Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

[MattusMaximus]

But yeah, to summarize: the site needs to be dumbed down, due to its nature. Luckily it seems very straightforward for the most part, but the error handling is mediocre and the password policy is garbage.

Thanks!

 

[Kestrel]

- Password issues which Dessi already explained. There is no reason whatsoever to force a restricted password format on users. Forcing them to have a lowercase + uppercase + number is bad enough, but I could get that most users are not good at choosing passwords and try to force them to be pickier. But why block "special characters"? There is NO REASON to do this unless your tech behind is really, really bad.

I suspect that restriction came about because HHS or some agency had a general password policy that was written with the restrictions of older systems like MVS in mind. This was simply cut and pasted into the spec for healthcare.gov without bothering to check if it still applied. Computer security departments often enforce rules that no longer make sense or don't really apply to the system in question.

Policies that force users to change passwords every 30 days are a good example. A rule based on the Unix systems that existed a quarter century ago and the processing power available at that time.

 

[AlBell]

But at least they could have cheap plans (as long as they didn't expect them to actually provide care).

I had and have one of those 'cheap plans' through my old employer secondary to primary Medicare. High deductible although not nearly as high as ACA plans I have been advised are being offered at, in my case, a large premium increase.

I have everything ACA demands other than pill / maternity. For usual reasons my wife is past child-bearing so ... yah.

Major surgery 2 yrs ago resulted in a $ quarter-million set of billings of which I paid deductible.

 

[Unabogie]

I had and have one of those 'cheap plans' through my old employer secondary to primary Medicare. High deductible although not nearly as high as ACA plans I have been advised are being offered at, in my case, a large premium increase.

I have everything ACA demands other than pill / maternity. For usual reasons my wife is past child-bearing so ... yah.

Major surgery 2 yrs ago resulted in a $ quarter-million set of billings of which I paid deductible.

You had a quarter million dollar surgery two years ago, are old enough to be on Medicare, but you're not on Medicare and got a cheap insurance plan that's cheaper and better than an ACA plan?

Also, who is "advising" you that ACA plans are higher deductible and more costly and why haven't you browsed those prices yourself?

Can you share some basic demographics like your age/state and we can see what you'd actually qualify for?

Your story seems off.

 

[Unabogie]

And not to pick on you, Al, but I do notice that although the individual insurance market only accounts for something like 5% of all Americans. And of those people, most will be getting subsidies and their rates will be going down.

But fully 100% of all the conservatives on this forum claim to be in the individual market, claim to have unusually low premiums for truly awesome plans, and claim to be looking at astronomical rate increases.

It's an epidemic that affects about 1% of the actual population, but virtually all internet conservatives.

It's rather amazing.

 

[applecorped]

It's rather amazing.

...that the ACA hasn't folded already.

 

[Unabogie]

...that the ACA hasn't folded already.

If it were going to fold under its own weight, why do so many Teabaggers feel compelled to lie about it?

 

[MattusMaximus]

*cough, cough*

Ahem...

Question for those earlier in the thread (i.e., WildCat, etc) who were having trouble accessing the federal website: Is it any easier to do so now?

I ask because I haven't seen any complaints about it for awhile now.

Could this mean that... *gasp!*... the website is actually working?

 

[MattusMaximus]

...that the ACA hasn't folded already.

Keep dreaming. I cannot wait to see the egg on all the faces around here when April rolls around and many millions of people have enrolled in the ACA.

 

[Unabogie]

*cough, cough*

Ahem...



Could this mean that... *gasp!*... the website is actually working?

I went there today. It immediately sussed out my state (probably by IP address) and pointed me to CoverOregon. Unlike last week, CoverOregon is now up and running with online applications. I already signed up for a plan outside the exchange, but I think I'll run through the exchange application and see how it goes. It's possible my agent, who acted as navigator, didn't find all my options, so I'm going to double check.

 

[Virus]

Another one for the "Mugged by Reality" files:

Daring to complain about Obamacare;

LOS ANGELES — THE Anthem Blue Cross representative who answered my call told me that there was a silver lining in the cancellation of my individual P.P.O. policy and the $5,400 annual increase that I would have to pay for the Affordable Care Act-compliant option: now if I have Stage 4 cancer or need a sex-change operation, I’d be covered regardless of pre-existing conditions. Never mind that the new provider network would eliminate coverage for my and my son’s long-term doctors and hospitals.

