividing the country into little fiefdoms.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 7:37 AM, Carrot1530 wrote:

    Using enrolment numbers to rank states is wrong, they should be ranked based upon the percentage of the population in that state that enrolled to get a true picture.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 7:42 AM, gentlemanjim wrote:

    How anybody could possibly think the gubment would be able to run anything efficiently is beyond me.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 8:15 AM, ronboltp wrote:

    Obamacare is a disaster. What surprises me is that it is in trouble in only 5 states. Obama keeps making illegal delays until after the November elections. Why is this not against the law? It would be if the Republicans were doing it.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 8:16 AM, WTF1953 wrote:

    We need single payer for all...

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 8:19 AM, jdmotfool wrote:

    The young people should realize that Obama care is another way for the government to take money from you. I am in my 50s and have paid a lot for the previous generation's (people now in their 70's and 80's) retirement and healthcare. It was a total con-job. The best way to get money back now is to reduce the benefits paid to current retirees. They received more than any of us will. Take some of that money back now before it is all spent on people who didn't work hard and expect the rest of us to pay for their retirement.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 8:30 AM, deweylasv wrote:

    What this article failed to mention is that of the 25% of young enrollees, 79% receive subsidies! which means they are paying customers and/or they are very sick and/or not working. That leaves approx 5% of the total across the country, that fall onto that category. Peanuts! REPEAL IS INEVITABLE!

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 8:40 AM, obamabarry wrote:

    Not sure where they got their numbers but in Texas, the only people signing up are those signing up for medicaid, which is free.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 8:43 AM, flashgo47 wrote:

    Please give it a break! Nothing too bad will happen because most of the people and all smart people will have the best health care ever. If it cost more at one point than expected. So What!!! Long term it will be cheaper.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Volleyball wrote:

    I do have a chronic condition and I am 63 years old. It will cost me about $1000 a month with a subsidy from the government.

    I work as an independent contractor. I don't get a regular pay check. There are lean periods and a few good periods when I have money.

    The government simply expects everyone to have the money every month to pay premiums but I don't always.

    I am actually paying more for medical care with Obama Care - a lot more, but I have no choice. I was one of the uninsured.

    I believe in single payer.

    If I quit working and went on welfare, I would do just fine under Obama Care, but I'm not ready and I resent having the government - or an insurance company for that matter telling me what doctor I can see or what the treatment for my condition should be.

    It is a sucky plan because President Obama tried to placate the Republicans who never went along with anything in the plan in the first place.

    If the Democrats had of had any backbone, they would have passed Medicare for all, but they didn't so not we are screwed again.

    I do not know how I will pay for this crap.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 8:45 AM, JDK wrote:

    Notice the "499,000" for California!

    Gee I wonder why that is?

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 8:48 AM, XCalburLdy wrote:

    I live in NY one of the states that is supposed to be hit bad by the ACA. What I want to know is how this affects medicare? There has been little talk of that. I am young and ill. I have been on Medicare since 2005 when it clicked in, you have to wait 2 years after becoming disabled to get it. So basically I have been sick since 2003. I have had multiple surgeries and plenty of medical bills since medicare only pays 80 percent, and trying to live on 900 a month is insane. So all those bills went to collection. Now I have an advantage plan for medicare through Humana. They pay all the up front costs and I have no deductibles or co-pays. It cost me 125.00 a month. It was way cheaper than my regular Dr bills that were over 400 a month. I wonder how this will effect all that I am covered for and what cost it will be to me after this tanks the first year. It's really sad to be 38 and this sick with 5 abdominal surgeries and a slew of other health issues and i don't qualify for transportation and i live in a rural remote area and have to depend on rides from people. The closest public transportation system is over 40 miles away, and the closest supermarket takes over a half hour to get to. This is not how I wanted to live it is how I have to live. my mom is elderly and handicapped as well and if we don't stick together I would be on the street. She is at least old enough for senior housing, but I would be lost. I have no other family that would take me or that matters (step family) and this is not how I pictured my life to be. I grew up on long island with access to everything 24/7. bus, train, taxi, and there was nothing i could not get to by walking or on a bike. Stuff was open and there was stuff to do. Now I live in a hole in the country in the Adirondacks that the only thing in town is a garage and a bar. My neighbors are all 4 or 5 miles apart and everyone is retirement age. What I am supposed to do! Thank God for internet cause i cant afford cable, this is the only luxury i allowed myself was internet and that it is thru the phone company. I can't afford extra bills. But without this I would have no access to the real world that is out there that I wish I could be a part of again, but I'm stuck here, until my mom dies, then maybe I will be old enough for the retirement community and have a place to live, if I don't snap and start blowing bubbles first.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:03 AM, JCtexas wrote:

    I disagree with who the victims are in this debacle. The victims are the middle class because these insurance companies will not continue losing money. They will simply raise rates until they are back in the black. The middle class will be saddled with picking up the cost.

    To an even greater extent the American people as a whole will be the victims. The ACA will fail. It will be so bad prices will spiral out of control having us all beg for a single payer system, which is the true intention of the ACA to begin with.

    Sick? Great! With socialized medicine you will get to see a doctor and get treatment as long as you are still sick 6 weeks later when your earliest appointment will be.

    If you are still sick 6 weeks later congratulations, you will get a diagnosis! Lucky for you, you have something that is chronic and serious.Too bad you will have to leave the country to get the latest and greatest treatments.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:15 AM, gramma77 wrote:

    ocare is anything but affordable! I, like a lot of people, thought kids up to 26 were covered by their parents plan, did he change this mid-stream? Why are unions not required to buy? Why aren't muslims forced to buy like Little Sisters of the Poor? Why hasn't someone impeached the lying king??

