For all the states so that everyone can get on and at least SEE how much it will cost.
While I know 78% of Americans have NO extra cash, it would be nice to at least know.
For all the states so that everyone can get on and at least SEE how much it will cost.
While I know 78% of Americans have NO extra cash, it would be nice to at least know.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||10/22/2013|
"Freep freep freep freep. Freep freep freep freep freep."
|by Anonymous||reply 1||10/20/2013|
As usual snarky R1 is wrong. I am more a Socialist and want socialized medicine, not this gift to private insurers.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||10/20/2013|
OK. You are a socialist.
But you are also an idiot because they are obviously working night and day to fix the website AND those people who really have no cash are getting financial aid. So your "questions" are ridiculous and flamebait.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||10/20/2013|
R3 bullshit on the financial aid.
It has nothing to do with whether or not you have extra $ but with arbitrary income lines.
Your rent and bills may be as high as your income (78% live paycheck to paycheck with NOTHING extra), but the assistance only has to do with your gross pay.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||10/20/2013|
There has been so much outright sabotage of Obamacare by GOP politicians that I wouldn't be surprised if the sites themselves are being hacked.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||10/20/2013|
Talk to the republican governors of over half the states, OP, about why they opted out of the ACA
|by Anonymous||reply 6||10/20/2013|
I call bullshit on your bullshit. I have lived on very little in very expensive cities. People who make $70,000 a year and are living "paycheck to paycheck" get no sympathy from me.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||10/20/2013|
How about those making 50k?
They get no assistance.
I make 70 and also pay for my Mother's nursing home. This takes EVERY extra dollar I have. Should I dump her in a state facility in order to buy this private insurance?
There are many who make 70 who are struggling to pay off, student loans, credit cards, etc.
It is not affordable care, it is expensive private care designed to line the pockets of big business.
50k in NY with student loans and rent...not affordable.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||10/20/2013|
I make 40K and am struggling to pay off student loans and I somehow manage to put aside money every month. Maybe its because I dont have cable TV and use the local library for my free entertainment. Maybe its because I use public transportation and commute from a cheaper housing situation. Maybe its because I was brought up by people who didnt take the luxuries of modern life as necessities.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||10/20/2013|
R9 what city do you live in?
This makes a huge difference unless you have a controlled or old stabilized apt in NY.
I don't have cable, I use the library for internet (I live across the street and they have a strong signal) I use public transit, and commute one hour for cheaper housing, but I pay the cost of a nursing home.
So dump mom and buy Obamacare?
It is not affordable for many of us. That sadly is the reality.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||10/20/2013|
Given that I dont believe you for a second (What job pays 70K but doesnt offer insurance?), take the $95 penalty.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||10/20/2013|
What world do you live in R11?
In NY multitudes of jobs do not offer insurance. I work as a restaurant manager and we have pleaded with the management to get an insurance plan but because he falls under the minimum required there is none.
In fact I know chefs making close to 100k who have no insurance. They do have the funds for Obamacare.
Restaurant are notorious for NO BENEFITS.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||10/20/2013|
Do a check on who the administration hired to write the sign-up program. They hired a Canadian firm whose CEO was fired by the Ontario government because,several years ago, she wasn't able to write a health care program even though they extended her contract one year, then 2, then 3. If her company could do it for 10 million people how could she be expected to do it for 350 million. Obviously there was little due dilligence applied. I'm Canadian. I support universal health care. But someone fucked up.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||10/20/2013|
I'd like to know the government had to outsource the building of the sites. Why not hire their own programmers?
|by Anonymous||reply 14||10/20/2013|
I have lived in Los Angeles, Chicago, and now live on the East Coast.
So let's recap. You are angry that a site is not functioning properly EVEN THOUGH you have no money to buy insurance and think that no one else does either, though a half million people have applied for insurance through the site already. You have giant student loans that you are struggling to pay back...loans you got to prepare yourself for your career as a restaurant manager and you have to spend most of your money to keep your mother out of a snake pit.