Frustrated, I observed to one friend who was covered through her work that when an issue didn’t affect people directly, they became “theoretically generous.” Ask them to donate several thousand dollars so that the less fortunate can have medical insurance — which is exactly what President Obama is asking me to do — and I’ll bet they’d change their tune about “ending inequality” and “creating fairness” and “doing what’s good for the country.”

 

[Unabogie]

Another one for the "Mugged by Reality" files:

Daring to complain about Obamacare;

This one is easy. She's lying.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/11/12/14366/223

 

[Unabogie]

By the way, this is why I love the exchange and standard pricing. It's trivial to look up rates and extremely difficult to lie and get away with it.

 

[theprestige]

Keep dreaming. I cannot wait to see the egg on all the faces around here when April rolls around and many millions of people have enrolled in the ACA.

"Many millions". Sounds good to me. Shall we come back to this claim in April, and see who has egg on their faces?

Proposed ground rules:

• "... when April rolls around" means April 1, 2014. Only people who have enrolled before that date will be counted.
• "... many millions" means at least 4 million people.
• People will be counted if the enrolled via the federal or state exchanges.
• People will not be counted if they enrolled in Medicaid as part of that expansion in some states.
• People will be counted if they are young adults under the age of 24, who are remaining with/returning to their parents' insurance.
• People will not be counted if they got as far as registering and selecting a plan, but did not actually complete the enrollment process.
• The official estimate can be taken at face value, but if there are mainstream media reports of enrollments succeeding on the exchange website, but then failing on the back-end, (e.g., due to invalid or incorrect 834s), the number of enrollees affected by these problems will be subtracted from the official estimate, unless it is explicitly clear that those so affected are not being included in the official estimate.

Sound fair?

 

[Unabogie]

"Many millions". Sounds good to me. Shall we come back to this claim in April, and see who has egg on their faces?

Proposed ground rules:

• "... when April rolls around" means April 1, 2014. Only people who have enrolled before that date will be counted.
• "... many millions" means at least 4 million people.
• People will be counted if the enrolled via the federal or state exchanges.
• People will not be counted if they enrolled in Medicaid as part of that expansion in some states.
• People will be counted if they are young adults under the age of 24, who are remaining with/returning to their parents' insurance.
• People will not be counted if they got as far as registering and selecting a plan, but did not actually complete the enrollment process.
• The official estimate can be taken at face value, but if there are mainstream media reports of enrollments succeeding on the exchange website, but then failing on the back-end, (e.g., due to invalid or incorrect 834s), the number of enrollees affected by these problems will be subtracted from the official estimate, unless it is explicitly clear that those so affected are not being included in the official estimate.

Sound fair?

Wait, why don't I count? I enrolled in a plan that only exists because of Obamacare. My wife has a preexisting condition and couldn't get coverage before, except through the state high risk pool, which frankly sucked and was expensive. Thanks to Obama, we now will both have gold level coverage. Because we make too much to qualify for subsidies, we didn't go through the exchange.

Why shouldn't people like me count?

 

[Newtons Bit]

"Many millions". Sounds good to me. Shall we come back to this claim in April, and see who has egg on their faces?

Proposed ground rules:

• "... when April rolls around" means April 1, 2014. Only people who have enrolled before that date will be counted.
• "... many millions" means at least 4 million people.
• People will be counted if the enrolled via the federal or state exchanges.
• People will not be counted if they enrolled in Medicaid as part of that expansion in some states.
• People will be counted if they are young adults under the age of 24, who are remaining with/returning to their parents' insurance.
• People will not be counted if they got as far as registering and selecting a plan, but did not actually complete the enrollment process.
• The official estimate can be taken at face value, but if there are mainstream media reports of enrollments succeeding on the exchange website, but then failing on the back-end, (e.g., due to invalid or incorrect 834s), the number of enrollees affected by these problems will be subtracted from the official estimate, unless it is explicitly clear that those so affected are not being included in the official estimate.

Sound fair?

I currently have insurance that is being canceled and may enroll through the exchange to get coverage next year.

I think you should make sure the people like me are not included in that number. Though I have no doubt that Obama will tout giant success by including people who were forced off their old plans and into ACA in the "enrolled under ACA!" category.

 

[Robrob]

I currently have insurance that is being canceled and may enroll through the exchange to get coverage next year.

I think you should make sure the people like me are not included in that number. Though I have no doubt that Obama will tout giant success by including people who were forced off their old plans and into ACA in the "enrolled under ACA!" category.

So, how much will your new insurance cost?

 

[Unabogie]

I currently have insurance that is being canceled and may enroll through the exchange to get coverage next year.

I think you should make sure the people like me are not included in that number. Though I have no doubt that Obama will tout giant success by including people who were forced off their old plans and into ACA in the "enrolled under ACA!" category.