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Bildog13 wrote:

    @Keith Spreights; Here is a better topic for you to write about. I challenge you to name 5 states that are NOT headed for disaster under the ACA!!! You will NOT write about this becuase you cannot name 5 states that are thriving or functioning in the red under this abortion of a law!!! And you cannot even find 5 states that are even breaking even under this law

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:18 AM, FJKSr wrote:

    The entire U.S. and the vast majority of our citizens are headed for a disaster with ObeymeCare. The only good thing that will come of this disastrous law is the good ole fashion drubbing the Dems. or going to take in NOV14.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:20 AM, rationalist wrote:

    While the number and mix of people signing up for coverage through the exchanges may not be enough to ensure that the premiums collected cover all of the costs, that is no more of a disaster than the existing system of providing medical care in this country. Everybody's premiums are already higher by a significant amount due to uninsured people using the emergency room as their only healthcare. In addition, since they don't have any preventive care available, when they do get to an emergency room their treatment is often more expensive and less effective. That is the real disaster.

    While the ACA may not be the best way to deal with this issue, it is certainly better than the status quo that it replaced. Under the previous system many people faced the choice of going bankrupt or dying, or as often as not going bankrupt then dying. We had insurance companies who called everything from a hangnail to being born over average birth weight (both real examples) preexisting conditions that were used to deny access to medical insurance. They also had lifetime caps such that if you ever got really sick with something that needed long term expensive care, your benefits ran out long before your treatment did, leaving people who thought they had coverage high and dry.

    Premiums had been increasing at double digit percentages up until about 4 years ago. Since then the increases have actually been below the overall rate of inflation. Whether the ACA had anything to do with that or not is debatable, but repealing the ACA will not prevent continued massive premium hikes. Something needs to be done about the way medical care is paid for in this country.

    A "free market" approach will NOT do anything to change to costs of services. A free market approach to insurance, as the ACA creates, only impacts competition for insurance premiums. There is still monopoly power when it comes to what we pay for patented drugs. Nothing in the ACA or the system it replaced does anything about that and the resultant exorbitant costs. In either case sick people are paying thousands of dollars or more for drugs to save their lives to help pay for multi-million dollar salaries of drug company CEOs. Rates charged by hospitals, increasingly monopolistic and private, vary widely and also bear no relationship to costs. The ACA starts to put some controls in place to deal with these issues, but much more is needed. The one thing that is true is that going back to the way things were won't make anything better for anyone. We will still have the most expensive medical care in the world and among the worst outcomes on average.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Mathman6577 wrote:

    I think it's time to stop this nonsense of trying to support a failed program. Get rid of it or fix it.

    A hacker just did a test and was able to obtain the records of 70,000 people from the ACA site:

    I have seen a few articles on this site bashing Target and other companies for "allowing" hackers to penetrate their systems.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:44 AM, altrue1090 wrote:

    No concern about lives saved? Only concern is about cost? Life expectancy in North Carolina is 77.8.

    In Massachusetts it is 80.5. Having health insurance does make a difference.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:44 AM, floydhowardjr wrote:

    The Democrats answer every question with the Jack Nicholson line: "You Can't Handle The Truth". We have been corrupted-absolutely! We elected Democrats who would let us do every evil thing our heart imagines without restraint. Now they are doing every evil thing their heart imagines without restraint. Pray for mercy! Ask Jesus to forgive us. America if you lose your coverage, your doctor, your insurance BLAME a Democrat. Next time you go and vote...remember WHO did this to YOU. Democrats! We must all stand up and fight. The time of being too timid to stand up to this corrupt government, the media, liberal education is over. Regulation and taxes could drive all of us to have to beg at the feet of the government for survival and that is what they want. 2014 is a very, very important year. Our way of life is under direct assault from this administration and other liberals. They control most of the media, schools, universities, etc. If we don't vote and encourage our likeminded friends to vote in the next election, we may never have another chance to save the country. What more do you have lose to wake up?

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:45 AM, clloyd53 wrote:

    The key words for this article is. The potential market size of the uninsured. Like the uninsured are so because of lack of opportunity are marketing. Most uninsured are so because they either can not afford insurance. Or their money is already being spent on other marketing schemes like booze, drugs, automotive, style and electronics, With people being bombarded with marketing schemes 24/7 you must figure that nobody can afford to buy int all of them. The idea that the people are sitting on piles of money by corporations and government the same as the wealthy and our great leaders are is a crock of crap. There is only so much money in the country. And ten percent of the people. Have 90 percent of that money.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Boquerum wrote:

    Well, insurance business is based on statistical projections describing the pool of members.

    1. A gent mentioned that those under 26 can umbrella under their parents till that age. Not their spouses or children.

    2. Yes, those in the "younger" population are healthy. But still require medical attention at some point! Mostly when they are between 1 month a 10 yrs of age! or when they break a leg at the gymnastics class or receive a punch in the eye playing basketball!

    3. and if are 14 or more of age and are pregnant!

    So those believing they will never need medical attention will continue to treat themselves with Vick or Lydia Pynkham!

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Leo wrote:

    I'm curious about the math regarding the 40% share anyway. Shouldn't the healthy contributors need to actually outnumber the sick? If the sick which will always be using the insurance and contributing MORE than their share of expense total 60% of the insured, won't they be costing so much more than that? I think what the fuzzy obamacare math relies on is that that 40% pays into the pool yet contributes close to zero percent of the expense. Hey... what can go wrong there, huh?

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:56 AM, sabebrush6 wrote:

    Forced purchase by the gov't for a commercial product you don't feel you need, should be a hanging offense.

    They forgot to mention the other 45 states where the majority of the people don't give a rats @ss about obamacare either. These states just have more lowlifes on Medicaid ( you know, the welfare bunch) but they didn't want to show those.

    If this offends you --- good. Get off your butt and start taking care of yourself by being personally responsible instead of living off the working people.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Boquerum wrote:

    Many issues suggested in all comments.

