Is the coverage already available that great? Is anyone unable to afford it on Medicare?
Why Has California Had No Signups For Obamacare?
|by Anonymous||reply 83||10/09/2013|
how do you know they have none?
|by Anonymous||reply 1||10/04/2013|
OP doesn't know. And I should know.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||10/04/2013|
well, i know a family of 4 who signed up to obtain their first coverage in 9 years, so there are at least 4.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||10/04/2013|
Obamacare is the greatest thing to ever happen to our nation. I can't believe I am seeing something so wonderful and helpful in my lifetime. It brings tears to my eyes. I am still pinching myself.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||10/04/2013|
r4 is drunk.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||10/04/2013|
"Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits'"
On October 1, Obamacare’s subsidized insurance exchanges went live. Most of the exchange websites crashed on the first day, a development that led some of the law’s supporters to conclude that there was overwhelming demand for Obamacare’s insurance products. But the Obama administration isn’t releasing figures as to the number of Americans who have actually signed up for exchange-based coverage. “Very, very few people that we’re aware of have enrolled in the federal exchange,” said one anonymous insurance industry official to the Washington Post. “We are talking single digits.”
Exchange agencies walk back high-traffic hype
Other exchanges have had to pare down their initial statistics. Covered California, that state’s subsidized insurance exchange, initially claimed that its website had received 5 million hits on October 1. They later had to revise that number down 87 percent, to 645,000. KUSI-TV in San Diego is reporting that not one policy has yet been sold on the California exchange.
According to Megan McArdle, high traffic alone doesn’t explain why the federal healthcare.gov website is having so many issues. For example, the drop-down boxes for security questions aren’t working, which shouldn’t be a traffic-related problem. “The drop-down thing is mystifying,” a programmer source told McArdle. It “could very easily be because deadline pressure caused them to take some shortcuts that impacted their ability to scale.”
Glitches around traffic and web server loads will be relatively easy to fix. The real question is this: will healthier and younger individuals, who stand to face steep premium hikes under Obamacare, pay up? A Manhattan Institute study I helped conduct suggests that average to younger-than-average men will face underlying rate hikes of 97 to 99 percent, with women facing increases of 55 to 62 percent.
AAF: 30-year-old men face average premium hikes of 260%
A new study from the American Action Forum that looks at healthy 30-year-old men finds that underlying premiums for those individuals will increase by an average of 260 percent. The AAF study compared the least-expensive plans available today to the cheapest plans on the Obamacare exchanges, as did the Manhattan Institute study. The MI analysis, by contrast, adjusted those pre-ACA rates to take into account sicker individuals.
In a sense, the AAF study is more relevant to the problem at hand. Obamacare makes healthy people pay more for insurance in order to subsidize sicker people. It makes younger people pay more to subsidize older people. It makes men pay more to subsidize women. It makes everyone pay more to cover benefits, taxes, and fees that consumers might not ordinarily want.
Keep an eye on who enrolls, not just how many
I fully expect that the people who get a good deal out of Obamacare—poorer and sicker individuals—will sign up. The enrollment figures will increase. But the real question isn’t how many people enroll: it’s what kind of people enroll. Two-thirds of the uninsured in America are under the age of 40. What will be the average age of an enrollee on the exchanges? If most enrollees were born before or during the Nixon administration, start worrying.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||10/04/2013|
OP hasn't been reading.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||10/04/2013|
Forbes has a vested interest in obamacare "failing" as forbes = the 1%.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||10/04/2013|
Neither has r7.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||10/04/2013|
[quote]Forbes has a vested interest in obamacare "failing" as forbes = the 1%.
So you believe that this couldn't possibly be true?
|by Anonymous||reply 10||10/04/2013|
yes. this is another of the many threads started by a troll.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||10/04/2013|
Forbes is quoting numbers from American Action Forum, a far right SuperPAC devoted to Republican candidates and causes. A Koch disinformation operation. Nice try, preposterous OP.
