People are still fighting Obamacare?

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

"taken over by a junta whose ideological nihilism and ignorance of the Constitution often steps over the boundaries of treason"

Okay, extrajudicial executions and indefinite detention policies are pretty bad, but cut Obama some slack.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

"taken over by a junta whose ideological nihilism and ignorance of the Constitution often steps over the boundaries of treason"

Okay, extrajudicial executions and indefinite detention policies are pretty bad, but cut Obama some slack.

I'll give you extrajudicial executions, since Obama seems to have kicked that into a higher gear than Bush, but pinning indefinite detention as Obama/Democrat thing seems unfair.

Honestly the last six months has totally spun me around on Guantanamo Bay. I've gone from "come on you coward, let's get this thing done" to "holy sh*t, the Republicans really are insane, you absolutely did need 100% of your political capital to barely squeak through your hallmark program of 'hey, maybe we shouldn't let poor people die by the thousands of preventable causes' and that whiny 'we can't spread our focus' excuse was actually 100% true, sorry man."

I was going to do a review of the DNC and GOP websites as a one off, but they both suck too.

Yonder wrote:

Honestly the last six months has totally spun me around on Guantanamo Bay. I've gone from "come on you coward, let's get this thing done" to "holy sh*t, the Republicans really are insane, you absolutely did need 100% of your political capital to barely squeak through your hallmark program of 'hey, maybe we shouldn't let poor people die by the thousands of preventable causes' and that whiny 'we can't spread our focus' excuse was actually 100% true, sorry man."

Indeed, the GOP's transparent flip on Guantanamo, coupled with their continued obstruction, are a pretty perfect encapsulation of the nihilist junta of which I spoke.

Demographics were released from the WA exchange.

The Washington residents who signed up for health insurance during October come from across the state and are also economically diverse. Most applications have come from one-person households and about 22.6 percent of the enrollees buying private plans were in the 18-to-34-year-old category. More than half are between the ages of 45 and 64, about 19 percent were 35-44 and the rest are under 18.

"Young adults are a critical target for us and it is great to see that 6,000 young adults between the ages of 18 and 25 have signed up for health coverage in just the first month," said Michael Marchand, spokesman for the Washington Health Benefit Exchange.

Only 328 in that age range signed up for private policies. The rest will get free insurance through Medicaid.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/1...

I wonder how many people will note that we are signing up people at 5 times the rate that Romneycare had in the first month. They had .3% of the uninsured population sign up while we're currently at 1.5%. And; most people procrastinate as well and sign up in the final days they can. As long as the site is fixed eventually things will be fine.

Edwin wrote:

Demographics were released from the WA exchange.

The Washington residents who signed up for health insurance during October come from across the state and are also economically diverse. Most applications have come from one-person households and about 22.6 percent of the enrollees buying private plans were in the 18-to-34-year-old category. More than half are between the ages of 45 and 64, about 19 percent were 35-44 and the rest are under 18.

"Young adults are a critical target for us and it is great to see that 6,000 young adults between the ages of 18 and 25 have signed up for health coverage in just the first month," said Michael Marchand, spokesman for the Washington Health Benefit Exchange.

Only 328 in that age range signed up for private policies. The rest will get free insurance through Medicaid.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/1...

Doesn't surprise me at all. Like I predicted earlier, the people more likely to listen to the detraction and scare mongering are the older people. Young single people are the ones least likely to listen to Fox News and Radio about identity theft and the 98 other problems Obamacare is going to have, which means that the exchanges are going to have the healthiest people for a few years.

Assuming people can sign up that is.

I understand that good news is in short supply here, but a 95% Medicaid sign up rate for younger people isn't really something to celebrate, at least in terms of the long term viability of Obamacare.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I understand that good news is in short supply here, but a 95% Medicaid sign up rate for younger people isn't really something to celebrate, at least in terms of the long term viability of Obamacare.

I thought its purpose was to make sure everyone has some form of medical coverage, not to turn a profit.

No? Cost, not profit - the first word in the title of the law is "affordable", not universal.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

No? Cost, not profit - the first word in the title of the law is "affordable", not universal.