    The most significant is AFFORDABILITY!

    The reality is that the normal individual cannot afford to live the american standard of living which has grown to become too high!

    Please do not respond with: "You can leave if you want", because then half the Born Citizens would need to consider that crazy proposition and selfish notion!

    Who would serve the needs of the remaining half! Then the wealthy would not be enabled with their wealthiness!

    The problem with all programs directed at providing equity and accessibility to all is affordability! The section of the population that "HAS" is not willing to "ENABLE" the section of the population that does not not. Thus causing the lack of wellness for all in the process of "fighting" about it!

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:58 AM, nvwildoates wrote:

    I know of 3 families in CA that are Illegals, and they have signed up for Obamacare, they love it. For some reason I thought this was not for Illegals, but now I know different. First let them have Drivers License, and become Lawyers and now insurance, Glad we are a country just rolling in dollars...

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Leo wrote:

    Ultimately, this program is an attempt to help those that find help too out of reach. If it does that then I'm all for it. I don't like the 'socialized' nature of it but again... if it indeed helps the intended targets then I will suffer the consequences. I say that because the cause is just however much the effect hurts. I don't care much for big government but the #1 objective of a government is to protect ALL of the people which they govern. Don't tell me that this does not work... just tell me what works better!

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:03 AM, SSA wrote:

    Adk NY

    if you are on SSI full disability,you can get a HUD sponsered apartment with your mother....

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:18 AM, bigsunday wrote:

    The biggest disaster was not mentioned. In Oregon, a solid leftist Progressive Democrat State, not one person enrolled. This State voted for Obama twice and would likely vote for him again if allowed, but they shun his policies. Maybe they should vote Republican.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:24 AM, ibuylowandsellhi wrote:

    The headline of this article has a typo the author needs to correct. It should say,

    "50" not "5".

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:25 AM, buzzltyr wrote:

    This is the latest republican talking point for the week, on how it will be a disaster if not enough young people sign up. But Kaiser reported if the % stay at this level it would only be a 2% premium increase.

    One after another, all the reasons that aca will fail. What is failing is the republican party

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, RFTECH3000 wrote:

    you pass a law that allows 18-26 year olds to stay on their parents insurance but then you stand amazed that enrollment of the 18-34 year old demographic is low ? you must be a special kind of stupid !

    but that's yet ANOTHER example on how bad this law is and that the architects of this monster didn't use their brains too much

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM, wspaulding wrote:

    Obama Care is a lose-lose program. First of all where are the 100’s of billions of dollars needed to pay for the subsidies? If 1 million Americans sign up for the medium Silver Plan with a $1300 subsidy that cost is $1 Billion 300 thousand dollars. Then there is the $10,000 family deductible for that plan. That is 20% of a $50,000 family income. A typical family cannot survive if 20% of their income is used to purchase health insurance and another 10% is used to pay for the deductible. Obama Care is a financial disaster for the government, the insurance companies, and worse of all the beneficiaries. Take it away quickly before we don't have any operational functional health care system in the country.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:29 AM, RFTECH3000 wrote:

    and of those young adults that did sign up just how many are healthy ?

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:32 AM, RFTECH3000 wrote:

    There is a much bigger disaster looming and its going to hit all the states that opted for the Medicaid expansion !

    You have millions of new enrolled but at the same time you have a provider pool that is shrinking and not expanding , this creates a big problem because it will lead to significant wait times and difficoulties of patients to find a provider

    most of those newly enrolled are not going to be happy

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:35 AM, cupera1 wrote:

    The only people that are signing up for Obamacare are individuals that have severe preexisting conditions and are currently paying extremely high medical bills or older people that cannot get into Medicare. Also add in the people that make too much for Medicaid but do qualify for the big subsidies. The vast majority of people, 80% to 90%, that are signing up in the state or the federal run exchanges are getting Medicare/Medicaid not Obamacare, they pay nothing for M/M. 19 million people that lost their health care in 2013 because their plans don’t meet the Obamacare standards. The actual number of young healthy people that have a good job that would be paying $300-$400 a month in premiums is less than 1000.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:37 AM, RFTECH3000 wrote:

    According to recent surveys 89% of people who enrolled in obamacare already had insurance , so out of 2.2M only 264K were uninsured , not really great news for democrats and a big sign that the ACA is failing !

    And here is another red flag : out of the 32000 young adults signed up in TX only 8000 are considered healthy !!!!!

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:37 AM, BankerMary wrote:

    It's a great "affordable" plan, my wife and I are both in early 60's, I went to the site filled in the blanks, entered 40,000 for total income, we are both on a couple medications, calculations show, after we pay for our medications, the affordable care premium, deduct 15% for Taxes, we have just over 19,000 a year to live on, now that's affordable care, just over 50% of our total income is used to pay for health insurance, taxes and monthly medications. Thank you Mr. President. My wife can quit her job and we would end up financially better off on food stamps, and with a single income, makes sense to me. Why work when if we stay at home the government will pay us more than if we work.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:40 AM, RFTECH3000 wrote:

    Who signed up for obamacare ?

    1.) People with pre existing conditions who were

    uninsured or had insurance but paid extreme

    premiums !

    2.) self insured older people who are too young for

    medicare using obamacare to get lower rates

    3.) freeloaders using the Medicaid expansion to

    lower their insurance premiums

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:44 AM, tom33952 wrote:

    Single payer solves the problem by enrolling every citizen and legal resident. Single payer also saves money by processing claims more efficiently because CMS does not need to make a profit, reward investors, or pay taxes on profits. In addition, under single payer it is feasible to implement price caps based on cost-benefit studies as is done in Canada, Europe, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, which is why those nations pay about 1/4 per capital for medical care.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:48 AM, JoshSmart wrote:

    I would like to know how many of those 18-34 enrollees are getting subsidy. As far as I can tell, the majority of enrollees are those who have trouble getting insurance on their own either due to pre-existing conditions or low incomes. Adding these people will only bankrupt the system.