PS, I signed up within hours of the exchange opening.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||10/04/2013|
Koch troll threads all sound the same, and there are so many of them...
|by Anonymous||reply 13||10/04/2013|
as i said.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||10/05/2013|
[all posts by flame bait troll #11 removed (violent racist homophobic right-wing misogynist), ISP notified with full text of all posts.]
|by Anonymous||reply 15||10/05/2013|
God's waiting room...
|by Anonymous||reply 16||10/05/2013|
the truth is the exact opposite of what r15 says. it is clear. these kinds of threads are spread across the internet and their only purpose it to try to cast doubt among the populace.
and so transparent.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||10/05/2013|
[all posts by flame bait troll #11 removed (violent racist homophobic right-wing misogynist), ISP notified with full text of all posts.]
|by Anonymous||reply 18||10/05/2013|
OP, did you mean Medicaid? (Which is called Medi-Cal in California. )
R16 You're confusing California with Florida.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||10/05/2013|
I'll be buying coverage but there's no rush.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||10/05/2013|
OP conveniently doesn't list the article's author - Avik Roy, a rabid right-winger and Romney advisor who has a vested interest in seeing Obamacare fail. Roy is a horrible person, who also believes that money people pay into the system becomes "entitlements" when it's time for the to get it back.
OP is one sick fuck.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||10/06/2013|
Sorry, r6, not OP, is an idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||10/06/2013|
Nope. Op is not only an idiot but a really lame troll.
r21 spoke the truth.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||10/06/2013|
People are calling in asking about fines if they don't sign up. What a cluster fuck.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||10/06/2013|
Avik Roy's Tweets are telling.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||10/06/2013|
He's, among other things, a Contributor to Forbes & National Review. Former Romney health care advisor.
Grains of salt must be taken for someone so invested in the PPACA's failure...
|by Anonymous||reply 26||10/06/2013|
I don't know to what extent the information is correct. I noticed though that the whole exchange business was not planned very well. Can only speak for California. Hardly anybody you ask knows how it works in detail. The navigators are useless because they don't get the material and info they need. Subsequently the information to the public has been spotty and late. Commercials by state and providers for the exchange should have aired many months before October, not just a few weeks before start. But again, no-one could start early because nobody had enough info. No wonder people are hesitant signing up.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||10/06/2013|
Oh, Freeper troll R27. Scream and yell when the government tried to get information out leading up to the launch, then scream and yell when they didn't get enough information out. Scream and yell (and in some states, make volunteer navigators go through either extensive training, or require some weird one-of-a-kind certification) when the government sets up navigators to help people understand the process, then scream and yell when the navigators can't deal with the volume of people applying, or because one of them gives some incorrect information, or makes a mistake.
I am so sick of the way the rightwingnuts control everything in this country. Purposefully obfuscate. Lie. Deceive. Mislead.
And then bitch about lies and deceit, and sew mistrust because their lies and deceit gains traction.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||10/06/2013|
R28, thanks for providing your insight. The tone of your post makes me realize that clearly I must be wrong.
Seriously though, I work for a health care provider and hear from our sales and marketing department how much of a hard time they have to market our products because so much has been in the flux until just recently. We are still trying figuring things out so I'm not ready to call the exchanges a success yet. We'll see.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||10/06/2013|
I voted for Obama. How do I get free medical care? That was what we were promised.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||10/06/2013|
I haven't signed up because I get insurance via my employer that is far cheaper than anything I can get via the CA exchange.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||10/06/2013|
What do people like R30 hope to accomplish with their uninformative statements?
|by Anonymous||reply 32||10/06/2013|
The expensive "sick" will sign up. They healthy young people will simply pay the fine.
Premiums will skyrocket to keep insurers from going broke.
Obamacare will quickly descend into a "death spiral"
|by Anonymous||reply 33||10/06/2013|
Yeah, R33, just like it did in Massachusetts.
Oh, wait.... Moron.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||10/06/2013|
so many trolls, so much koch money
|by Anonymous||reply 35||10/06/2013|
Healthcare.gov is finally starting to work. The glitches are slowly getting fixed. Many posters on Daily Kos said they were able to finish the application process today and view the plans and pricing. The website has been getting more traffic than Amazon.com.
They recommend using Internet Explorer to access the Healthcare.gov website--apparently, it works better than Firefox and Google Chrome. Also, if you registered earlier in the week but haven't been able to log in, you should create a new account with a new username and email address.
From USA Today:
"The government website launched this week to sell health insurance was overwhelmed by up to five times as many users as it was designed to handle, President Obama's top technology adviser said Saturday in an exclusive interview with USA TODAY.
