Gee, ya think?!?!!?!!?!?

[kbot]

HealthCare.gov Enrollment Falls Far Short of Target

Fewer than 50,000 people had successfully navigated the troubled federal health-care website and enrolled in private insurance plans as of last week, two people familiar with the matter said, citing internal government data.

The figure is a fraction of the Obama administration's target of 500,000 enrollees for October. The early tally for the HealthCare.gov site, which launched Oct. 1, worries health insurers that are counting on higher enrollment to make their plans profitable.

Technology problems and design flaws have blocked many users from completing insurance applications or even creating accounts to use the site, which serves consumers in the 36 states where the federal government oversees the new health-insurance exchanges.

Scott Trindl, a 59-year-old early retiree in Waukesha, Wis., said he has made attempts at traversing the website part of his daily routine. "I've been stuck," said Mr. Trindl, who hopes the law opens the door to private coverage he has been unable to obtain due to a heart attack he suffered in 2009.

The administration had estimated that nearly 500,000 people would enroll in October, according to internal memos cited last week by Rep. Dave Camp (R., Mich.). An estimated seven million people nationwide were expected to gain private coverage by the end of March, when the open-enrollment period is set to end.


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0709762378

[Cherry Kelly]

Only other thing to add -- of the 50K - actually most went to Medicaid as their options, many who tried to sign up never did, but are counted as having signed up.

Compare it to those who have received cancellation notices in many states. Then add all those states with less than 10 who have even tried to sign up.

---
OK was listening to Rush a bit while sorting more peppers...and gee next year proposed this: "Dems will call for postponement or ..." so they can get Dem votes.

---
OH ya - repeat here, but the Senate Bill was passed 219-212 (Dems ya, R-no) and in House that got the Senate Bill - 60 ya (all Dems and one Independent) - ZERO -- R - R's all NO.

SO ALL of the ACA (ObamaCare) can be placed on the DEM's.

[kbot]

The healthcare group that I work for is in the process of signing-up for our benefits package for next year - everything is to be done online. It's a horror show., Can't imagine what people are going through with the government......

[strindl]

Originally posted by kbot


Scott Trindl, a 59-year-old early retiree in Waukesha, Wis., said he has made attempts at traversing the website part of his daily routine. "I've been stuck," said Mr. Trindl, who hopes the law opens the door to private coverage he has been unable to obtain due to a heart attack he suffered in 2009.



http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0709762378

As the one interviewed and quoted by that WSJ reporter, I think I can bring a bit more perspective to this discussion. First, has the healthcare.gov web site had problems? Oh yes, without question.

I have been a firm supporter of the Affordable Care Act since before it was passed by Congress, and here's why.

I owned a business for 25 years, one that provided health insurance to it's employees. I've seen how that health insurance system we had worked..and didn't work. In the 80's we had about 25 people on my company's group health plan. The wife of one of those employees, who was covered by our plan, got cancer. That resulted in some large claims on our policy. She died after about 7 months, but when our group plan came up for renewal, they more than doubled the premiums for everyone in the group. Basically, they wanted to cancel the group because one of the members had the audacity to submit claims.

I sold my business at the end of 2003 and retired early. I maintained my health insurance group plan, although after the sale of the business, I was the only one left on the group. I paid my premiums in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009..and the health insurance company had no issues with me. THEN...in 2009, I had heart issues that caused some large claims.

Predictably, with the system in place in our nation at the time, when my policy came up for renewal, my insurance carrier suddenly had a problem covering me and said they would not renew the policy. There I was, left with my health insurance about to be cancelled, with a pre existing condition, and shut out of the private insurance market.

I think most people would agree, that system we had was insane. I was able to get coverage even with my pre existing condition, only because the state of Wisconsin had set up a program decades ago , known as Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan, that would cover me.

With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, insurance carriers can no longer deny coverage based on pre existing conditions, and they can't cancel a person's insurance just because they get sick. That sounds reasonable to me, and it should for most Americans.

Btw....since I was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, I have been able to complete my health insurance application through the healthcare.gov exchange. I haven't picked the actual plan I'll be going with yet, but I have a wide range of plans and companies to choose from.

Thanks to Obama Care.

[HB3]

WTF?