    This is the direction California is heading. Look out for tax increases in the very near future.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:49 AM, shorebreeze wrote:

    My question for the critics of Obamacare . . . . how many of you regard it as a half-measure that leaves health care insufficiently reformed and too expensive, and how many of you believe we should go back to the old system? My point of view is we had to do something before health care inflation made it prohibitively expensive to live or work or do business in the US, and this legislation, which delays the day of reckoning but probably doesn't prevent it, was the best we could do given how many politicians have been bought off by lobbyists to try to weaken health reform or block it altogether. But, like any law, it can always be revisited in the future. However, going back to 50 million uninsured, no cost controls whatsoever, simply allowing procedures to cost three times what they do in any other country, pre-existing exclusions, and one employer after another cancelling health care coverage because it isn't affordable -- that should not be an option. And that's why I won't touch a politician that simply says, "Repeal it!"

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:07 AM, sogole wrote:

    People just cannot afford this law.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:14 AM, peterwolf wrote:

    California is not a 'potential disaster'. It is ALREADY a disaster. Why do you think people are fleeing the state in droves?

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:14 AM, BobL53 wrote:

    A key bit of information in this report is demonstrating how skewed the numbers could be. I myself obtained "better" health insurance due to Obamacare but as one with income over the limits I contact an insurance provider directly and skipped the exchange. One of my sons (in the under 35 age range" also skipped the exchange due to their income taking them out of the ranks of potential credit recipients. So how many 18 to 34 or just 27 to 34 year old persons did acquire insurance but not through the exchange? That number may create an entirely different set of numbers. If you use the FL numbers I get it as it is a retirement state so the number of residents applying would automatically be be in the upper age range. This whole issue has created a knee jerk reaction that's giving the media and the nay-Sayers lots of fodder to work with. Do I like Obamacare - No, Do I appreciate Obamacare - Yes because as a self employed person over 50 I acquired much better insurance.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:16 AM, ObamaStinks wrote:

    ObamaCare - a deliberate, reckless apocalypse created and dictated by Democrats....Remember that. Vote 100% of all Democrats out of office this year. Teach them a lesson.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:18 AM, whyaduck1128 wrote:

    I signed up, but only because my current insurer jacked my premium up 24% in one year, on top of over 15% per year increases the previous five years. In all that time, I had ONE year in which I even met my deductible. Now I can hardly WAIT until I try to use my new coverage, as I know nothing will be covered and somehow I'll always be out-of-pocket.

    As for the failure of the young and healthy to enroll, well, gee, there's a shocker. What will be equally non-shocking is when the federal government grants a waiver to those young-and-healthies until just after the 2016 elections, for fear of alienating a vital Democratic demographic. You and I ("I" being 58)--"Get your a** back to work and make enough money to support our key voters!"

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:22 AM, JABSR1947 wrote:

    When Obama care was enacted by Congress, Democrats controlled BOTH the House and the Senate, as well as the Presidency. In spite of this, some people here believe that it's the Republicans fault that Obama care is a disaster.

    Explains a lot about why this Country has so many problems.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:28 AM, ObamaStinks wrote:

    The ACA is the most destructive legislation in American history - the Democrats may as well have just lit the country on fire....this country is now toast.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Lovesmusic wrote:

    You are not saying how many of these "enrollees" ended up with Medicaid coverage. Also have those young and healthy "enrollees" actually paid their first premium and will they continue to pay those monthly premiums? When it comes to paying for insurance or paying their cell phone bill, which do you think they will pay? After all, for the young and healthy, comforts come first. They are young and healthy, why do they need insurance? Obamacare will strike a severe blow to our healthcare system. Nov. 2014 cannot come soon enough. Hurry, Hurry, Hurry!!

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:32 AM, texasxds wrote:

    Texas has over 25,000,000 people and only 118,000 signed up. And I suspect the ratios are similar in many states. Guess the new law that was supposed to fixed everything isn't so popular. Another government program that is and always will be MESSED UP.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:36 AM, quikzip7 wrote:

    Wow, I must be one of the few lucky ones. I have insurance through my employer and this Jan 1st, my premiums went down - granted not much but they did go down and my coverage actually went up.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:46 AM, piasabird wrote:

    The entire country is headed for a disaster. Under the ACA there are provisions for the Federal Government to cover the losses of insurance companies if they lose money. You will be paying for that too.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:50 AM, SeaDoo wrote:

    Wow, 118,000 residents signed up in Texas.....and they are bragging about that number, seriously. There are almost 7 million residents in DFW area...........that equals .0168%.

    Yep, that's a lot of people that signed up...........

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:58 AM, 10zin wrote:

    Like everything Obama, it doesn't matter. The taxpayer will cover any insurance company losses. The only way to achieve the change Obama desires is by breaking the US financially.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 12:05 PM, AllenElliott wrote:

    How about adding in all these that were thrown out of their policies to the number of uninsured , if they haven't yet signed up for Obamacare Give us a more accurate picture.

    Obama has changed again this law of the land that cannot be changed the imployers can keep their employees insured until after the November 16 voting. I wonder why. He isent even subtle of his intentions. He broadcasts and brags about his illegal doings.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Allforit wrote:

    My son in law has health insurance at his job. It's $80 a month. It won't pay more than $1000 in any month, for any services including life saving surgery if needed. It has a life time cap, it's low and I forget what it is. This policy is junk.For him, my daughter, and grandson to buy "open" policies, it would be about $1200 a month. Since he only makes about $1600 a month, this "plan" won't work. With Obama care, he will pay $77 a month. He still has $1500 deductible.I think those against Obama care and make less than $150,000 a year and have no real insurance, are just fooling themselves. You may be able to afford a simple check up and a blood test, but when you get really ill, who pays?