I think you are ready for your Fox News interview.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||10/20/2013|
Let's recap accurately.
I never stated I was angry. I asked when they will be fixed.
I never stated that NO ONE has money to buy insurance. I did state the fact that 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck with nothing left over. Some of them will fall into the assistance range, some will fall out of it.
My student loans are not giant. I prepared for another career, but life hands you things and I am grateful to be working and not at Starbucks.
Half a million is nothing. Some states have it working better than others.
State nursing homes are not snake pits, but they are not nice places. So yes I spend a lot of money each month to take care of her as she worked very hard to take care of me. Is this wrong?
I despise Faux news.
Facts are facts. It is not the AFFORDABLE care act for many, it is for some under line and some well over it.
Many many Americans don't have 1 2 or 3 hundred after expenses. This is a fact.
Your are ready for the hyperbole award of the year.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||10/20/2013|
You are calling it a "gift to the private sectors" which i get, but by doing so you reveal your bias.
This is a big step in the right direction.
It just is.
It is NOT single payer, which would be immensely preferable, BUT it opens the door to that, and you seem to be unable to see that.
I wonder if you voted for Ralph Nader back in the day...
|by Anonymous||reply 17||10/20/2013|
And you came to the wrong place if you think someone HERE would have an answer to when the site would be fully functional.
Anyone who thinks half a million people applying for insurance in the first month (first three weeks, actually) is nothing is delusional.
Maybe you are all the things you say you are, but here is a reality check: universal coverage was never going to happen. There were not enough votes for it. The ACA is better than no-ACA. Most people, even those living paycheck to paycheck will do better under it.
If your complaint is that before you had no insurance and now you have to pay a penalty of less than $100 for not having insurance then nothing anyone says will change your mind.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||10/20/2013|
I disagree R17. I think it closes the door to single player. Once the insurance companies get their hooks into all the money they will never let go.
This whole plan is based on Mitt RawMoney's plan which is also a gift to private insurers.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||10/20/2013|
u r wrong. and WAY too negative.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||10/20/2013|
R20 negative...is that like bad attitude. If you disagree I am negative?
I disagree with you...does that make you negative?
|by Anonymous||reply 21||10/20/2013|
"When will they fix the Obamacare sites"
a clear agenda. You may not be a rightwing freeper, but you are on their side.
You titled this thread that way. You did not title it, the big insurance companies are getting too much out of the ACA.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||10/20/2013|
PLUS, given your r1 post on the older "Choosing a Health Insurance Plan from exchange" thread, you don't understand the basics of insurance in general.
YES younger, more healthy people paying into the system is part of what will make it work.
Sorry you don't believe in ANY kind of insurance, but most of us have it in more than one form: car, home owners, health, etc.
YOU may live in NYC and YOU may not own a car, but MOST Americans are not you, mr. myopic woe is me sad sack.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||10/20/2013|
It's not a $95 penalty, r11. I'm not sure why, but the media has never explained this aspect of the penalty fully. They almost always glibly cite the $95 minimal figure.
For 2014, it's $95 or 1% of your taxable income, whichever is greater. So someone like r8, making $70,000, would owe $700 the first year.
For 2015 it goes up to $325 or 2% of family income, whichever is greater. So $1400 for r8.
For 2016 and beyond, $695 or 2.5% of family income, whichever is greater. $1750 for r8.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||10/20/2013|
Ok, here we go again. The tax for not insuring yourself in 2014 is $95. The percent of taxable income (which is not gross income) doesn't kick in for years.
Get your facts straight, or POST A LINK SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIM. And no, links to right wing propaganda don't count.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||10/20/2013|
Next, R16, check into Medicare/Medicaid. When seniors enter nursing home care, these programs pay for it unless the patient has assets, which could reveal why this poster is paying for his mother's care, as in she owns a home which he's hoping to inherit.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||10/20/2013|
Half a million signups is not "nothing." The administration predicted about this level of signups in the first month, and we still have 10 days to go.