[HB3]

[HB3]

Via Jonah Goldberg. Believe it or not, these soulless robots have prepared an actual talking-points memo for the occasion replete with tips on how to plan your “talk.” My favorite: “Integrate the talk into family time.” Good advice — and for my money, the more dramatic the integration, the better. When your cousin pulls out baby pictures of her newborn and tries to pass them around, grab her arm gently but firmly and say, “Hey — isn’t there something more important we should be discussing?”

Don’t be fazed by the stunned silence that follows. That’s your opening to grab your iPad and start the Powerpoint on enrollment that you’ve prepared.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/36 ... h-goldberg

I like the idea that you, by dint of having donated to Obama and happily swallowed endless lies about keeping your plan and your provider network, are necessarily the “voice of reason” at the dinner table this year. In the unlikely event that you find yourself seated across from one of these benighted schmucks, you can play it three ways: One: Deflect. Change the subject. Bring up “The Walking Dead” or how boring the NFL is this year or whether maybe Orwell had a point about statism’s insidious power to dehumanize people by reducing them to cogs in a government propaganda machine. Two: Engage. Ace has prepared a helpful talking-points memo of his own in case you find yourself at a loss upon being pitched on O-Care by the same arrogant little sh*t who called you ignorant for doubting that the program would work at Thanksgiving dinners past. (If Ezra Klein has any conservative relatives, he or she is about to have the best Thanksgiving ever.)

Awesome!

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/25/o ... -exchange/

[kbot]

As the one interviewed and quoted by that WSJ reporter, I think I can bring a bit more perspective to this discussion. First, has the healthcare.gov web site had problems? Oh yes, without question.

I have been a firm supporter of the Affordable Care Act since before it was passed by Congress, and here's why.

I owned a business for 25 years, one that provided health insurance to it's employees. I've seen how that health insurance system we had worked..and didn't work. In the 80's we had about 25 people on my company's group health plan. The wife of one of those employees, who was covered by our plan, got cancer. That resulted in some large claims on our policy. She died after about 7 months, but when our group plan came up for renewal, they more than doubled the premiums for everyone in the group. Basically, they wanted to cancel the group because one of the members had the audacity to submit claims.

I sold my business at the end of 2003 and retired early. I maintained my health insurance group plan, although after the sale of the business, I was the only one left on the group. I paid my premiums in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009..and the health insurance company had no issues with me. THEN...in 2009, I had heart issues that caused some large claims.

Predictably, with the system in place in our nation at the time, when my policy came up for renewal, my insurance carrier suddenly had a problem covering me and said they would not renew the policy. There I was, left with my health insurance about to be cancelled, with a pre existing condition, and shut out of the private insurance market.

I think most people would agree, that system we had was insane. I was able to get coverage even with my pre existing condition, only because the state of Wisconsin had set up a program decades ago , known as Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan, that would cover me.

With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, insurance carriers can no longer deny coverage based on pre existing conditions, and they can't cancel a person's insurance just because they get sick. That sounds reasonable to me, and it should for most Americans.

Btw....since I was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, I have been able to complete my health insurance application through the healthcare.gov exchange. I haven't picked the actual plan I'll be going with yet, but I have a wide range of plans and companies to choose from.

Thanks to Obama Care.

I am not arguing against universal healthcare - in my view we are way behind most of the developed world in this, and various studies bears this out.

What I am against was the manner in which this plan was rushed out to the public - with a deadline to get your paperwork in order or face penalties which were of the government's own creation.

In my view, I would rather that this had been rolled out in stages, such as starting with the pre-exisiting conditions issue. That's a no-brainer and probably could have been managed just by virtue of the law being passed - in other words, as a condition of operating a business for health insurance, you MUST......

Also, Obamacare, the way the law was written - and this just happened again in California - makes all insurances null and void if they don't need to the standards as spelled out in Obamacare. So, because these policies don't measure-up, they get cancelled because the insurance company is now being out into the position of having to cancel them because the law says so.
So, the patient is now left in a position of finding their coverage cancelled, but they can't get online to process the paperwork because the site is down.

Again - start out slow, implement what can be, then move on. In the meantime, develop a website that actually works for everyone, and don' penalize patients because the process that is set-up by the government sucks and is deficient.

Sounds like common sense, but then the government has never been known to possess that in any measurable quantity......