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 12:46 PM, quacker wrote:

    lets see healthy young people can pay a thousand or more or 95 dollars, what do you think will happen, they arent stupid and they are online

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 12:49 PM, bmmohio wrote:

    I love the part where young adults paying for the elderly. Hmm reminds me of social security, a 20 year surplus in social security that allows Congress to shift money from your retirement to their nieces or nephews government contract that does nothing more than waste are time.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 12:56 PM, globeflyer wrote:

    It would probably be a meltdown of epic proportions without the (coming) bailout by the Obama Admin. Liberals, aka " the Fiscally Naive", never cease to amaze me.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 1:18 PM, syclonedave wrote:

    Obamacare was designed to fail because even if you paid the unaffordable fee, you arnt even covered for medicines to long term care and you pay 60% of any bill you get. Why have insurance? Unril its repealed, all you can do is pay $900/mo for the platinum plan that almost gives you what you had in 2013 when you paid half that amount.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 1:35 PM, TommyPeligro wrote:

    Not a problem for 0bama, he can just take from Medicare AGAIN if ACA needs a cash flow.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 1:38 PM, skeptic271 wrote:

    Instead of fines for not signing up, Obamacare should have done the same thing Medicare does - the longer you wait before signing up, the higher your monthly premiums are, permanently. That provision would affect younger people more than older people.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 1:51 PM, bc33 wrote:

    The mindless opposition to this law gets tiring. People ignore that our medical system has been a mess and in slow collapse for decades. Premiums were rising to a degree that small employers were bailing on offering this benefit left and right. Those of us who were self-insured were avoiding getting care, while watching the expense of the uninsured get cost-shifted into our premiums. The ranks of the working uninsured were growing rapidly. And through it all, insurance companies were making a killing. Someone finally attempts to address the mess and everyone can't wait to sabotage the effort. Look. This is all going to end up in some version of a single-payor model. The only question is what kind and how long the transition will take. The more people keep resisting what is necessary change, the more screwed up and painful the transition will be. Please study the economics of this. In the long run there really is only one possible outcome.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 1:51 PM, ferdiefor wrote:

    People of this country re-elected a socialist.

    We will see how all these people that voted for Obama feel about socialized medicine knowing the hated rich will always have access to the best and the middle class is now being denied access to the best too so they can subsidize the poor meaning they will have to settle for the rest.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 1:51 PM, BayAreaBill wrote:

    It's totally ridiculous to call risk corridors "bailouts for insurance companies". Most insurance companies don't want be forced to cover old and high risk patients, so this provision is necessary to get them to participate in this debacle.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 1:56 PM, Mathman6577 wrote:

    bc33: What is tiring is to read the endless dribble from the law's supporters. It is not mindless to oppose something that is generally bad for most people and for the country as a whole. It is mindless to criticize the people that have had this law forced upon them and to support people that do not have their best interests in mind. The end effect of the law will be higher premiums, higher deductibles, and lower levels of healthcare.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 1:58 PM, MATZOID wrote:

    How long did it takes RomneyCare9 (aka NixonCare, aka AEICare), take to work? About 2 years, I believe. But it kinda works. Don't get me wrong. It is crap. The biggest problem with ObamaCare is that it is the original Republican market based solution. Why can't we grow up and be like all the other adult industrial nations and just have a single payer system?? (Rhetorical question - please don't answer)

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 2:08 PM, KevinO3826 wrote:

    It would seem to me given the numbers which by the way are not complete, Obamacare is doomed. The issue no one seems to report about is the fact that we are only talking enrollees, not paid plans. I am betting that will drop the percentages at least 10 points. Big difference between paying and enrolling. There were so many ways that the insurance affordability could have been handled better but was not. The democrats have to own this one from start to finish. In additional one big issue I see coming by way of the courts will be the challenges to Obama making changes to the law without congressional approval. No one has reported the cases filed to date yet. Obama keeps circumventing the constitution to try and save himself. And to anyone that thinks that the risk corridors are not a bail out, by simple definition it is a bailout.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 2:28 PM, ride4vets wrote:

    Amazing that the comments still do nothing but mimic the old line Washington is still using, it's the insurance companies fault. Sorry not anymore, Washington is setting the rates and what coverages you will and will not receive. This is no different than Flood Insurance, FEMA runs that one and Dept HHS runs Obamacare. THey have to process everything through the insurance companies because the Government is not allowed to sell you anything period. That's why you go through the insurance carrier. They have absolutely no say what so ever as far as coverage or cost is, that's all from Pelosi, Reid, Obama and HHS.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 2:38 PM, williered wrote:

    Love the combination of the words "disaster" and "Obamacare." Actually, because the idiot cares nothing about US citizens, the term Obamacare is an oxymoron. It should be named "Obamacouldcareless." Three more years and the lying, two faced Muslim lover goes back where he belongs, the murder capital of the U.S., Chicago.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Kelly wrote:

    I notice that the motley fool articles about obamacare used to be completely positive, along the lines of "it's the law, it's a lock, it can't fail."

    Looks like reality is finally setting in. It's only going to get worse, too.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 3:26 PM, BarackulasFools wrote:

    There is one little thing no one seems to ask, and no one is for certain not reporting about these numbers, ( JUST HOW MANY OF THESE PEOPLE WHOM HAVE SIGNED UP FOR ACA ARE ON THE FREE EXPANDED MEDICAID SIDE?

