Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

[Molinaro]

No it's not. Your blog link is nothing but an argument to incredulity, not an actual refutation of the dollar amount (unless your point is that the dollar amount is closer to $500 million than $400 million which seems to be splitting hairs) The NYTimes pegs the total cost at more than $400 million, and cites the largest single contract for the Obamacare website at $94 million.

I understand the incredulity. It's hard to believe that this amount of money could be waste on something like this. Unfortunately, it's true.

A difference of 20% is splitting hairs?

 

[Molinaro]

In MA we've had mandatory insurance requirements for a few years. I doubt Obamacare is going to effect us much because of this. I have found a plan or two that is cheaper but does not compare to what I have now. I pay for my own and I don't qualify for any subsidies. For me, If I change I pay alot more (same coverage), if I stay the rate only goes up about 15%. Anyway I look at it, i pay more.

I'd be interested to see other peoples experiences in Massachusetts.

ETA: Since "Romneycare" kicked in, the percentage of people that are uninsured is down but costs have continued to rise. My copay for a ER visit was $20, now it's $100 (fortunately I don't go there). Welcome to reform USA.

Everything I've read before now said that for some people it will be cheaper and for some people it will cost more.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I think you're just mistaken. Your overall coverage is sparse or else you would not be paying such a low premium. It's just math.

I've posted the details, it's not a catastrophic plan. It's just facts.

That said, I was referring to the fact that as you get older, your health care is going to rise by a lot when you add in age, a family, and a condition or two. There are ZERO 50 year olds with 60 buck a month coverage.

Yes, that's true. However, most 50 year olds went through the first part of their life with cheap health insurance. But now that the Boomers are old, they have changed the rules to benefit themselves at the expense of the younger members of the country.

My biggest problem with Obamacare, beyond the nigh on tripling of my health insurance costs, is that health care in this country is still not affordable. The law does little to reduce costs. It just redistributes who is paying what.

 

[Newtons Bit]

A difference of 20% is splitting hairs?

Yes. You called it an internet myth. One would expect an "internet myth" would involve something more than a 20% difference.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Perhaps. Can you help us verify your claims?

I'm not playing your game. I will not show you my bank records proving what I'm paying. I will not publish my private health information.

 

[elbe]

I'm not playing your game. I will not show you my bank records proving what I'm paying. I will not publish my private health information.

I certainly see no reason you would have to; what you were paying before, whether others believe you or not, doesn't effect what others were paying before or what they may be paying going forward.

 

[Robrob]

Yes. You called it an internet myth. One would expect an "internet myth" would involve something more than a 20% difference.

Are those goal posts I hear?

 

[Robrob]

Just because I have a good deal prior to Obamacare doesn't mean I'm lying.

I'm not playing your game. I will not show you my bank records proving what I'm paying. I will not publish my private health information.

Well to be fair, on the internet any unsubstantiated extraordinary claim coincidentally and conveniently supporting the claimant's POV is automatically suspicious. It's only reasonable someone would ask questions.

 

[WildCat]

Big change in the healthcare.gov web site today - now there's a button to apply by phone.

I still can't create an account online.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Big change in the healthcare.gov web site today - now there's a button to apply by phone.

I still can't create an account online.

Sounds like you should call them up.

 

[WildCat]

Sounds like you should call them up.

Not a chance. I'm not giving such personal information to a low-wage temporary hire working at a call center somewhere who may or may not fill out the correct information (no way to tell over the phone) or sell the info to ID thieves.

 

[ravdin]

Consumer Reports has some tips for creating an account on healthcare.gov- if you must. Their advice is to stay away if you can. According to the article just 1 in 35 users successfully created an account.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/10/tips-for-creating-heathcare-gov-acount/index.htm

 

[ravdin]

Not a chance. I'm not giving such personal information to a low-wage temporary hire working at a call center somewhere who may or may not fill out the correct information (no way to tell over the phone) or sell the info to ID thieves.