[kbot]

Quoted from #7 above:

"I like the idea that you, by dint of having donated to Obama and happily swallowed endless lies about keeping your plan and your provider network, are necessarily the “voice of reason” at the dinner table this year."


Kinda arrogant posturing, isn't it? Just by donating, "thou knows-all and sees-all"?

Waiting for the next line: "That's right folks, you get it all!!!".

I'd like to be a fly on the wall when the Obama-donor patiently explains to the Millennial son/ daughter sitting at the table, who refuses to purchase insurance because it's going to cost more than just paying the fine.......

[strindl]

WTF?

lol....that's kinda what my reaction was when I saw my name show up in this forum. That article has been echoed all over the world and translated into other languages even.

[strindl]

I am not arguing against universal healthcare - in my view we are way behind most of the developed world in this, and various studies bears this out.

What I am against was the manner in which this plan was rushed out to the public - with a deadline to get your paperwork in order or face penalties which were of the government's own creation.

In my view, I would rather that this had been rolled out in stages, such as starting with the pre-exisiting conditions issue. That's a no-brainer and probably could have been managed just by virtue of the law being passed - in other words, as a condition of operating a business for health insurance, you MUST......

Also, Obamacare, the way the law was written - and this just happened again in California - makes all insurances null and void if they don't need to the standards as spelled out in Obamacare. So, because these policies don't measure-up, they get cancelled because the insurance company is now being out into the position of having to cancel them because the law says so.
So, the patient is now left in a position of finding their coverage cancelled, but they can't get online to process the paperwork because the site is down.

Again - start out slow, implement what can be, then move on. In the meantime, develop a website that actually works for everyone, and don' penalize patients because the process that is set-up by the government sucks and is deficient.

Sounds like common sense, but then the government has never been known to possess that in any measurable quantity......

I agree with much of what you wrote there, but health care reform has been something this country has needed for over a hundred years...Teddy Roosevelt tried and failed to get something passed in the early 20th century. At some point, something needed to actually get done. President Obama did get real health care reform passed by congress and signed into law.. It's not everything he wanted, but that's the way a democracy works...you negotiate and compromise until you get a bill that can get enough votes to pass. That's exactly what happened in 2009 and 2010..it took a year of negotiating.

The big failing of the rollout of the Affordable Care act has been that federal website. This too shall pass, and once people are able to select and buy their health insurance through one of the exchanges, they will wonder how we ever thought our old system was good enough. It wasn't.

[kbot]

I agree with much of what you wrote there, but health care reform has been something this country has needed for over a hundred years...Teddy Roosevelt tried and failed to get something passed in the early 20th century. At some point, something needed to actually get done. President Obama did get real health care reform passed by congress and signed into law.. It's not everything he wanted, but that's the way a democracy works...you negotiate and compromise until you get a bill that can get enough votes to pass. That's exactly what happened in 2009 and 2010..it took a year of negotiating.

The big failing of the rollout of the Affordable Care act has been that federal website. This too shall pass, and once people are able to select and buy their health insurance through one of the exchanges, they will wonder how we ever thought our old system was good enough. It wasn't.

Well.......... that's not all.

I saw a story this morning about a woman who saw her out of pocket costs increase by over 150% from slightly under $500/ month for family coverage to slightly over $1,200 because she was dumped by the insurance company she had been with for years. She went with what was available on the exchange and her rates went through the roof. And this is a pattern being repeated around the country.

From what I am hearing, we had a small minority of people in this country that had insurance issues - couldn't get insurance because their employer didn't provide coverage, couldn't get coverage because of a pre-existing condition and so on.

It appears that the government's solution, while striving to get coverage for all, amounted to imlpementing a plan where, in order for the minority to get coverage, everyone else sees their rates increase and coverage change to now include items that you will never need or use.

An argument can be made that, it is now "fair" for those who couldn't get covergae before to now have coverage, but at what cost?

It's not just about the website.........

[strindl]

Well.......... that's not all.

I saw a story this morning about a woman who saw her out of pocket costs increase by over 150% from slightly under 0/ month for family coverage to slightly over

Originally posted by kbot
Well.......... that's not all.