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 3:39 PM, James27 wrote:

    Well, what did they expect. The young ones are smart and will take advantage of the fines that will be imposed on those who do not sign up. The fines will be cheaper than the insurance premiums, and the young ones don't have the health problems that older people do. Take away the lower fines, make the fines higher than the premiums, and watch what happens.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 3:42 PM, johncarter55 wrote:

    Fools voted for a fool who thought he was in Dubai...running his game in a country that is being financially disrupted.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 3:56 PM, patty92025 wrote:

    People are assuming that the 18-34 age group is healthy. I bet a large portion have pre-existing conditions. Also they are saying that the majority of the people signing up HAD insurance before. There are very few NEW insured. Also they say that 4 million are on medicaid now because of Obamacare they didn't say that 3.7 million were on it already. Government is claiming a lot of people of Obamacare its all lies.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 3:58 PM, patty92025 wrote:

    Since pre-existing conditions are covered now people don't have to get insurance until they have a problem. I'm sure a lot of people are going to wait because the premiums and deductibles are so high.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 4:03 PM, ehuud wrote:

    It is impossible for any program headed by The Messiah to have a problem. He and everything he does or endorses is perfect. HEIL OBAMA!

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 4:09 PM, natashalawyer wrote:

    Was that a typo of did they intentionally leave out the zero? This nation-killer scheme has negatively affected everyone I know and I teach at a university. My mother-in law lost her IBM-provided insurance due to Obama's mandate; her late husband labored 37 years for IBM and earned that excellent insurance package - now she is not even allowed to see her cardiologist and must dip into her savings to pay Obama's health tax. I believe it is time for the American people to revolt against this dictator and see to it he is arrested for his crimes of sedition and treason. I am a woman of color but I am a Christian *AMERICAN* and Obama is empirically neither.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 4:15 PM, natashalawyer wrote:

    Wow! I just noticed the "Thought Police" Gestapo hand to the right of each comment. Did you actually read what this is about? These base and moronic imbeciles are asking you to "report" any opinion you disagree with. I have shared this with my legal class here at the law school I teach at; extra credit to the first student who writes an erudite review of why such a practice is empirically un-Constitutional (I will not have long to wait!)

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 4:34 PM, mistercondo2 wrote:

    This is called Communism.

    Everything forced on you.

    "Thank you, " In-informed for being such an ignoramice

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 4:59 PM, miteycasey wrote:

    My father depends on a government hospital for his health care. He is in his 70's and two weeks ago he was diagnosed with colon cancer. He had his first colonoscopy and found cancer. Yes you read that right he had his first colonoscopy at 70. The Dr. had been giving him a sigmoidoscopy instead. A sigmoidoscopy only looks at the lower half the colon instead of the entire colon like a colonoscopy....why would they do this? To save money of course. A sigmoidoscopy is half the price of a colonoscopy. Never mind his mother had died of colon cancer.

    Luckily they were able to schedule surgery two weeks later. When the day arrived the anesthesiologist refused to put him under due to him having a pacemaker and the OR at this hospital didn't have the ability to 'jump start' the pace maker if it failed. So they call around and schedule him at a hospital that is able to do this...3 month wait.

    Thank you for playing...

    My sister picks up the phone to the hospital that she works and is able to have him operated on 10 days later at a private hospital.

    Be careful what you want with government care. While it may not be 'rationed' there is only so many operating rooms and those can only be scheduled so many times a day.

    There will be only so many Dr. only able to see 20-30 people a day.

    Be careful what you wish for.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 5:34 PM, shineridge wrote:

    The name "Affordable Health Care Act" is a BIG FAT LIE !!!!! There is NOTHING affordable about it. It's going to decimate the economy and DESTROY our health care system. Obimbo Care is gonna be a total DISASTER for the entire nation.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 5:43 PM, OldJim51 wrote:

    OK, Obamacare has been in effect for almost 4 months, the enrollment numbers haven't been met and the young enrollees aren't materializing as hoped. Having read over half the ACA and realizing the writer has exposed another political glitch I missed on tax payers footing the bill if the ACA fails.

    I did find the part about insurance companies being able to opt out if the profit margin is less than 8% for one year.

    Another part is the damage done to previously insured voters that had their policies cancelled for not meeting the mandated coverage. I haven't seen the insurance companies offering to re-instate policies at the pre-cancelled rates and coverage if the ACA is repealed. This is the wording the Democrats infused into to the ACA in 2010, "if funding levels are not met to sustain the coverage and subsidies mandated, rates can be restructured for those insured under the ACA with increase penalties from 21/2% to whatever is needed to Keep the ACA financially solvent."

    Ask your representative if they have read the ACA and what are the plans to repeal it and what will replace it. Right now the ACA is a personal economic suicide pile. Remember this, the ACA was written by Democrats with the President knowing its full contents and fallacies.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 5:49 PM, timstroud wrote:

    I can name 45 more that are headed for disaster under the ACA.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 6:02 PM, dlwatib wrote:

    All states are going to be devastated by Obamacare. As participation rises, the flaws will only get more obvious. Premiums are unaffordable, but even worse, copays are astronomical. You can't afford to use your insurance once you have it! It's worse than having no insurance at all, because if you have no insurance you can often get medical attention on a sliding scale and prescription drugs for free. Individuals were supposed to have bought Obamacare insurance last year (and largely didn't). This year companies are mandated to do the same thing, and they are going to be hit with much higher costs that will show up on their bottom lines. And they can't be quite so nonchalant about not buying insurance.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 7:06 PM, dyanamo1 wrote:

    I think there must have been a typo in the headline - I'm sure it should read: "50 States..." etc. Not 5.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Disgustedman wrote:

    Well, I'm not going to cry. After checking my numbers (On my paycheck) I found out I qualified for Medicare and so THANK YOU TAXPAYERS!! I love a free ride!!