U.S. Chief Technology Officer Todd Park said the government expected HealthCare.gov to draw 50,000 to 60,000 simultaneous users, but instead it has drawn as many as 250,000 at a time since it launched Oct. 1."
|by Anonymous||reply 36||10/06/2013|
R31 I think most employed people are in that situation.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||10/06/2013|
Be careful about people who claim that those who sign up for ACA's state programs are not signed up for "Obamacare." This article about its success in Kentucky is very interesting. As far as numbers, this article was written on day 2 of the roll out states that 3,000 individuals or families had already completed their enrollment.
"As a result, Kentucky’s exchange, dubbed Kynect, logged solid results in the first day and a half of operation. As of 4:00 p.m. Wednesday, 10,766 applications for health coverage had been initiated, 6,909 had been completed and 2,989 individuals or families had enrolled in new coverage."
Also of note are the morons who have no idea that they are enrolled in Obamacare and continue to dis it.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||10/06/2013|
I'm sorry, but if a website fails the first 6 times I try to access it, I don't buy from that provider.
This only helps the hostage-takers. Obamacare is a piece of shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||10/06/2013|
R39, did you try Amazon's website on their day 1? Probably not but that didn't stop millions from signing up later.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||10/06/2013|
Obamacare needs to change it's name to DMVcare.
Because that's exactly what it will become.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||10/06/2013|
Screamer Freeper every other comment has really gotten old. The bots are becoming Tea Party-lite. Knock it the fuck off already! Jesus.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||10/06/2013|
The OP is a anti-Semitic Birther troll who thinks FOXNews is the Bible. He pretends to be a progressive, but the mask keeps slipping on the other threads.
And no, OP, your family doesn't want to hear you say "Happy birthday." You should just stick to your "Washington Redskins" race-baiting troll.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||10/06/2013|
[quote]did you try Amazon's website on their day 1? Probably not but that didn't stop millions from signing up later.
On day 1, Amazon was just a book seller with a site that probably got a few hundred hits at most. I can't think of a comparable private scenario for what the various government agencies are doing right now. Nobody expected this to go smoothly on day one. Or on week one. Or even on month one. They've got six months to work out the wrinkles, just as they did for Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare Part D, and so on, none of which rolled out smoothly and all of which are successful today.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||10/06/2013|
[quote]They've got six months to work out the wrinkles...
No, they have 2 months and 25 days until 2014 kicks in. Any small e-commerce team could have set this up. Server load is all based on scale, something that the institution that invented the Internet (for real) would know. His own presidential campaign had a better website. Who did they hire, Bain?
|by Anonymous||reply 45||10/06/2013|
A creaky old web site to sign up on?
How cutting edge!
|by Anonymous||reply 46||10/06/2013|
Notice how the Freeper posters work as a tag-team. Just like a script in professional wrestling. Are they working from a boiler-room?
|by Anonymous||reply 47||10/06/2013|
Notice how the government FORCES you to submit all your info to them BEFORE showing you any plans.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||10/06/2013|
Dear God, R41, that's a scary thought.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||10/06/2013|
r48 is a right-winger. They always like to use all-caps. Funny how they don't mind God as Big Brother. Anyway, I though he couldn't get on the website. Another of his lies.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||10/06/2013|
R45 - you seem to know a lot.
Let's hear about your experience with eCommerce sites.
Let's just pick a site that expected to launch with an initial surge of traffic that would never be replicated again. Then that best estimate was exceeded five fold.
I have some familiarity with eCommerce sites. I can't think of one that fits the requirements the ACA has.
But I'm sure you can.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||10/06/2013|
[quote] Any small e-commerce team could have set this up.
No, they couldn't, not at this scale. Amazon certainly could, as could Google or a few others. A "small e-commerce" team would be overwhelmed by the scale.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||10/06/2013|
It's not like Obama doesn't have Google / Facebook & Twitter at their fingers and in their administration to help set this up. They do. They are failing.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||10/06/2013|
So freepers, what do you expect to have happen as a result of what you post on this thread and countless others that slam Democrats, the ACA and other related subjects?
Do you expect that all of DL will suddenly believe you? Do you expect that all of us will change how we think, how we vote or how we live?
They won't respond.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||10/06/2013|
A John Birch Society-ish coup d'état is what the Kochs and their friends have been itching for since the 1960's when their father helped found JBS. So here's their big chance.
If you want to see what well-heeled right wing boiler rooms can do propaganda wise, go to healthcare.gov's Facebook page where virtually EVERY post is abusive, nasty, full of disinformation and trollish. Too much is never enough when you're rich and loony as fuck.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||10/06/2013|
Healthcare.gov started working today, and the head tech guy said that it should be working much better this coming week. They transferred the application process to its own dedicated server.