You're also ignoring another factor. That plan that keep touting was obviously introduced after 2010 or else it'd be grandfathered. This means your insurer only offered this rate to you because they knew they wouldn't have to keep offering it after 2013. This means they made a good bet with you, but you're assuming they'd be happy to keep offering you that low rate, even as you get into your thirties. I'd say this is not realistic. But even if you're telling the truth about the plan you had, you're just a few years away from being old enough to benefit from guaranteed issue and community rating. Whining about losing your temporary low rate when you're about to gain the benefits that didn't exist before seems short sighted. Can you really not see 9 years down the road to where you're going to be really happy you can't be denied a policy?

Also, you say you're in construction. That's a pretty dangerous profession. There's a high chance you'll be injured at some point, and it's worth a bit more money now to make sure if one of those injuries turns out to be serious enough to require ongoing treatments over years you won't be screwed.

And if you get hurt and cannot work, I doubt you're saving up a tremendous amount of savings making only 40k a year. So if that happened to you, you wouldn't be able to work and afford your plans anymore. Thanks to the ACA, you'll be covered through Medicaid or subsidies should that happen.

The level of security you're gaining here is huge, and all you're being asked to do is pay a little more each month.

The phrase "pennywise and pound foolish comes to mind".

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

I currently have insurance that is being canceled and may enroll through the exchange to get coverage next year.

I think you should make sure the people like me are not included in that number. Though I have no doubt that Obama will tout giant success by including people who were forced off their old plans and into ACA in the "enrolled under ACA!" category.

You said before that you signed up for that policy even though you knew that it would be cancelled. So claiming that you were "forced off your old plan" doesn't seem very accurate. Not only did your insurance company clearly have no intention of you being able to keep that policy after the end of this year, but you can't even say for sure that your insurance company would even have made that policy available to you if not for the ACA.

In fact, it is entirely possible that this is an example of the kind of bait-and-switch tactic that many insurance companies have been using. The tactic is pretty simple. Offer a super cheap policy with good coverage to the kind of low-risk young men that insurance companies like to have as customers, but offer it after the ACA has been passed knowing that it will not be grandfathered. Then when the individual mandate kicks in, send them a letter saying that the ACA is forcing you to cancel the policy, and offer them a new, much more expensive policy in its place, and claim that the huge price increase is also due to Obamacare. Sure, some of the marks will go elsewhere for coverage, but a lot of them will stick with you, not realizing that they are being taken advantage of, and incorrectly blaming the ACA for their new higher rates, without even realizing they could get a better rate on the exchange.

Fortunately you have enough sense to shop around on the exchange, rather than just taking what your insurance company offered as a replacement. So at least in your case you got the benefit of a really cheap policy for a while, and now you're no worse off than any other American in your age and income range.

 

[Blue Mountain]

"Many millions". Sounds good to me. Shall we come back to this claim in April, and see who has egg on their faces?

Here's your list, with my comments.

• "... when April rolls around" means April 1, 2014. Only people who have enrolled before that date will be counted. Looks good.
• "... many millions" means at least 4 million people. Looks good.
• People will be counted if the enrolled via the federal or state exchanges. Looks good, but is incomplete; see Ubabogie's comment above.
• People will not be counted if they enrolled in Medicaid as part of that expansion in some states. Does not look good. The Medicaid expansion is part of the ACA.
• People will be counted if they are young adults under the age of 24, who are remaining with/returning to their parents' insurance. Looks good.
• People will not be counted if they got as far as registering and selecting a plan, but did not actually complete the enrollment process. Does not look good. People may have been on the exchanges to see what was available, then got coverage another way.
• The official estimate can be taken at face value, but if there are mainstream media reports of enrollments succeeding on the exchange website, but then failing on the back-end, (e.g., due to invalid or incorrect 834s), the number of enrollees affected by these problems will be subtracted from the official estimate, unless it is explicitly clear that those so affected are not being included in the official estimate. I think the number we should be looking at is the number of people who now have medical coverage but did not prior to the opening of the exchanges. It may have to be adjusted downwards a bit to account for the fact some people would have taken out insurance on their own and have been eligible despite the ACA. But that might be only 1% or 2% of the total.

One thing that possibly can't be measured is how many people now have real coverage as opposed to those who had a plan that would have left them high and dry when a real medical emergency hit. They won't show up in the raw numbers of how many more people have a medical insurance plan on April 1, 2014 than did on October 1, 2013, because they already had (really lousy) insurance on October 1.