• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

balrog666 said:
Read at your peril ... Health Insurance Marketplace
Navigator Standard Operating Procedures Manual


:eek:

ETA: Secret Obamacare handbook the feds don’t want you to see

A confidential training manual for Obamacare navigators that threatens prosecution for unauthorized dissemination is on the Internet for the world to see.

The 217-page manual reads like a primer for Amway or novice car salesmen, offering sales advice on how to disarm potential customers who could be lured into purchasing insurance through exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act.

Yeah, about that. From your linked article:

Nothing in the manual seems to rise to the level of a state secret — raising questions about why the federal government felt it necessary to classify information that has no reason to be classified.

Of course the linked booklet is marked "Restricted Distribution." It's not classified. Your own article provides the (misinterpreted) citation.

“This information has not been publicly disclosed and may be privileged and confidential,” the warning reads. “It is for internal government use only and must not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive the information. Unauthorized disclosure may result in prosecution to the full extent of the law.”

Apparently the writer of your linked article doesn't know what they are talking about - and you never bothered to check.
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, a lot of critics here have been going on about the "back end" being messed up due to incorrect transmission of 834 info. Well, it seems that problem has been fixed pretty well, too - and the insurance industry is beginning to acknowledge the improvements.

I'm just not feeling that good about this anymore. I don't think it will go off the rails, but I don't think young people will come around the first year. The well was poisoned so badly by the GOP, and the rollout was awful, and the cancellations, now politifact calling it the number one lie of the year, and the Harvard study...

The tea leaves aren't good right now.

I still think it will succeed, but I'm not as optimistic as I once was. But like someone above me said though, when do government targets ever get met? If they wanted 40%, maybe they'll get minimal premium increases for next year if the pool has 30% young healthy people.
 
I'm just not feeling that good about this anymore. I don't think it will go off the rails, but I don't think young people will come around the first year. The well was poisoned so badly by the GOP, and the rollout was awful, and the cancellations, now politifact calling it the number one lie of the year, and the Harvard study...

The tea leaves aren't good right now.

I still think it will succeed, but I'm not as optimistic as I once was. But like someone above me said though, when do government targets ever get met? If they wanted 40%, maybe they'll get minimal premium increases for next year if the pool has 30% young healthy people.

IMO it was pretty clear from the get go that the economic incentives weren't there for young healthy people to sign up. And, despite JREF echo chamber protestations to the contrary, economic behavior is all about incentives. (They somehow understand this only when regarding 'greedy' CEOs)

The 40% number is starting to look really optimistic, which is not too much of a surprise, but the 'good' news for you is that the ACA is not going to go away for a while, and if and when it does, it will likely be for single payer.
 
Incidentally, a lot of critics here have been going on about the "back end" being messed up due to incorrect transmission of 834 info. Well, it seems that problem has been fixed pretty well, too - and the insurance industry is beginning to acknowledge the improvements.
Another little problem (only for those who don't usually keep several hundred extra in checking accounts :D)

http://www.kgw.com/news/Enrollees-report-erroneous-debits-by-WA-Healthplanfinder-235244701.html

Will the IRS ok deductions for bad check charges?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, about that. From your linked article:



Of course the linked booklet is marked "Restricted Distribution." It's not classified. Your own article provides the (misinterpreted) citation.



Apparently the writer of your linked article doesn't know what they are talking about - and you never bothered to check.
What do you expect from the Koch Brothers and the Franklin Institute, "the dark-money ATM of the conservative movement."

Watchdog.org is a front for the tea party propaganda manufacturers.
 
Incidentally, a lot of critics here have been going on about the "back end" being messed up due to incorrect transmission of 834 info. Well, it seems that problem has been fixed pretty well, too - and the insurance industry is beginning to acknowledge the improvements.

Since your source only claims that the error rate has decreased, not that it has vanished, I guess you've got a fairly generous definition of "fixed pretty well".

The error rate should be zero. It should have been zero from the start. According to your own source, it is not zero.
 

That's not really much of an argument. Basically, all it says is that the insurance companies are going to heavily advertise. And? They've got no choice: because the scale of any failure still matters to them, they need to try to get as many enrollees as possible even if success won't happen. They can't afford to not advertise heavily. That means the fact that they are doing so is not an indicator of likely success. It tells us nothing about the likelihood of success, all it tells us is the importance of enrollment numbers to insurers. But that was always known to be the case. Maybe it will succeed, but the argument in your link doesn't demonstrate that.
 
