A woman Obama touted as an ACA success story has soured on the law:
Her problem is both simple and complicated. Read this Washington State Wire post for the complicated part. The first erroneous premium quote was due to — surprise — the feds and the state not having their act together in calculating subsidies. The feds were expecting each applicant’s annual income; the state gave them each applicant’s monthly income. That led to a massive overestimate of how much taxpayer money each applicant was entitled to. The second bad quote came from poor advice given by the state itself: They encouraged her to enroll her son, who has ADHD, in the state Medicaid program, but they didn’t tell her that that meant he couldn’t be counted towards her federal subsidies for her ObamaCare plan. After the second adjustment, she was entitled to no subsidy at all. The Kafkaesque result, per CNN: “Now I have been priced out and will not be able to afford the plans you offer. But, I get to pay $95 and up for not having health insurance.”
Suderman piles on:
It’s worth highlighting the fact that this occurred in one of the 15 state-run exchanges that is supposed to be working better than the federally facilitated system covering 36 states. Indeed, Washington state’s exchange has frequently been touted as one of the systems that works the best among the state-run exchanges. But those reports tend to focus on the consumer experience—the ability of a user to smoothly navigate from start to finish in the insurance enrollment process. Yet as Sanford’s story shows, a smooth process can still be frustrated by inaccurate pricing and subsidy information. The same, naturally, would be true of incorrect enrollment data being sent to insurers, another problem that’s apparently pervasive in the federal system.