I'm not entirely sure you want to contemplate the "laws do exactly what their title implies" rabbit hole. It's dark and twisty down there.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

No? Cost, not profit - the first word in the title of the law is "affordable", not universal.

Universal = socialist = bad.
Affordable = capitalist = good.

If you look at the actual law itself, mandates that fine people that don't get insurance, subsidies to help poorer people get insurance, removing pre-existing conditions, letting people stay on their parents plan longer, the main goal is obviously universal healthcare coverage.

Universal - yes, but with a huge percentage of people either leveraging employer healthcare or private plans through the exchanges, so cost still matters and it's not socialist. That's why my original post specified long term good - it's great that 5,700 young people are now covered for free via medicaid, but that doesn't have much impact on the long term prospects of the markets or the individual mandate (ie Obamacare as most people define it). Obviously it's still early, but 300 people isn't nearly enough to warrant any kind of "I knew it" or touchdown dance.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Obviously it's still early, but 300 people isn't nearly enough to warrant any kind of "I knew it" or touchdown dance.

Who signs up for a benefit first? The people who *really* need it or the people who don't?

As it's been pointed out many times before in this thread, the healthcare industry experts have said that the bulk of the exchange sign ups would happen right before the penalties are set to kick in. That would be in February and March.

That's because if you're a relatively healthy young person--exactly the kind of person the exchange needs to make things financially viable for everyone else--you're really not going to think about signing up for Obamacare until you realize you're going to have to pay a penalty. That's the way it happened for Romneycare. That's the way it'll happen for Obamacare.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I understand that good news is in short supply here, but a 95% Medicaid sign up rate for younger people isn't really something to celebrate, at least in terms of the long term viability of Obamacare.

I wasn't celebrating, just reporting the figures.

Oregon f*ck up worse than the Feds.

http://www.king5.com/news/Oregon-hea...

I've heard Kentucky, of all places, actually did pretty well.

More evidence the administration knew the problems with the site were structural and not volume related

The analysis by McKinsey & Company was requested by the White House. It identified various problems with the exchange, including limited testing time and resources before the launch, and found that call-in centers wouldn’t function properly if the website malfunctioned.

The Obama administration has come under fire for the botched October 1 launch of healthcare.gov. The site has been plagued with technical issues barring many enrollees from signing up for the federal exchange though the site. This report suggests problems were brought to the attention of key officials as early as March.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

I'm afraid I don't understand the point. So it's a clusterfu€k. What purpose does this analysis and political circus prove? Fix the damn thing and move on. As has been mentioned before; this is a broken website, not the entire ACA.

Eh, I think it's still valuable to do a post mortem of exactly what happened, and that includes accountability for the people at fault (but by accountability I don't mean "impeach them all and let God install Republicans", and I'm not trying to imply that Norman does)

JC wrote:

I'm afraid I don't understand the point. So it's a clusterfu€k. What purpose does this analysis and political circus prove? Fix the damn thing and move on. As has been mentioned before; this is a broken website, not the entire ACA.

There is no Plan B. That's the problem.

MyBrainHz wrote:
JC wrote:

I'm afraid I don't understand the point. So it's a clusterfu€k. What purpose does this analysis and political circus prove? Fix the damn thing and move on. As has been mentioned before; this is a broken website, not the entire ACA.

There is no Plan B. That's the problem.

... why do you need a plan B? Plan A "fix the website" is all you really need.

If plan A fails them your plan B is "delay the mandate for a month while fixing the website."

We're not building these servers on the moon, we've had these, whadoyacallem... internet book thingies for awhile. I don't think we need to start worrying about "but what if it's physically impossible to build the website?" yet.

PoderOmega wrote:

Does anyone actually believe the website won't improve enough over the next few months that people can freely enroll (although may take longer to be "perfect")? I think there are likely several lessons to learn here that even private companies should take note of - specifically on how to properly utilize contractors and underestimating the challenge of integrating different systems. I'm not saying the rollout had to be this way but if the website is really the biggest problem to come out of the ACA then this is going to be one great piece of legislation.

sheared wrote:

Man oh man... this really sucks for her: Woman cited by President no longer able to afford the insurance.