We are not going to suddenly insure 65 million people. The rollout is going to take years, hence, the low penalty tax in the first year, rising slowly, until the uninsured get on board.
The ACA is not perfect. It is not single payer, nor could we even get a public option which was another improvement killed by the Pubbies and teatards. But for the vast majority of uninsured, as well as the vast majority of Americans, the ACA is a good first step in solving the healthcare crisis we face. Like all realignments of our economy, there will be winners and losers, and the ACA is still tilted toward those of us in he 99%, which is why Pubbies hate it and will do anything to kill it.
The real problem is that with the current political makeup, it will be very difficult to solve many of the problems left unaddressed when the law was passed. These fixes require consensus (ha! Given the teatards who oppose everything even remotely good for the people) or filibuster-proof majorities. The upshot: elect democrats to solve problems (as opposed to electing Pubbies and teatards to borrow, spend, start wars, and bitch about the brown people).
|by Anonymous||reply 27||10/20/2013|
ALSO, r4, a big part of the reason people are living paycheck to paycheck IS THE LACK of affordable healthcare heretofore.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||10/20/2013|
Worked fine for me...
|by Anonymous||reply 29||10/20/2013|
here you go, r25:
as I said, "For 2014, it's $95 or 1% of your taxable income, whichever is greater. So someone like [R8], making $70,000, would owe $700 the first year. "
PS: you're an ignorant idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||10/20/2013|
-- someone making $70,000 a year can certainly afford to be annually taxed $700.
Get real, r30.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||10/20/2013|
(that breaks down to $60 a month.)
|by Anonymous||reply 32||10/20/2013|
To clarify for R26 and others, though I realize this is a side issue:
Medicare will pay for a couple of weeks of nursing home care. Medicaid covers nursing home care but requires basically poverty level income to qualify.
My suspicion is that OP is saying "nursing home" when he means assisted living or some other kind of senior independent living housing. Neither Medicare nor Medicaid cover those arrangements. That's why OP is helping pay for it for his/her mom.
Nursing homes are only for people who require nursing care. We tend to use "nursing home" generically to mean old folks' housing.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||10/20/2013|
I watched an interview with the head of a big Tech company and he said the fundamental flaw with the system is making people register and I.D, proof before being allowed to see the plans. I guess you can only spend so much time on the site before it times out and you have to start over. Insurance companies are saying they are getting multiple applications from one person but they will be incomplete. What is the big deal with allowing people to see the plans before applying?
|by Anonymous||reply 34||10/20/2013|
Well, back to reality...
If R8 is supporting his mother in a nursing home, she is a dependent on his income tax, and if we believe his link (which I don't, but that's another matter), the penalty would be his income in excess of the $20k threshold, or $500. But since his mother does qualify for Medicaid or Medicare, he may be exempt (at least, that's what the kff site seems to suggest).
Also, once you delve into the weeds of the ACA, you find that healthcare expenditures in excess of 8% of your adjusted gross income are deductible! reducing R8's exposure if he is in fact paying for his dependent mother's care.
My original point remains. This is a major realignment of 20% of the US economy, and there will be winners and losers. If this guy is a loser, making $70k, so be it. He can afford healthcare insurance.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||10/20/2013|
i love you r25 r26 r27.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||10/20/2013|
how do you know what r8 can afford, r31 / r32 / r37. What do you know of his or her expenses, beyond what was described in r8's post, and which you've failed to address?
besides, its not about where or not her or she can afford the 1% (2014), 2% (2015), or 2.5% (2016 +) income penalty. Its whether he or she can afford the monthly insurance fees, which they will have to pay without subsidy because of the income bracket.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||10/20/2013|
growing pains will be inevitable. but the ACA is a HUGE step forward.
Since we can't flip a switch and suddenly be a single-payer nation, I will see r8's whining as just that.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||10/20/2013|
Why the fuck does it make one a freeper to ask a very legitimate question? Why the fuck didn't the government make damn sure the websites would work; they had years to get this together.