Heh. The NSA couldn't prevent one of its contractors from walking out the door with incriminating files, but we're supposed to trust minimum wage call center HHS employees.

 

[Cleon]

Heh. The NSA couldn't prevent one of its contractors from walking out the door with incriminating files, but we're supposed to trust minimum wage call center HHS employees.

I'm not seeing why a call center employee would be any more or less trustworthy than a website that's been borked since rollout three weeks ago.

Sure, said employee might do something untoward with your personal information. And the website might be storing or transmitting said information in a less-than-completely-secure manner.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Same here Mattus, I've been having 0 problems. I go there daily just to see if there's an error that pops up. Then again, I live in North Dakota, and I don't think it's too flooded here. That being said, I highly doubt that they would enforce the deadline if they knew people couldn't sign up. That would just be stupid.

@Cleon, I wasn't sure if it was a web browser issue, I was just stating that it couldn't specifically be ruled out. Since sometimes Java doesn't agree with Safari. I agree though, it definitely shouldn't be something on the users computer or anything like that.

Does anybody know how the federal exchange is interacting with the various states? Each state handles its own rate filings, and I assume that each state has to provide some information to the feds, and the feds provide some return information when people sign up. Is there a possibility that Widlcat's problems are state-based, and that this might explain why some people have no trouble getting in while others are just left in the wind? The inner workings of computery stuff is pretty much black magic as far as I'm concerned

 

[DavidJames]

I'm not seeing why a call center employee would be any more or less trustworthy than a website that's been borked since rollout three weeks ago.

Sure, said employee might do something untoward with your personal information. And the website might be storing or transmitting said information in a less-than-completely-secure manner.

ODS, general paranoia are among the more obvious possibilities.

 

[ravdin]

I'm not seeing why a call center employee would be any more or less trustworthy than a website that's been borked since rollout three weeks ago.

Sure, said employee might do something untoward with your personal information. And the website might be storing or transmitting said information in a less-than-completely-secure manner.

I can agree that it's far more likely the website is transmitting and storing the data in a less than secure manner.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So here are some numbers about the total number of people signed up via the ACA so far...



Nearly half a million already? Given the glitches in the federal site, that's better than I expected.

State run sites have enrolled more than twice as many per state as the federally run. Given the numbers you provided, we're looking at an enrollment of 6,611 per state in the federally-run states and 17,000 per state in the state-run ones.

ETA: Although to do a decent comparison, we would probably need to take into consideration the size of the populations in those states, and preferably the number of uninsured and the 2013 individual market size. Then we could look at enrollment rate relative to target population.

 

[WildCat]

I can agree that it's far more likely the website is transmitting and storing the data in a less than secure manner.

That's because we already know it is.

Ever go to one of those gas stations where if you want to fill your tank you have to hand your credit card to the cashier because such a quantity is worth more than $50? I don't hand my credit card to a gas station cashier either, I'll find a different gas station.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Does anyone know the answer to this question? I can browse policies via Cover Oregon. In order to purchase one, do I need to enroll, or can I simply buy a policy? If I don't qualify for subsidies, do I need even fill in an application?

If you're purchasing through Cover Oregon, you will need to enroll. Many of the carriers in Oregon are offering the same plan outside of the exchange as they are in the exchange, so if you don't want to deal with the state site, you can go check out your preferred carrier's direct site and purchase there. In addition, at least some carriers are offering different plans outside of the exchange than they offer in it, so if you know that you don't qualify for a subsidy, you have a broader selection available to you (although it will take more research, as there's no "clearinghouse" for the off-exchange plans, and you'll need to look at each carrier. Some might be listed through eHealth, so you might start there).

You will need to fill out an application no matter what route you take. At the end of the day, the carrier needs to know who you are, where you live, your age, etc. I do not know for certain, but the application through the carriers directly might ask for less information overall, since they won't be looking at subsidy information.

Oregon is one of the state's I'm responsible for supporting.