[quote=bearishgurl]
Since then, I have done some preliminary research on coveredca.com. However sketchy the info that is avail on there now, the tax credits based upon adjusted gross income and the premiums which are on there now are likely close to an accurate representation of what they will be, at least in 2014. (I may no longer be a resident of CA in 2015 and I checked the exchange websites of the two states I am considering relocating to and their premiums are approx. $100 – $150 mo less for me than the CA exchange for the Gold and Platinum plans, respectively.)
[/quote]

So it’s ok when you receive subsides in the form of tax credits.

[quote=bearishgurl]
This is the main reason why large govm’t employers such as the City of SD changed over to having “cafeteria plans” in recent years. EVERY represented employee gets ~$6600 to spend per year on healthcare, including dental and vision care if they wish. If they are trying to cover more people than themselves with that, they are going to have a lot taken from their checks every payday UNLESS they sign up for the cheapest Kaiser HMO for everyone in their family, in which case they will have ~$175 mo taken out of their pay for spouse coverage.

This is the fair way to deal with ALL employees.[/quote]

It’s not ok when some employees subsidize other employees.

This is the fundamental problem I have with people who claim these type of programs are good for the whole. It’s really only good for the whole if you happen to be on the right side of the balance sheet where you get a net benefit at somebody else’s net loss. If total medical spending as a percentage of GDP doesn’t go down after the implementation of this program it just means some are net winners while others are net losers.