For those of us who have stood by Obama on this issue, and have supported the ACA - notwithstanding that many of us would have preferred single payer, and believe in non-profit health care - this is a real shot at themselves and at us.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||10/20/2013|
many, many nations flipped a switch and suddenly became single payer nations. England did. Taiwan did. Medicare for all was an option that Obama chose not to take.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||10/20/2013|
"Why the fuck does it make one a freeper to ask a very legitimate question?"
Nope, nope, nope. It is not a legitimate question. You ask people involved in the creation of the site when it will be fixed, not random people on a website like Datalounge.
Here it is a pointless question and flamebait.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||10/20/2013|
"Medicare for all was an option that Obama chose not to take."
Nope, nope, nope. There was no way a "Medicare for all" bill would make it to his desk for signing. Congress has first say. He is not "Obama the Magic Negro."
|by Anonymous||reply 42||10/20/2013|
I'm asking myself the same question
I want to sign up. I want health insurance without a pre-existing clause in it.
I created an account. I'm stuck in limbo of "we can't verify who you are" despite my calling their toll free number and also uploading a copy of my id.
One of their reps told me to set up another profile and start over.
I'm assuming my profile is stuck in some internet government black hole. I don't have a whole lot of faith in their shitty website.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||10/20/2013|
[quote] There are many who make 70 who are struggling to pay off, student loans, credit cards, etc.
That's your fault. Credit cards aren't a necessity and maxing them out was a choice.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||10/20/2013|
really, how do you know, r43? There were many political health analysts who suggested phasing in a Medicare for all, with sequential age eligibility drops over a decade until it was fully phased in, instead of this crappy Heritage Rube Goldberg contraption, with or without a Public Option. Filibuster rules could have been amended at the beginning of 2009 and yes, we could have gotten Medicare for all, regardless.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||10/20/2013|
This link was posted in another ACA thread. You can estimate your premiums without having to register.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||10/20/2013|
"Really, how do you know, [R43]?"
Um...because I can count. The Democrats barely got the extremely watered-down ACA through without a vote to spare. Anything farther to the left certainly wouldn't have made it...despite what "many political health analysts" might have said.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||10/20/2013|
Jesus christ, how much does one have to pay for a plan that includes eye exams/glasses for adults?!
I don't understand why infertility and chiropractic gets covered but adult vision doesn't. The last thing this country needs is another goddamn brat running around. Some of us NEED corrective lenses to DRIVE.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||10/20/2013|
R36 you must be one of the biggest fucking idiots on the planet.
When I say that after my bills/rent/mother are paid at the end of the month I have NOTHING. In fact I delay food shopping and eat a lot of pasta waiting for that precious 30 bucks I can spend at the grocer.
You have no fucking clue what I can 'afford'. I simply cannot. I use .99 cent store gel in my hair because I can only manage a 15 buck hair cut ever 3 months.
Nursing home...I suppose that is incorrect. It is semi-independant. Shared room, shared meals in the dining hall but they get out and have activities etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||10/20/2013|
My hair gel! Won't someone think of my hair gel!
|by Anonymous||reply 50||10/20/2013|
And let's not forget dental care, R49. Why doesn't that get covered under most plans?
|by Anonymous||reply 51||10/20/2013|
whiney whiney whiney.
things will be BETTER with the ACA, not worse.