The website has been getting more daily traffic than Amazon.com, which is pretty amazing.
The Kentucky health exchange, which was set up by a Democratic governor, has been a big success. Take that, Rand Paul and Bitch McConnell!
|by Anonymous||reply 56||10/06/2013|
Sites with traffic surges: any global car launch, any global tech launch, any concert ticketing site when marquee event goes on sale, online stock trading during IPO, online sites of brick-and-mortar retailers during holiday season with high-demand LTO merchandise, universities in class selection periods, government websites in the rest of the world (BBC & iPlayer, australia.gov, gov.uk, Swedish tax agency)
Sites with simultaneous multi-market commercial and fulfillment requirements: computer or car configurators, Amazon, eBay, most department stores, supermarket chains across states or countries (Tesco, Carrefour, Wal-Mart).
And if you misread your traffic by a magnitude of 5, you didn't do the right research in developing it. That said, the workarounds that they're using (delaying and queuing visitors, steering to call center) are from 1997.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||10/06/2013|
R57, the website has to talk to IRS and Social Security computers to verify info, so it's a lot more complicated that a typical retail website. Add in overwhelming demand, and you can see why there were glitches in the first week.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||10/06/2013|
[quote]Sites with traffic surges: any global car launch....
No site at launch anywhere ever had to tie into as many separate systems and databases.
[quote]And if you misread your traffic by a magnitude of 5, you didn't do the right research in developing it.
Perhaps, but there is no precedent for this event. Any research they could do would ultimately be guesswork.
My company routinely goes through these sorts of scaling exercises for Q4 and the holidays but even then we still occasionally get it wrong. Fortunately, we always have extra capacity on hand that we can throw at it. And last year, we had to on one of our subsystems. The government, though, is budget-constrained in ways that we are not.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||10/06/2013|
[quote]the website has to talk to IRS and Social Security computers to verify info, so it's a lot more complicated that a typical retail website.
Which have to verify credit card or bank account information, match with shipping and billing addresses, and route own shipments and third-party marketplace vis respective warehouses, though the systems of the USPS, UPS, FedEx and DHL.
Not a freeper...I would prefer single-payer NHS-style. But one has to admit that the ACA team has fucked this launch up and it's giving more ammunition to the idiots who have shut the government down.
When people are gunning for you, you have to be perfect. Obama's team is nearly perfect at digital marketing when they campaign; why not when they govern?
|by Anonymous||reply 60||10/06/2013|
R51 - you still haven't offered an actual example similar to the ACA.
Let's take a short detour - your reasoning is reductive. There is no basis to assume the research wasn't done properly if your traffic is five fold what you expected.
There are what at least 46 million uninsured people in the US. On top of that how many insured are just curious about what's available on the exchanges? No idea.
On top of which - huge amounts of free publicity due to the shenanigans of the House Republicans.
You honestly have experience or know of cases with that potential volume in the first five days of operation - that will never come close to being replicated again? Once this initial period is over the customer base will never be this large again.
There just isn't a similar situation.
I think this was a no win for the Obama Administration. If the money had been spent to flawlessly handle this volume of business in the first five days - six months from now we would see congressional hearings on how wasteful that was.
The big question being why spend all that money on the initial surge - when coverage wouldn't start until 1/1/14 at the earliest?
|by Anonymous||reply 61||10/06/2013|
R60, everything you're talking about also has to be done for the ACA. In short, you're not supporting the point you're trying to make. This is still an unprecedented event.
As for "Obama's team," that's a campaign organization that handled things on a much smaller scale and did it very well. But Obama doesn't personally hire every single individual at every level of government.
Every rollout of every major program has been flawed, including the rollout of the Medicare, Part D, program under Bush. And yet every single one of them survived the flaws and is succeeding today.
In a few weeks, these glitches will be gone. What will you find to bitch about then?
|by Anonymous||reply 62||10/06/2013|
Oh, and R51, open enrollment doesn't end until the end of March, which means that they do, in fact, have six months to fix this.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||10/06/2013|
[quote]Obamacare is a piece of shit.
And, of course, none of what you write, R51, supports that bit of drivel.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||10/06/2013|
Bullshit! My two nephews in San Jose have already signed up.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||10/06/2013|
The real piece here is a right-wing Roman Catholic who is against abortion rights and Medicare, David H. Koch.