I saw a story this morning about a woman who saw her out of pocket costs increase by over 150% from slightly under $500/ month for family coverage to slightly over $1,200 because she was dumped by the insurance company she had been with for years. She went with what was available on the exchange and her rates went through the roof. And this is a pattern being repeated around the country.

From what I am hearing, we had a small minority of people in this country that had insurance issues - couldn't get insurance because their employer didn't provide coverage, couldn't get coverage because of a pre-existing condition and so on.

It appears that the government's solution, while striving to get coverage for all, amounted to imlpementing a plan where, in order for the minority to get coverage, everyone else sees their rates increase and coverage change to now include items that you will never need or use.

An argument can be made that, it is now "fair" for those who couldn't get covergae before to now have coverage, but at what cost?

It's not just about the website.........

,200 because she was dumped by the insurance company she had been with for years. She went with what was available on the exchange and her rates went through the roof. And this is a pattern being repeated around the country.

From what I am hearing, we had a small minority of people in this country that had insurance issues - couldn't get insurance because their employer didn't provide coverage, couldn't get coverage because of a pre-existing condition and so on.

It appears that the government's solution, while striving to get coverage for all, amounted to imlpementing a plan where, in order for the minority to get coverage, everyone else sees their rates increase and coverage change to now include items that you will never need or use.

An argument can be made that, it is now "fair" for those who couldn't get covergae before to now have coverage, but at what cost?

It's not just about the website.........

A small minority of Americans had insurance issues? 50 million had no health insurance at all. I wouldn't call that a small minority.

Some of those who didn't have it had made a conscious decision to take the gamble that they wouldn't get sick or hurt. The problem is, sickness and accidents do happen, and when they do, those uninsured still get medical treatment, but it's the most expensive kind. The emergency room.

In Wisconsin alone, 1.2 BILLION dollars a year was written off by hospitals and medical service providers because of care for the uninsured. That increases the cost of health care for everyone who does have insurance. And those 50 million do not have access to preventive care...care that could avoid costly and deadly serious medical problems in the first place.

All insurance works by spreading the risk among a large group. You need to have young healthy people in that group for the model to function. That's why universal health insurance for all Americans is required.

Is it OK for a modern, wealthy first world nation in the 21st century to ignore the health care needs of so many of it's people? If you drive a car in most states, you are required to have auto insurance, even if you are a safe driver who never has an accident. Health care is far more important and up until now, a large part of the US population didn't have access to it because they had no insurance, or the insurance they did have didn't cover preventive care at all.

Just about every other first world nation on earth has universal health care, most using a single payer government system. The people in those nations would never give that up.

Millions of Americans have had a system like that for decades. Ask anyone age 65 or older if they would give up their single payer government health insurance plan.




Your example of the woman whose family health insurance plan went from 500 a month to 1200 a month has issues...your numbers are off. 500 a month for a worthwhile family health insurance plan, is not realistic..it never was, before or after the Affordable Care Act. Maybe that woman's share of the premium was 500 a month, but either that insurance didn't actually cover much, OR her employer or someone else was subsidizing most of the cost.

The affordable Care act offers subsidies to those who need it...EVERYONE who needs it, not just some. The lower the income, the greater the subsidy.

[strindl]

Well.......... that's not all.

I saw a story this morning about a woman who saw her out of pocket costs increase by over 150% from slightly under 0/ month for family coverage to slightly over

Originally posted by kbot
Well.......... that's not all.

I saw a story this morning about a woman who saw her out of pocket costs increase by over 150% from slightly under $500/ month for family coverage to slightly over $1,200 because she was dumped by the insurance company she had been with for years. She went with what was available on the exchange and her rates went through the roof. And this is a pattern being repeated around the country.

I'll call your unattributed horror story, and raise you an attributed success story:

November 25, 2013, 5:45 p.m.
Last summer Ellen Holzman and Meredith Vezina, a married gay couple in San Diego County, got kicked off their long-term Kaiser health plan, for which they'd been paying more than $1,300 a month. The cause wasn't the Affordable Care Act, as far as they knew. They'd been living outside Kaiser's service area, and the health plan had decided to tighten its rules.