If YOU can't afford year one's $95-700 then deal, It's not like you will be thrown in debtor's prison. This will change hundreds of thousands of lives for the better.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||10/20/2013|
Obama is going to address the health exchange glitches in an address tomorrow morning in the Rose Garden.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||10/20/2013|
in a few hours
|by Anonymous||reply 54||10/21/2013|
Bet he surrounds himself with a bunch of people who have signed up. Better if he'd let them speak and tell us all how they managed that.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||10/21/2013|
Tune into the media today. Obama will be addressing this very issue.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||10/21/2013|
RED states like Texas and Florida will not lift a finger to help Obamacare. On the contrary, they will do their best to sabotage it.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||10/21/2013|
Maybe they outsourced the sites to a company owned by Murdoch.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||10/21/2013|
If you have health care through your employer you don't have to do anything, you are covered. If you are a vet, just sign up with the VA and you don't have to do anything. If you are on medicare or SSI with medicaid you don't have to do anything. The insurance does not take affect until the first of the year. The first premium isn't due until Dec. 15th. You have plenty of time to sign up. Wait a few weeks or a month and then try the websites. The states running their own exchanges are going more smoothly. The states that don't give a shit and are defying the law, leave it to the Feds to run for them. If you have a problem in your state blame your governor and legislature.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||10/21/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 60||10/21/2013|
I couldn't get in on Day One. I now have my password etc. so I'm ready to shop.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||10/21/2013|
Comsumer Reports gave it a scathing review, advises to avoid it for at least a month.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||10/21/2013|
I'm worried because it's such a huge fiasco at the launch, how's it's going to be actually implemented through actually medical procedures with the hospitals/doctors? I see bureaucratic nightmares and horrendous health errors and desperately ill people falling into a government abyss for at least a decade, if not longer. I also see the potential for great fraud and your private health and identity info hacked into the wrong hands, and it will occur I assure you. They did not spend the required time to create this. It's a speedy hack job. It's a feel your way and hope you hit the objective plan.
It was crucial for them to get this right, because they need the healthy young to feel confident enough to finance it, but they gave the coding contract to a company that already had a huge failure trying to write a program for only 10 million and they give them this contract for up to 350 million users? An incredible stupid decision. To be followed by more no doubt.
The only ones desperate enough to sign up as it is now are the ones that desperately need it, but the ones expected to and are depended on to finance it are going to try to stay away.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||10/21/2013|
R64, the government isn't involved with actual insurance plan. All of your dealings with anything health related is done through the insurance company not the government.
The website is supposed to identify the plans that are available in your area and also determine if you are eligible for the government subsides based on your income.
So far what I have been able to determine for me is that in my area all of the plans that are being offered are pretty much the same plans that were available to me to purchase as an individual when I lost my job earlier this year. I wasn't eligible for Cobra due to the size of the company I worked for.
The plan I was on at my old job was $407 a month. I could in theory sign up for that same plan since it's offered, but I cannot find out what it would really cost me since I am unemployed because I have no been able to complete my profile through the damn website.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||10/21/2013|
Only ten percent of those who tried to enroll actually got enrolled. This is a catastophe of epic porportion. The entire concept relies on young people signing up. They're likely to pass on it now, then comes taxation. Democrats are going to pay dearly next year if Obama doesn't get his act together. Every day Sebelis has a job shows America that Obama is not doing his. You have to be a real fuck up to not be able to get a fucking web site up and running in the US in time. People are going to be punished for not enrolling in time. People have lives.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||10/22/2013|
"Freep, freep, freep, freep," says r66.
Let's take this from a non-hysterical point of view. Let's say that the site isn't overhauled so that all who want to use it can by the end of March next year. Do you really think the Obama administration is going to say, "Even though it is our fault, we are going to punish you people for not signing up"? No, they will delay the penalty or extend the deadline.
Get a frickin' grip.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||10/22/2013|
Why is it so easy for other countries to establish a national health program, and so difficult for us?
|by Anonymous||reply 67||10/22/2013|
Our leaders are making it deliberately difficult, R68, so as many rich corporations as possible can fuck us over every step of the way.
The mandatory inclusion of the insurance industry is the cause of all of this. Affordable Health Care requires the elimination of the insurance industry from the equation.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||10/22/2013|
When will they fix Datalounge? Another day of server problems. Can't see or access any new threads. Only the old ones in my Thread Watcher. Is THIS the new Primetime for paying members? Ya need to do better, DL.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||10/22/2013|