Why is he allowed to impose his extremist religious views on everyone in America by funding freeping on every popular forum in the country?
|by Anonymous||reply 66||10/06/2013|
I'll be signing up soon. I've been deliberating between two plans, both very good (and affordable!). I just need to do my due diligence and decide which network would be a better fit for me. The Covered California site has had some problems (like the government run site), but once you establish an account and start the process, it's fairly easy to navigate.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||10/06/2013|
r67 is going to be subsidized so he's happy
|by Anonymous||reply 68||10/06/2013|
i am amazed that the same incredibly wealthy people who scream over 3.8% in additional taxes on their unearned income, have no problem paying people to post disinformation campaigns on the internet.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||10/06/2013|
R67, Consider that if you have insurance thru an employer, the employer is subsidizing at least a piece of the premium (though less and less as time goes by).
Again: what you and your employer pay as premiums is higher than it should be, because the cost of the uninsured and underinsured is rolled up into healthcare providers' total costs and is part of the rate-setting process. To reduce premiums for everyone you have to expand the risk pool. That is what insurance is about.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||10/06/2013|
R70, I'm not sure if your post was intended for me, but I don't currently qualify for employer covered insurance where I work because I don't meet certain hourly criteria they have in place to sign up for one of their group plans. I'm currently paying out of pocket for very poor coverage, but it's all I've been able to afford. To r68, yes, I am very happy about the ACA.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||10/06/2013|
And being subsidized r71 you forgot to add that in.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||10/06/2013|
As r70 pointed out, most people who have health insurance get it through their employer and are thus being subsidized in some way. I don't see the shame in receiving a subsidy.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||10/06/2013|
I'm sorry. My post was meant for R68, not R67.
My point is that everyone, even the freepers, are being subsidized when it comes to healthcare.
It used to be that the government subsidized everyone thru Medicare. Medicare reimbursements kept hospitals in business, and so the rates they could offer to private insurers were low, and premiums were low. It was when Reagan reduced Medicare payments to healthcare providers that there was a transfer of costs to private insurers. That's when private insurance premiums went up, and more businesses dropped employee coverage. As the number of uninsured grew, so did the premiums that had to be charged to those still paying, It's been a vicious cycle from that point on, as reduced reimbursements have forced higher premiums.
The only way to get premiums down is to reduce the number of uninsured.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||10/06/2013|
OP clearly has reading comprehension issues:
[bold] California health insurance exchange reports nearly 1 million visitors in first week; 16,311 households sign up [/bold]
|by Anonymous||reply 75||10/09/2013|
[quote]Obamacare needs to change it's name to DMVcare. Because that's exactly what it will become.
Shirley who works behind the counter at the DMV will not be doing your healthcare. That will still belong in the realm of the doctors and medical staff, who are NOT employed by the government. Do you really think people (besides R49) are so dense?
The insurance companies won't even be run by the government. All it will do is pay a subsidy to some and direct others to a marketplace where they can pick and choose. It RUNS nothing.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||10/09/2013|
I can't believe I live in a country with so many idiots who believe healthcare should be treated like a luxury rather than a necessity.
Do some not understand that we all benefit from a healthy population?
|by Anonymous||reply 77||10/09/2013|
Seriously people believe it is the government running healthcare. The only monies are for the tax incentives for people who cannot normally afford health care. It is a sliding scale the less you make the more incentive you receive.
A family of 4 with an income of 90K would play 718 a month that same family making 50K would pay 218 a month for silver level coverage.
The ACA is a whole host of protections for all of us including 100% coverage of preventative care, no life time caps etc. Also health care companies must spend 80% of the money they take in on health care or refund to you. Also they must publicly justify a rate increase of 10% or more. They are laws that affect the health care companies and protect us.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||10/09/2013|
It's not perfect but it's a HUGE leap forward. The op of this thread is a troll, as has been stated many times before.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||10/09/2013|
Wisdom from R78
|by Anonymous||reply 80||10/09/2013|
[quote]They are laws that affect the health care companies and protect us.
I don't need no stinkin' help from the govt!
|by Anonymous||reply 81||10/09/2013|
The whole f-ing thing is nothing more than an elaborate dragnet to entrap illegals. No insurance? You must be here illegally. Busted!
|by Anonymous||reply 82||10/09/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 83||10/09/2013|