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 7:59 PM, rationalist wrote:

    To all of the people talking about how "Obamacare" is or will be a failure, what then? All Obamacare really consists of is regulations limiting many of the abuses of the existing system and some additional subsidies for lower income people. Other than that, the mandate is the one thing that has changed, and that impacts very few people since the majority of people have insurance through their employers anyway. So, if Obamacare fails, as most of you seem to believe or hope, what are we left with? We just go back to a system where people have no recourse if they get sick and their insurance company cuts them off and continued rapid increases in insurance premiums. All of the premium increases that you are hearing about, which impacts a tiny percentage the people, would have happened with or without the ACA being passed.

    The system of paying for medical care in the US was broken before Obamacare and Obamacare does little to deal with many of the issues. The reason for this is that Obamacare is really a conservative idea, developed by the Heritage foundation. What we really need is single payer like the rest of the civilized world has.

    You may be celebrating what you think is the impending failure of Obamacare, but that doesn't mean that you will be better off if it happens.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 8:01 PM, winbills wrote:

    it is simply amazing....the govt tries to give everyone heath care, and the repubicons act like the sky is falling

    however when the govt lets our jobs to flow to communist china, republicons stand up and cheer out loud.

    i have some news for you republicons

    americans want health care

    americans do not want their job in communist china

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 8:03 PM, tom1948 wrote:

    If you read some of the comments, one would believe that only sick people are signing up for the exchanges.

    People with preexisting conditions are of all ages and income groups. The ACA eliminates exclusions for preexisting conditions. There is no incentive for people with or without a preexisting condition who are not eligible for a subsidy to sign up through the exchange since they can now obtain the same coverage at similar rates directly from the insurance company. I have seen no data published on how many people have purchased new policies directly from the insurers.

    Personally, I am not eligible for the ACA since I am covered by Medicare, but if I were a few years younger, with my preexisting conditions and income too great to qualify for a subsidy, I would not bother with going through the exchange. I expect that is true for many others of all age groups with or without preexisting conditions who do not qualify for a subsidy.

    We don't know right now what makes up each risk pool. Are more sicker people going through the exchanges or are they buying direct? We will not know until the insurers set their premium rates for both exchange and outside the exchange plans next year whether there really was an adverse selection (sicker people selecting exchange plans over direct plans). Until definitive data; i.e., premium rates, are issued, we are just unnecessarily speculating.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 8:27 PM, DanSpeers wrote:

    Actually, Obamacare

    For most signees is working well.

    Rates are cheaper, most getting care,

    In signup states, all's working well.

    Of course, GOP lies are there,

    They fear the truth reveals their hell.

    Yes, I live in Massachusetts,

    And it definitely works here.

    So, if you're so dumb to deny it,

    Don't sign up. Your death, we'll regret.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 8:55 PM, CatDadJohn wrote:

    The corporate press wants the ACA to fail so that we can go back to 48 million people with no coverage and automatic denials of coverage to sick adults and's best for health care stock prices and clearly that is the only moral good.

    - Conservatives can trash the ACA all that want, but until they come up with an alternative plan for health care, then they have zero credibility with me.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:17 PM, jmalaysia wrote:

    The problem everyone has with the ACA is that it's not FREE! I always wonder how many people that complain about it actually have health insurance? No too many I bet. I've had heath insurance my entire adult life. Is it cheap? No way! Has it ever been cheap? Nope. Is it getting cheaper? No! You want to know why? Because for every one insured person that goes to the doctor, 4 or 5 walk in without insurance and never pay a cent! So the Dr raises rates and the insurance rates follow. Except unisured don't go to the doctor- no, they have to go straight to the emergency room for treatment. Instead of paying an $80 doctor bill (pardon- NOT paying), they rack up a $2000 emergency room visit, with no intention of ever paying it. What does THAT do to the cost of heath care and heath insurance?

    I don't know anyone besides myself that has gone through the enrollment process for ACA. Curious, since most people i know DON'T have insurance. I have insurance (individual policy, 100% out of my own pocket), but yet I took the initiative to sign up to check my options. Nobody else even has the initiative to go that far. All they can do is complain about how hard it is (without actually even trying). My current policy is $85 cheaper than the ACA for similar coverage, so I kept what I have.

    Let's hear from some people who actually signed up instead of everyone who hasn't and won't because of laziness.

    And as for Uncle Sam infringing on your rights... I have a right not to pay your medical bill. YOU have a responsibility to pay your OWN bill. Because YOU chose not to do it, you are now being forced to. Do the right thing and this would never have happened. So blame yourself.

    Compare it to McDonalds. If only 1 out of 5 are paying from their Big Mac then the one poor soul that is paying has to pay for 5 for McDonalds to stay open. But as I mentioned earlier, the ones that aren't paying don't settle for just a Big Mac... Nope, they get a T-Bone steak. So know they poor guy insn't buying just his own $5 Big Mac, not even just paying $25 for 5 Big macs. No, he's paying $105 for his Big Mac so everyone that refuses to pay can have a nice juicy steak.


  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 9:28 PM, bladelock999 wrote:

    LOL...I hope all you fools who voted for him suffer the most. Oh, it's not over yet, so enjoy.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 10:28 PM, VegasSmitty wrote:

    Obamacare, like Obama = EPIC FAIL!

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:02 PM, asejm3 wrote:

    Obamacare is doomed to fail because younger folks are not going to sign up. They cant even find a job, let alone paying with this expensive insurance premiums. O-BUM-MA is so s-t-u-p-I-d to figure it out because of his big ego and arrogance overshadowed him. He will soon find out that his healthcare reform is the biggest laughing stock for any president and everything will collapse before his eyes.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:49 PM, annorytaxpayer wrote:

    I live in NC and didn't sign up for that stupid crap. I'm just going to pay the $95 fine and worry more about my other bills like my home and putting food on the table. Even with the fine going up each year I will still make it in the good by paying it each year.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2014, at 11:53 PM, annorytaxpayer wrote:

    @jmalaysia, its not laziness its call being F'in broke. How do they expect people to pay for something that cost 3 to 4 times what they were paying.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2014, at 12:41 AM, gayle wrote:

    I would really like to know how many of these people who have enrolled have paid their premiums and how many were Medicaid enrollees, If I were young I would definitely not sign up for this.. This is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The young are subsidizing the sick and older and uninsured. Why would or should they do this? They are doing good to just have a job and now you want to burden them with this?