"No longer able to afford"? It sounds like she has no insurance now and she can't afford a $72/month difference between what she was originally quoted due to a mistake on federal subsidy calculation. I know $72/month is allot of money to some families but if she isn't eligible for the federal subsidy that tells me she probably has the $72 per month. The article also mentions she is signing up for the "gold" plan - I believe there is a silver option as well (although she would pay more out of pocket).

She was hit with a combination of the coverage she initially signed up for nearly doubling in price and them taking away her eligibility for the tax credit. She signed up for a $198 a month "gold" plan, but they changed the price on her twice, ending up giving her a quote of $390 for a "silver" plan or $324 for a "bronze" one. She went from being told she'd be able to afford good coverage with the aid of the tax credit, to not getting any tax credit and unable to afford even decent coverage. Hopefully the person that said they're looking into her situation can find something for her. Yeah, she could probably step down her standard of living to afford it, but that's not necessarily as easy as people like to make it out to be, and is still a major change from what she was expecting.

Does anyone actually believe the website won't improve enough over the next few months that people can freely enroll (although may take longer to be "perfect")? I think there are likely several lessons to learn here that even private companies should take note of - specifically on how to properly utilize contractors and underestimating the challenge of integrating different systems. I'm not saying the rollout had to be this way but if the website is really the biggest problem to come out of the ACA then this is going to be one great piece of legislation.

sheared wrote:

Man oh man... this really sucks for her: Woman cited by President no longer able to afford the insurance.

EDIT - Sorry I misread the article, she is up into the $324 range which is a big difference. I'm still not sure why she is unable to afford insurance and not qualify for a subsidy. Just playing around with this shows that the subsidy is fairly generous in my opinion.

Yonder wrote:

... why do you need a plan B? Plan A "fix the website" is all you really need.

If plan A fails them your plan B is "delay the mandate for a month while fixing the website."

We're not building these servers on the moon, we've had these, whadoyacallem... internet book thingies for awhile. I don't think we need to start worrying about "but what if it's physically impossible to build the website?" yet.

Snark noted, but I think you both underestimate the severity of the website problems, and overestimate the ability of the administration to fix them.

Stengah wrote:

She was hit with a combination of the coverage she initially signed up for nearly doubling in price and them taking away her eligibility for the tax credit. She signed up for a $198 a month "gold" plan, but they changed the price on her twice, ending up giving her a quote of $390 for a "silver" plan or $324 for a "bronze" one. She went from being told she'd be able to afford good coverage with the aid of the tax credit, to not getting any tax credit and unable to afford even decent coverage. Hopefully the person that said they're looking into her situation can find something for her. Yeah, she could probably step down her standard of living to afford it, but that's not necessarily as easy as people like to make it out to be, and is still a major change from what she was expecting.

Yeah, you're right. I updated my post, but I still question why she does not qualify for a tax credit but doesn't have enough money for insurance.

PoderOmega wrote:

I'm not saying the rollout had to be this way but if the website is really the biggest problem to come out of the ACA then this is going to be one great piece of legislation.

Given what's happened up to this point, that's a pretty optimistic assessment of the situation.

PoderOmega wrote:
Stengah wrote:

She was hit with a combination of the coverage she initially signed up for nearly doubling in price and them taking away her eligibility for the tax credit. She signed up for a $198 a month "gold" plan, but they changed the price on her twice, ending up giving her a quote of $390 for a "silver" plan or $324 for a "bronze" one. She went from being told she'd be able to afford good coverage with the aid of the tax credit, to not getting any tax credit and unable to afford even decent coverage. Hopefully the person that said they're looking into her situation can find something for her. Yeah, she could probably step down her standard of living to afford it, but that's not necessarily as easy as people like to make it out to be, and is still a major change from what she was expecting.

Yeah, you're right. I updated my post, but I still question why she does not qualify for a tax credit but doesn't have enough money for insurance.

Living beyond her means would be my first guess?

MyBrainHz wrote:
PoderOmega wrote:

I'm not saying the rollout had to be this way but if the website is really the biggest problem to come out of the ACA then this is going to be one great piece of legislation.

Given what's happened up to this point, that's a pretty optimistic assessment of the situation.

That's my point. I think republicans may be risking fatigue on the Obamacare outrage if they are going to keep hammering on website problems. When the real problems hit down the road people may just roll their eyes. We'll see though.