That's when they discovered the chilly hazards of dependence on the individual health insurance market. When they applied for a replacement policy with Anthem Blue Cross of California, Ellen, 59, disclosed that she might have carpal tunnel syndrome. She wasn't sure--her condition was still being diagnosed by Kaiser when her coverage ended. But the possibility was enough to scare Anthem. "They said, 'We will not insure you because you have a pre-existing condition,'" Holzman recalls.

But they were lucky, thanks to Obamacare. Through Covered California, the state's individual insurance marketplace, they've found a plan through Sharp Healthcare that will cover them both for a total premium of $142 a month, after a government subsidy based on their income. They'll have a higher deductible than Kaiser's but lower co-pays. But their possible savings will be impressive.


More important than that was knowing that they couldn't be turned down for coverage come Jan. 1. "We felt we didn't have to panic, or worry," Holzman says. "If not for the Affordable Care Act, our ability to get insurance would be very limited, if we could get it at all."

,200 because she was dumped by the insurance company she had been with for years. She went with what was available on the exchange and her rates went through the roof. And this is a pattern being repeated around the country.

I'll call your unattributed horror story, and raise you an attributed success story:

November 25, 2013, 5:45 p.m.
Last summer Ellen Holzman and Meredith Vezina, a married gay couple in San Diego County, got kicked off their long-term Kaiser health plan, for which they'd been paying more than

Originally posted by kbot
Well.......... that's not all.

I saw a story this morning about a woman who saw her out of pocket costs increase by over 150% from slightly under $500/ month for family coverage to slightly over $1,200 because she was dumped by the insurance company she had been with for years. She went with what was available on the exchange and her rates went through the roof. And this is a pattern being repeated around the country.

I'll call your unattributed horror story, and raise you an attributed success story:

November 25, 2013, 5:45 p.m.
Last summer Ellen Holzman and Meredith Vezina, a married gay couple in San Diego County, got kicked off their long-term Kaiser health plan, for which they'd been paying more than $1,300 a month. The cause wasn't the Affordable Care Act, as far as they knew. They'd been living outside Kaiser's service area, and the health plan had decided to tighten its rules.

That's when they discovered the chilly hazards of dependence on the individual health insurance market. When they applied for a replacement policy with Anthem Blue Cross of California, Ellen, 59, disclosed that she might have carpal tunnel syndrome. She wasn't sure--her condition was still being diagnosed by Kaiser when her coverage ended. But the possibility was enough to scare Anthem. "They said, 'We will not insure you because you have a pre-existing condition,'" Holzman recalls.

But they were lucky, thanks to Obamacare. Through Covered California, the state's individual insurance marketplace, they've found a plan through Sharp Healthcare that will cover them both for a total premium of $142 a month, after a government subsidy based on their income. They'll have a higher deductible than Kaiser's but lower co-pays. But their possible savings will be impressive.


More important than that was knowing that they couldn't be turned down for coverage come Jan. 1. "We felt we didn't have to panic, or worry," Holzman says. "If not for the Affordable Care Act, our ability to get insurance would be very limited, if we could get it at all."

,300 a month. The cause wasn't the Affordable Care Act, as far as they knew. They'd been living outside Kaiser's service area, and the health plan had decided to tighten its rules.

That's when they discovered the chilly hazards of dependence on the individual health insurance market. When they applied for a replacement policy with Anthem Blue Cross of California, Ellen, 59, disclosed that she might have carpal tunnel syndrome. She wasn't sure--her condition was still being diagnosed by Kaiser when her coverage ended. But the possibility was enough to scare Anthem. "They said, 'We will not insure you because you have a pre-existing condition,'" Holzman recalls.

But they were lucky, thanks to Obamacare. Through Covered California, the state's individual insurance marketplace, they've found a plan through Sharp Healthcare that will cover them both for a total premium of 2 a month, after a government subsidy based on their income. They'll have a higher deductible than Kaiser's but lower co-pays. But their possible savings will be impressive.


More important than that was knowing that they couldn't be turned down for coverage come Jan. 1. "We felt we didn't have to panic, or worry," Holzman says. "If not for the Affordable Care Act, our ability to get insurance would be very limited, if we could get it at all."

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/ar ... -78330065/

[HB3]

So you're like the people they've got sitting outside Rite Aid now? We've got our own official Obamacare propagandist?

You guys are getting really creepy.

Are they paying you, or are you doing this on your own initiative?