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2014, at 12:59 AM, chrismireya wrote:

    Don't blame me: I didn't vote for Obama or the minions of radical Liberals in Congress who created this mess behind closed doors, deemed it passed without having read it and then thrust this Obamacare monstrosity upon the rest of us.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2014, at 4:22 AM, dale330 wrote:

    There are mid term elections this year, which can be critical to getting this money grabbing scheme repealed. Flood your representatives with phone calls and emails demanding they stand up for the people and get this law off the books or we will vote them out of office. They won't do it if enough of us don't tell them to.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Chaseagee wrote:

    Heres a new twist. My brother in law has Stage 4 Hep C. He got in from the army using airgun shots in the 60's. So he needs a treatment for the Hep C. so he can be put in for a liver transplant. So the cost is $24,000. VA wont pay. So he has Medicare. Wont pay. So he tried to get on with ovomitcare. Cant he's got Medicare. So if he cancels his Medicare, then he can go on the ovomitcare site and put in for insurance. Problem is if he is put on Medicaid. Wont pay.

    The Democrats really fixed things well. And yes the entire family is unhappy. We will vote for road kill before we vote Democrat.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2014, at 1:18 PM, UBenHad wrote:

    the law known as "OBAMACARE" is formally known as HB started out as a taxfree housing affordability for members of the military who was serving extended out of the country tours and this had passed in the house of representatives in late 2008 with everybody voting for this bill over to the senate it goes,...somewhere,somehow...the bill,H.B 3590,introduced to the senate chamber and sponcered by the NY DEMOCRAT CHARLIE RANGEL in early 2009 was brought forth to a vote and announced as the patient protection and affordability act HB3590...all bills requiring any moneys paid MUST originate in the house then sent over to the senate where the senate is allowed to make ammendments BUT there must be shell of the original bill that passed in the house in order for the bill to be voted on in the senate..somewhere,some way,someone was paid off.cause the aca says NOTHING about anything to do with the taxfree housing assistance for the members of the military who the original HB3590 bill was passed intended to help those families...we,the people have been had!..the us gov will take ...either by hook or by crook....

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2014, at 1:25 PM, UBenHad wrote:

    the senate or someone and as ezeikele Emmanuel who was the originator and author of the ppaca,who happens to be the brother of rahm Emmanuel,former aid to Obama during the time of the obamacare switch by democrats in the senate,who is now the mayor of the supreme court could let the switch stand as there is NOTHING in the revised senate version which even remotely resembled the house version of the HB3590 BILL which was aimed to help fund housing for overseeas military personnel...the pres needed a bill that oringinated in the house and had the senate switch the bill out and replace it with the obamacare act...THATS HOW WE.THE PEOPLE,GOT SCREWED BY OBAMA!....

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2014, at 1:36 PM, UBenHad wrote:

    oh,the senate voted for the aca bill on Christmas eve 2009..the democrats say the republicans all voted for HB3590 ...YEP,THEY DID! but,it was the original bill which was written and aimed to aid military families with taxfree subsidies for those members who would be on extended stays oversees....NOT for the senate version which is now known as HB 3590 OBAMACARE!....NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE was cast to make this law...every one was DEMOCRAT!.....the senate took a bill and used the Christmas holiday and passed this bill after completely modifying the house version and switched it for the senate version and put it up for a vote on Christmas eve 2009 and of course the house and everybody was on vacay...just as Obama did with the hiring of staff this past dec because the senate and house was on holiday vacay! convenient!

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2014, at 1:37 PM, UBenHad wrote:

    Obama uses the holidays to pass bills unilaterally and on his own to circumvent the laws of the constitution to get his own way...time for an impeachment!.....

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2014, at 3:28 PM, beccaxjo wrote:

    We live in Alabama and Blue Cross cancelled our plan. Our new Obamacare plan is slightly more expensive, but the coverage is MUCH BETTER. So, Obamacare has been good for us.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2014, at 4:01 PM, jmalaysia wrote:

    @annorytaxpayer- It's laziness to not go through the enrollment process to see what it will cost. That doesn't cost a dime. Read what I wrote, not what you want to see.

  • Report this Comment On January 27, 2014, at 3:34 AM, charlytuna123 wrote:

    Forcing only certain Americans to have to buy overpriced COBRA insurance with unattainable high deductibles is a scandal that only benefits insurance companies and doctors. Besides that, what other Federal law ever passed only applied to a select group of Americans? Everyone has to pay into Social Security, and everyone, including those who have private insurance, should still have to pay for the (UN)ACA.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2800877, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/4/2015 5:16:52 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Keith Speights

Keith began writing for the Fool in 2012 and focuses primarily on healthcare investing topics. His background includes serving in management and consulting for the healthcare technology, health insurance, medical device, and pharmacy benefits management industries.

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 16,102.38 -272.38 -1.66%
S&P 500 1,921.22 -29.91 -1.53%
NASD 4,683.92 -49.58 -1.05%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

9/4/2015 4:00 PM
AET $113.47 Down -1.71 -1.48%
Aetna, Inc. CAPS Rating: ****
CI $139.38 Down -2.24 -1.58%
Cigna Corporation CAPS Rating: ****
HUM $181.52 Down -0.64 -0.35%
Humana, Inc. CAPS Rating: ****