IMO it was pretty clear from the get go that the economic incentives weren't there for young healthy people to sign up. And, despite JREF echo chamber protestations to the contrary, economic behavior is all about incentives. (They somehow understand this only when regarding 'greedy' CEOs)

If it was feasible to just let uninsured people die, I would be fine with letting anyone forego health insurance. But as long as hospitals are handing out medical care to any deadbeat who shows up with chest pain or a bone sticking out of his shin, I say make everyone pay.

We already have socialized medicine in this country. We just don't have a rational way of paying for it.
 
I still completely fail to see how young, healthy Americans are the cornerstore to a plan that the law says they don't have to be. It openly says that youth can stay on their parents medical insurance until they are in their mid 20's. Why wouldn't the parents just keep them on they're required to have medial insurance? If they parents are married, they have to have a family plan either way. I am just very confused as to why they would make the youth the cornerstone, as some people claim, and then make it more readily available for them to NOT get their own plan, they make it easier to stay on their parents. What am I missing?
 
Rome...was not built in a day.

How about several years and hundreds of millions of dollars?

"Rome was not built in a day" is a great cliche, but totally inapplicable here on several levels.

I wonder if any of Galloping Gertie's engineers tried that one....
 
How about several years and hundreds of millions of dollars?

"Rome was not built in a day" is a great cliche, but totally inapplicable here on several levels.

I wonder if any of Galloping Gertie's engineers tried that one....

To be fair, that was a completely new and unique failure mechanism.

Yea, I take the side of the structural engineers. :D:p
 
I still completely fail to see how young, healthy Americans are the cornerstore to a plan that the law says they don't have to be. It openly says that youth can stay on their parents medical insurance until they are in their mid 20's. Why wouldn't the parents just keep them on they're required to have medial insurance? If they parents are married, they have to have a family plan either way. I am just very confused as to why they would make the youth the cornerstone, as some people claim, and then make it more readily available for them to NOT get their own plan, they make it easier to stay on their parents. What am I missing?

You are expecting reasonability and logic. That is what you are missing :(
 
I guess now it's time for the media to start reporting on plans people find when their "cancelled" plans are replaced via the exchanges.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/12/surprise-lots-people-are-saving-money-thanks-obamacare

After angrily calling her state auditor's office, Spanke, a self-employed artist in her 50s, found she was eligible for a federal subsidy. Her new insurance will cover her for a mere $30 to $40 a month with a deductible of only $500. She had been paying $350 a month for a Blue Cross policy with a $5,000 deductible. "I went from a horrible policy that didn't cover anything, that was breaking me, to the best policy at the best price I've had since I was in my 20s," she said.

....In Lancaster, Pa., Lori Lapman, 58, learned her health plan was being canceled in September—by October things were looking up. Per The Sunday News: "Sitting at a laptop with a certified health law helper, Lapman went to HealthCare.gov, found it running smoothly, and bought a subsidized Highmark plan that allows her to keep her doctors while saving her money. Her canceled plan cost her $520 a month. Her new coverage? Only $111.73."

....In a letter to the editor in The Santa Maria Times, Allan Pacela told the story of how after his wife lost her insurance this fall, she found much better coverage under Obamacare. The couple is now saving $8,000 per year for a "much better plan."

Gosh, thanks, Obama! :mad:
 
How about several years and hundreds of millions of dollars?

"Rome was not built in a day" is a great cliche, but totally inapplicable here on several levels.

I wonder if any of Galloping Gertie's engineers tried that one....

As a physics professor, in response to this I can only say... ouch.
 
If it was feasible to just let uninsured people die, I would be fine with letting anyone forego health insurance. But as long as hospitals are handing out medical care to any deadbeat who shows up with chest pain or a bone sticking out of his shin, I say make everyone pay.

We already have socialized medicine in this country. We just don't have a rational way of paying for it.

This is a very cogent point. Well put.
 
If it was feasible to just let uninsured people die, I would be fine with letting anyone forego health insurance. But as long as hospitals are handing out medical care to any deadbeat who shows up with chest pain or a bone sticking out of his shin, I say make everyone pay.

We already have socialized medicine in this country. We just don't have a rational way of paying for it.

Succinctly accurate.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom