Obamacare

Quote: rob45

I'm confused.
I have been under the impression that the conservatives have claimed that universal healthcare, while being a noble concept, results in wealth redistribution.
Meanwhile, the liberals have claimed that it does not result in redistribution of wealth.

Are you stating that the liberals have not been truthful?

I doubt there is a quote from anyone in the forum trying to argue that it does not redistribute wealth. Not sure what random people are saying.

Quote: endermike

Guys, insurance itself redistributes costs. That's what you sign up for when you sign up for insurance.

You pay in small amounts regularly and then take out large amounts infrequently. When you pay in you are paying for others, and when you take out you are taking from others.

Generally there is also a "rake" known as the insurance company, but the basic idea behind insurance is to pool risk and payments among many to protect each other.

But insurance isn't wealth redistribution based on success, ambition, risk taking and earnings. At least it wasn't until obama. It was redistribution based on probabilities and health profiles plus the insurance company's ability to earn money on invested insurance premiums.

Is the problem with the program the execution or the idea of people paying for each others' healthcare? Or both?

You do realize obamacare is headed for trillions in government bailouts funded by taxpayer dollars, don't you?

Quote: AZDuffman

I have looked and do not see it, perhaps you can look it up. That is if I ever did it, which I did not. Please cut it with the insults and just post where I did this. No changing what I said in a quote, just post where I did this.

OTOH, you said here that Obamacare was saving you money. You said "Obama won, America won." (or whatever the exact wording was.) So I will ask you to please explain if it was such a great policy why are you now so upset?

You've already equated Obamacare with a single payer system. There's no need to re-repost it again and again. I would like to explain to you what you've requested but it's not true so no explanation is necessary.

Quote: anonimuss

You do realize obamacare is headed for trillions in government bailouts funded by taxpayer dollars, don't you?

That's where healthcare was going anyways

Quote: endermike

That's where healthcare was going anyways

Absolute horsepuckey. The insurance companies were showing
record profits, they were hardly going bankrupt like GM or
Chrysler.

Quote: Pabo

steeldco, you apparently are in favor of Obamacare and have a differing opinion about it compared to those of us who think it's bad. Rather than resorting to insults, tell us why you think it's so great. Please keep in mind that I'm not against universal health care for everyone per se. I just think Obamacare is not the way to go.

Go ahead and try to convince me that the the many experts in the fields of government, economics, medical/health care, insurance industry, manufacturing and other industries that have weighed in and pointed out the problems with Obamacare are wrong.

Pabo, my position has always been that there is not enough evidence, one way or the other, on whether Obamacare is an improvement over what we had. Therefore I have maintained that it was worth a try because what we had was very much a broken system (other than by a childlike individual, I don't think that it can be disputed). There are great minds on both sides of the debate and there is no telling, at this stage, who is right. Only time will tell and therefore, I say, the people who seem to feel that they know what is best for everyone else, by looking into their crystal balls, should just go play elsewhere.

Quote: s2dbaker

You've already equated Obamacare with a single payer system. There's no need to re-repost it again and again. I would like to explain to you what you've requested but it's not true so no explanation is necessary.

So now instead of saying I "compared" it you state that I "equated" it, yet you *still* refuse to show where I did so?

Seriously, show where i did this. Just one, unchanged quote. Should be easy according to you.

New information..... In October doctors and hospitals will have to switch to a new coding system, called ICD 10, to be able to submit bills. The additional information required is staggering, first requiring the provider to accumulate this information, then requiring the billing service to enter it all in a way specified by the "Affordable Care Act"! I have a friend who is an expert in these matters, and he runs a large multi-state anesthesia group. He says each of his coders will need a FULL WEEK of new training, and that his BEST hope is that they will ONLY need to expand the number of coders they use by 20%. (Another 'success' of the ACA, job creation!) Two physician friends in private practice, both in Las Vegas, by the way, have been told by their managers to start keeping money in the practice now to be prepared for the estimated THREE MONTH lag in receiving payments in October when ICD 10 becomes the law of the land.
By the way, if private company X now needs 60 employees instead of 50, they will raise the price of their product, as will all companies that make product Y. So do you think Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare exchanges will be raising the fees paid to doctors and hospitals in October? Please no laughing......

Quote: AZDuffman

So now instead of saying I "compared" it you state that I "equated" it, yet you *still* refuse to show where I did so?

Seriously, show where i did this. Just one, unchanged quote. Should be easy according to you.

We've been through this already, first, you said the stupid thing then I quoted the stupid thing and now you want me to re-quote the stupid thing yet again? This is after you've already tried to justify the stupid thing. Good luck with that.

Quote: steeldco

Pabo, my position has always been that there is not enough evidence, one way or the other, on whether Obamacare is an improvement over what we had. Therefore I have maintained that it was worth a try because what we had was very much a broken system (other than by a childlike individual, I don't think that it can be disputed). There are great minds on both sides of the debate and there is no telling, at this stage, who is right. Only time will tell and therefore, I say, the people who seem to feel that they know what is best for everyone else, by looking into their crystal balls, should just go play elsewhere.

Thanks for the response, steeldco. I agree with you that there is good and bad in Obamacare. Some on WoV seem to only focus on the good, while others seem only to focus on the bad. In general, I think many of the goals in Obamacare are very laudable and moral and should be pursued. The question then becomes: is Obamacare the best way to achieve them? I and others posit that it isn't for a number of reasons. I agree with you that there are problems in our healthcare system that need to be improved, cost being a major one. It's not that anyone's against improving the healthcare system we had, it's more about trying to figure out how do we do it.

If Obamacare is so great, why did Obama resort to lying (repeatedly) to the American people in order to get their support? Simple: he knew that if everyone found out how it was going to be implemented and the impact it was going to have on jobs, current plans, and costs (premiums and out-of-pocket), then he would have gotten little, if any, support. It would have gone the way that Clinton's healthcare plan in 1993. And if Obamacare is so great, why did Obama want its implementation put off until after the 2012 election? Because he never would have been re-elected once everyone found out how bad Obamacare really is. Look at the numbers today: 59% of Americans oppose Obamacare; 30% (and growing) of Democrats now oppose it; 60+% of Independents oppose it.

Thanks to Obamacare, millions of people have had their policies cancelled. Millions of full-time workers have been reduced to part-time employment. Costs for medical devices and medicines will go up faster than they have before thanks to Obamacare fees and taxes. Hospitals and health providers are having to deal with an onerous burden of administrative paperwork due to the provisions of Obamacare. Much like what's happened in the farming sector, doctors in private practice and small hospitals are going to be taken over by large hospitals, forming cartels, who, with sweetheart deals with large insurance companies (check out what happened in Massachusetts under Romneycare), will set prices. Premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for most people are going up, especially for the young. Obamacare will not stop the rise in healthcare costs. Obama lied about how we were all going to save money under his wonderful plan.

And if Obamacare is so great, why has Richard Trumpka (AFL-CIO honcho) arguied so forcibly that unions should be exempt from Obamacare? Why does Congress qualify for subsidies? They make more than 80% of Americans. What's fair about that?

I can go on and on about the failings of Obamacare, from the impact on the economy to the restrictions imposed by Obamacare on freedom of choice. It's all out there for those interested in learning.

Most of those here on WoV who have argued so strongly for Obamacare focus only on the benefits and ignore the problems. That's like the rich lady on the Titanic admiring the luxuriousness and comfort of her stateroom, the wonderful meals, and the comfort of the deck chairs, all while the ship is sinking slowly into the depths.

Quote: steeldco

we had was very much a broken system .

The insurance companies were NOT 'broken', they
were thriving. Heathcare and insurance are two
totally different things and I'm sick of hearing the
two combined into one catchall phrase.

It was NOT necessary to break the the insurance
system, which is what Obamacare is doing, to
fix healthcare in this country. Something could have
been set up for the uninsured and people with pre
existing conditions. But that's not what the Left
wants, they needed to break the insurance system.
Too bad it worked way too well and we see what's
happening in time to fix it.

Pabo, you've written quite a bit here. I'll do my best to try to respond.

Quote: Pabo

The question then becomes: is Obamacare the best way to achieve them? I and others posit that it isn't for a number of reasons.

That is indeed the question and nobody at this point knows the answer. You may believe that it isn't the best way, but you can't know that at this point. However, I will grant you that it will not survive in its present form. It will evolve. The bigger question then becomes will it evolve into something truly worthwhile?

Quote: Pabo

If Obamacare is so great, why did Obama resort to lying (repeatedly) to the American people in order to get their support? Simple: he knew that if everyone found out how it was going to be implemented and the impact it was going to have on jobs, current plans, and costs (premiums and out-of-pocket), then he would have gotten little, if any, support. It would have gone the way that Clinton's healthcare plan in 1993. And if Obamacare is so great, why did Obama want its implementation put off until after the 2012 election? Because he never would have been re-elected once everyone found out how bad Obamacare really is. Look at the numbers today: 59% of Americans oppose Obamacare; 30% (and growing) of Democrats now oppose it; 60+% of Independents oppose it.

I can't answer that. It's obvious that he either lied, or was just dead wrong in making the claims that he did. In either case, not good. The numbers related to supporters and detractors continually changes and shouldn't be looked at in a vacuum, nor does it mean that the majority is correct whether that majority is for or against. It is, in my opinion, irrelevant.

Quote: Pabo

Thanks to Obamacare, millions of people have had their policies cancelled.

I'm not sure that it's necessarily a bad thing. Other policies are available.

Quote: Pabo

Millions of full-time workers have been reduced to part-time employment.

This move by companies to more part-time employees has been going on for quite a while. Well before the advent of Obamacare. I've seen it firsthand in the companies that I have been associated with. This is entirely due to rising costs and not just recent ones. It goes back at least a decade.

Quote: Pabo

Costs for medical devices and medicines will go up faster than they have before thanks to Obamacare fees and taxes.

They probably will continue to go up but it will be hard to tell how much might be due to Obamacare and how much is due to other factors. I'm not sure that it will necessarily go up faster.

Quote: Pabo

Hospitals and health providers are having to deal with an onerous burden of administrative paperwork due to the provisions of Obamacare. Much like what's happened in the farming sector, doctors in private practice and small hospitals are going to be taken over by large hospitals, forming cartels, who, with sweetheart deals with large insurance companies (check out what happened in Massachusetts under Romneycare), will set prices..

In all honesty, this onerous burden stuff is just such a crappy argument. Any change by the government, in any area, causes consternation and complaining because people will need to do things differently. It upsets them. Well, it upsets me too. When I have to fill out pages and pages of census bureau data that seems to change every frickin' year. Or my tax forms that become exceedingly complicated. Or frickin' laws regarding the same issues that vary from state to state and as a businessman you have to accommodate all of these various states. Why can't they be consistant? I can probably go on and on but what's the point? We all need to accept the fact that change happens and deal with it.

Quote: Pabo

Premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for most people are going up, especially for the young. Obamacare will not stop the rise in healthcare costs. Obama lied about how we were all going to save money under his wonderful plan.

They are going up for the young. I believe that they should. You're right in that Obamacare will not stop healthcare costs from rising. But I'm not convinced that the rise would be any less without it.

Quote: Pabo

And if Obamacare is so great, why has Richard Trumpka (AFL-CIO honcho) arguied so forcibly that unions should be exempt from Obamacare? Why does Congress qualify for subsidies? They make more than 80% of Americans. What's fair about that?

I'm not sure how to answer this. I'm not a fan of unions. From what part of Obamacare would cause him to feel that his unions should be exempt? It better be a hell of a reason, or too F'ing bad. Similarly, The Congress issue needs to be fixed.

Quote: steeldco

Pabo, you've written quite a bit here. I'll do my best to try to respond.

nobody at this point knows the answer...I can't answer that...I'm not sure...
But I'm not convinced...I'm not sure how to answer this. .

Yes, it's all out of context, but it pretty well sums
up what you or anybody knows about Obamacare.
Except the insurance experts, they all know it's
absolutely doomed. They know how the model
works and the Obamacare model will never work
without insane gov't bailouts, which will never happen
with a Repub congress. Not a single Repub voted
for this atrocious law, and now they want a bailout?
Yeah, right..

Quote: SOOPOO

New information..... In October doctors and hospitals will have to switch to a new coding system, called ICD 10, to be able to submit bills. The additional information required is staggering, first requiring the provider to accumulate this information, then requiring the billing service to enter it all in a way specified by the "Affordable Care Act"! I have a friend who is an expert in these matters, and he runs a large multi-state anesthesia group. He says each of his coders will need a FULL WEEK of new training, and that his BEST hope is that they will ONLY need to expand the number of coders they use by 20%. (Another 'success' of the ACA, job creation!) Two physician friends in private practice, both in Las Vegas, by the way, have been told by their managers to start keeping money in the practice now to be prepared for the estimated THREE MONTH lag in receiving payments in October when ICD 10 becomes the law of the land.
By the way, if private company X now needs 60 employees instead of 50, they will raise the price of their product, as will all companies that make product Y. So do you think Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare exchanges will be raising the fees paid to doctors and hospitals in October? Please no laughing......

ACA has nothing to do with ICD 10. ICD 10 was finalized in 1992. It as supposed to be implemented in January 2009 but was pushed back and has repeatedly been pushed back. There is nothing unusual about it these manuals change all the time hence why we are on ICD 10. In fact we are lagging so far behind that ICD 11 is supposed to be coming out in 2015. Where are you getting the idea that it has anything to do with the ACA?

Quote: Twirdman

ACA has nothing to do with ICD 10. ICD 10 was finalized in 1992. It as supposed to be implemented in January 2009 but was pushed back and has repeatedly been pushed back. There is nothing unusual about it these manuals change all the time hence why we are on ICD 10. In fact we are lagging so far behind that ICD 11 is supposed to be coming out in 2015. Where are you getting the idea that it has anything to do with the ACA?

Because it is part of the 20,000 page bill. Just a coincidence that it was finalized in 1992 (I'll take your word for it) and is just being forced upon the providers simultaneously with the implementation of Obamacare? I think not!

As far as most of your thoughts.... You are right... we cannot be sure of the ultimate result of the ACA, but will you at least admit that either taxes will have to rise or the deficit will have to increase SUBSTANTIALLY to pay for it?

Quote: steeldco

Only time will tell and therefore, I say, the people who seem to feel that they know what is best for everyone else, by looking into their crystal balls, should just go play elsewhere.

This statement reminds me of that old man who was warned about Mount St. Helens erupting, yet he refused to leave because he wanted to "wait and see" what would happen. Well, he sure got to see all right.

Quote: SOOPOO

Because it is part of the 20,000 page bill. Just a coincidence that it was finalized in 1992 (I'll take your word for it) and is just being forced upon the providers simultaneously with the implementation of Obamacare? I think not!

As far as most of your thoughts.... You are right... we cannot be sure of the ultimate result of the ACA, but will you at least admit that either taxes will have to rise or the deficit will have to increase SUBSTANTIALLY to pay for it?

Again I mentioned it was delayed in January of 2009 http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/01/15/feds-delay-icd-10-for-two-years/ here is the article mentioning that it was supposed to be implemented in October of 2011 but was delayed until October 2013. That article was written in January of 2009. So unless you think that Obamacare came with a magical time machine its passage in 2010 had nothing to do with the adoption of ICD 10.

Thanks, steeldco, for your thoughtful response. While still early, much is already known about how the American people are going to fare under Obamacare, and it isn't good. That's why polls show that the number of American opposed to Obamacare--even Democrats--is growing steadily. The question I and others here keep asking--but no one on the left here on WoV even tries to answer--is this: If Obamacare's so good, why are the numbers showing Americans' growing disapproval going up in every poll? And why are Obama's job approval numbers dropping? Any libs/Progressives/Democrats care to answer that?

Many people--even some on WoV--say that under Obamacare their premiums are lower. But most of those people are from states whose health care has been over-regulated and whose health care coverage is costlier than the national average to begin with. Under Obamacare, their premiums have fallen, so they would naturally tend to be happier with the law.

As for the administrative burden imposed by Obamacare, I refer to the 2012 testimony of Mr. Edward Fensholt, who testified before the House Subcommitte on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions. Fensholt is senior vice president of Lockton Companies, LLC, an insurance brokerage and consulting firm that provides employee-benefits expertise to busniess employers. Here's the link: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-has-bent-insurance-cost-curve-north-not-south-insurance-executive-tells-house

In short, according to Fensholt, Obamacare imposes "many additional administrative burdens" in addtion to those already required by federal law. An example of some of the ridiculousness is that: "health plans must provide a 'four-page, double-sided summary of plan coverage in a very hard-wired format at specific times, not only to enrollees but to individuals who are merely eligible for coverage. And plans face fines of up to $1,000 per violation of this requirement,' he said." Again, companies have to provide a summary of their plans not just to enrollees, but also TO INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MERELY ELIGIBLE FOR COVERAGE. And companies face a $1,000 fine for each violation of the requirement. I read that as meaning that if 5 people didn't receive the required notice, then the company faces a $5,000 fine.

According to Fensholt, it only gets worse. Starting this year, 2014, "...the law will require "significant and frequent reporting by employers," including what specific medical coverage the employer offers; a roster of employees who are eligible and enrolled in the company's health plan and whether those employees are full-time or part-time; the cost of the employer's health insurance offerings, and the employer's and employees' respective shares of that cost; and how many months of the year an employee and each of his enrolled dependents were covered by a company-sponsored plan." (EDIT: I think that requirement got put off thanks to Obama's delaying the company mandates by a year. Not sure, though. Even so, it will be there come 2015.)

Even individual taxpayers are caught up in this administrative BS. Don't forget, we have to submit additional paperwork every year to the IRS regarding our healthcare coverage to determine whether we're covered, or not. What utter nonsense.

And if anyone thinks Obamacare is going to work smoothly, think again. This is a program from the same government that rolled out the Obamacare website. And we all know how great that's been working. Does anyone really have much hope that the program's going to work very well? I sure don't. Having worked for the federal government for 31 years, I have a deep appreciation for the bureaucratic nightmare that awaits us.

Quote: Pabo

Having worked for the federal government for 31 years, I have a deep appreciation for the bureaucratic nightmare that awaits us.

It doesn't await us, it's already happening. Just saw
yet another insurance exec say the young are staying
away in droves, so it's doomed. It's like only people
with bad driving records buying car insurance. They
depend on 90% of people who buy insurance never
having to use it. My parents had car insurance for
50 years and never used it once. That's very common.

Insurance of every kind depends on people who will
pay for a long time before they use it. Obamacare
is signing up the old and sick at an alarming rate,
and why not. They're the only ones that NEED it.

What about all of the people that no longer have health insurance because their previous plans were cancelled? Many of the them haven't been able to enroll in Obamacare because of the website. What happens as more and more of these people begin showing up in the ERs without insurance? What about the people with cancer that were receiving specialized care?

Quote: Keyser

What happens as more and more of these people begin showing up in the ERs without insurance? What about the people with cancer that were receiving specialized care?

You're so negative. All those people are just happy
that their inconvenience has made it possible for
some obese woman in a trailer park to have access
to heathcare. She can't afford the premiums, but
it's the thought that counts with Libs.

EB, I think the real nightmare begins companies everywhere start cancelling their employees' health plans, forcing them into the state and federal exchanges. The outcry will be tremendous.

Quote: Pabo

EB, I think the real nightmare begins companies everywhere start cancelling their employees' health plans, forcing them into the state and federal exchanges. The outcry will be tremendous.

You mean like Target did this week? Yes, the young
who now get it paid for won't bother to sign up when
they get cancelled, I wouldn't. Only the people over
40 will bother.

I agree, EB. I wouldn't sign up for it. My son doesn't want to sign up, but his mother--my ex--says she'll pay for it and is insisting that he go ahead.

Quote: Pabo

I agree, EB. I wouldn't sign up for it. My son doesn't want to sign up, but his mother--my ex--says she'll pay for it and is insisting that he go ahead.

Tell him to shop on the open market. I just bought my first plan ever that way due to me being an indie contractor now. Told two people one of them my mother that there was no way I was going thru the exchange and I do not care if it is cheaper. No way I am supporting that system.

Quote: AZDuffman

Tell him to shop on the open market. I just bought my first plan ever that way due to me being an indie contractor now. Told two people one of them my mother that there was no way I was going thru the exchange and I do not care if it is cheaper. No way I am supporting that system.

Good advice, AZ, thanks. I'll have a chat with him when he gets home from work tonight.

Quote: Pabo

Good advice, AZ, thanks. I'll have a chat with him when he gets home from work tonight.

If he is young it might actually be easier. I had to have my doctor sign off on a few things but I am older and on a few meds. Here in W-PA a healthy young guy can get a plan for less than $200 a month.

Quote: Keyser

Many of the them haven't been able to enroll in Obamacare because of the website.

The website is working just fine.

Quote: Keyser

What happens as more and more of these people begin showing up in the ERs without insurance? What about the people with cancer that were receiving specialized care?

They should go to the website and sign up for some Obamacare. STAT!!

I read a thing about Target, which is dropping coverage for part-timers. They say by doing that, some of the employees will qualify for subsidies.

Quote: s2dbaker

The website is working just fine.They should go to the website and sign up for some Obamacare. STAT!!

s2dbaker, you don't know what you're talking about. As of January 2014, problems still exist with Healthcare.gov:

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region_c_palm_beach_county/west_palm_beach/healthcaregov-site-problems-continue-into-2014-with-many-getting-error-message-while-signing-up

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/healthcare-gov-medicaid-coverage-problems/2014/01/04/id/545218

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/22/administration-fears-part-health-care-system-so-flawed-it-could-bankrupt/

Recommend you do a Google search. You'll find lots of problems still exist.

Quote: Keyser

What about all of the people that no longer have health insurance because their previous plans were cancelled? Many of the them haven't been able to enroll in Obamacare because of the website. What happens as more and more of these people begin showing up in the ERs without insurance? What about the people with cancer that were receiving specialized care?

What about people that lost their plan and can't afford a more expensive obamacare plan with astronomical deductibles?

And don't think that we Gringos are the only ones continuing to experience problems with Healthcare.gov. Problems abound at the Spanish version, too:

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2014/jan/12/health-care-site-ills-spread-to-spanish-speakers/

You know, this whole fiasco with Obamacare and Healthcare.gov is making the US look pretty foolish to the rest of the world. Here we are, the world's last great superpower, and we can't even get a website up and running, thanks to the incompetency of that dynamic duo of Obama and Sebelius. And people really think that this and future administrations are going to be able to run Obamacare efficiently and keep costs low? Not a chance in h**l!

Quote: Pabo

future administrations are going to be able to run Obamacare efficiently and keep costs low? Not a chance in h**l!

Obama said if this bill was going to cost taxpayers
one dime, he wouldn't sign it. Does that mean he'll
repeal it now?

Look, I just made a joke.. lol

And security problems with the website still haven't been fixed.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/hackers-healthcare-gov-still-riddled-potential-security-issues-2D11940198

yeah, s2dbaker, Healthcare.gov is working just great!

Quote: Pabo

You know, this whole fiasco with Obamacare and Healthcare.gov is making the US look pretty foolish to the rest of the world. Here we are, the world's last great superpower, and we can't even get a website up and running, thanks to the incompetency of that dynamic duo of Obama and Sebelius. And people really think that this and future administrations are going to be able to run Obamacare efficiently and keep costs low? Not a chance in h**l!

obama made the United States look stupid soon after he was elected the first time. He and his clown posse touted "Arab Spring" without a clue what was really happening as the Middle East went up in flames, al Qaeda multiplied exponentially, and muslims started slaughtering Christians at will.

Quote: anonimuss

obama made the United States look stupid soon after he was elected the first time. He and his clown posse touted "Arab Spring" without a clue what was really happening as the Middle East went up in flames, al Qaeda multiplied exponentially, and muslims started slaughtering Christians at will.

All too true, anonimuss. This administration has our friends and allies shaking their heads at us, while our enemies laugh and mock us.

What's ironic is michelle obama, the first lady, stating she was never proud of The United States until her husband was elected. Now, five years later, how many tens of millions of Americans can say the opposite.

I guess people don't know about the web site difficulties 'cause it is nearing its expected monthly goal.

Quote:

Health and Human Services says that at least 800,000 people signed up for coverage through this week. So this new figure shouldn't be seen as representing overall January enrollment--that number will likely inch up a bit, when the Obama administration releases a monthly enrollment report in February. Back in September, the Obama administration had projected 1.1 million people would sign-up in the first month of 2014--and these new figures suggest that enrollment could easily hit that number.

Since the federal government implemented significant fixes to HealthCare.gov on Dec. 1, monthly enrollment totals have inched significantly closer to the targets. Instead of netting a quarter or third of the expected sign-ups, as the administration did in October and November, now the numbers are coming in much more in range of expectations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/24/dont-look-now-but-obamacare-might-just-hit-a-sign-up-projection/

Quote: rxwine

I guess people don't know about the web site difficulties 'cause it is nearing its expected monthly goal.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/24/dont-look-now-but-obamacare-might-just-hit-a-sign-up-projection/

Given these numbers come from HHS, I'm skeptical. Regardless, the fact is the numbers are still way behind the administration's projections of 7 million by March 31. We'll see then how close to or far off the mark they are. Furthermore, it's one thing to claim someone is signed up, but another thing entirely to actually be signed up (i.e. to have coverage confirmed by the insurer). That only comes when the first month's payment is made. HHS is unable to provide any figures on that. Maybe because coverage confirmation is done on the back end of the website, which is broken.

A cursory review of various reporting on Obamacare figures indicate that most of those people signing up for coverage are either the poor who don't qualify and get dumped into Medicaid, or do qualify and get subsidized. And the very sick and elderly are also signing up in large numbers. Keep in mind that the critical factor in the success or failure of Obamacare is the number of young people signing up for coverage. The young are going to pay for the poor, sick and elderly through higher insurance premiums. Without them, Obamacare is dead in the water. I haven't seen any numbers from HHS about the number of young people signing up for Obamacare.

Fox reported the following on January 18:

"Overall, adults ages 55-64 were the most heavily represented in the signups, accounting for 33 percent of the total. Nationwide, the premiums paid by people in that demographic don't fully cover their medical expenses. Some are in the waiting room for Medicare; that coverage starts at age 65.

Young adults from 18 to 34 are only 24 percent of total enrollment, the Obama administration said Monday in its first signup figures broken down for age, gender and other details. Enrolling young and healthy people is important because they generally pay more into the system than they take out, subsidizing older adults."

Bottom line is that more young people need to sign up if Obamacare is to work as intended.

Quote: s2dbaker

We've been through this already, first, you said the stupid thing then I quoted the stupid thing and now you want me to re-quote the stupid thing yet again? This is after you've already tried to justify the stupid thing. Good luck with that.

You never quoted anything, you just told me something along the lines of "you know what you said." Now you resort to name calling. About what I expected.

Quote: Evenbob

You mean like Target did this week? Yes, the young
who now get it paid for won't bother to sign up when
they get cancelled, I wouldn't. Only the people over
40 will bother.

According to Forbes, participation in these Target part time plans was optional anyway and not a lot of young parttimers participated. Part-timers still paid into the plan and the excuse that there were better plans in the marketplace is a correct analysis. It's a cost saving move for employers and a way to save a buck. Capitalism at its best.

In the meantime, Walmart converted 30K of its workers from part-time to full-time to give them benefits.

Quote: Pabo

Thanks, steeldco, for your thoughtful response. While still early, much is already known about how the American people are going to fare under Obamacare, and it isn't good. That's why polls show that the number of American opposed to Obamacare--even Democrats--is growing steadily. The question I and others here keep asking--but no one on the left here on WoV even tries to answer--is this: If Obamacare's so good, why are the numbers showing Americans' growing disapproval going up in every poll? And why are Obama's job approval numbers dropping? Any libs/Progressives/Democrats care to answer that?

Sure, I'll give it a try. The rollout of ObamaCare and the healthcare.gov website was awful. Obama lied to the people and sidestepped the impacts. Insurance companies and employers took as much advantage of ObamaCare as possible to scale back benefits and raise premiums to its already insured. And coverage was threatened to be stopped for millions of Americans who didn't have ACA compliant coverage. For the majority of people, about 80%, little changes -- their health care plans through employment involves some more clawback of deductibles and out-of-pocket prices yet they still have the same plan (as would be the case for me if I was living in the US under my employer's health plan). And ObamaCare mainly benefits the poor and the young, and they typically do not have much of a voice in the press, either mainstream and especially FoxNews.

Quote:

Many people--even some on WoV--say that under Obamacare their premiums are lower. But most of those people are from states whose health care has been over-regulated and whose health care coverage is costlier than the national average to begin with. Under Obamacare, their premiums have fallen, so they would naturally tend to be happier with the law.

So some people are happier.

Quote:

As for the administrative burden imposed by Obamacare, I refer to the 2012 testimony of Mr. Edward Fensholt, who testified before the House Subcommitte on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions. Fensholt is senior vice president of Lockton Companies, LLC, an insurance brokerage and consulting firm that provides employee-benefits expertise to busniess employers. Here's the link: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-has-bent-insurance-cost-curve-north-not-south-insurance-executive-tells-house

CNS news is a little right-bending, no? And the administrative burden to health care providers is already ridiculous, costing doctors 20-30% of revenue. This is because not only of the crazy federal (Medicare) reporting requirements, but the documentation as well to insurance companies is onorous.

Quote: Pabo

You know, this whole fiasco with Obamacare and Healthcare.gov is making the US look pretty foolish to the rest of the world. Here we are, the world's last great superpower, and we can't even get a website up and running, thanks to the incompetency of that dynamic duo of Obama and Sebelius. And people really think that this and future administrations are going to be able to run Obamacare efficiently and keep costs low? Not a chance in h**l!

Agreed. The website failed due to the complexity of the regulations and the number of insurers it would to satisfy, not the ability to put up a website. I work in IT and I can only imagine what room the functional requirements would be stored in and the complete mess it would be to translate those into technical requirements that some programmer would have to make heads or tails out of. And then there is the testing... and the performance testing.

I mean, these are some pretty non-standard business processes we're talking about borne out out tens of thousands of pages of preexisting regulations followed by ACA.

It's not about putting up a simple website. It's probably one of the most complex websites ever attempted. When you think about Expedia or Amazon, you realize that these are child's play compared to healthcare.gov.

Even a major IT company would screw that up.

[Edit: Mind you, they had three years to get it right, and it appears that the key issue was the performance of the application and not the application itself, though it also missed on one of its key deliverables on the back end].

Quote: Pabo

EB, I think the real nightmare begins companies everywhere start cancelling their employees' health plans, forcing them into the state and federal exchanges. The outcry will be tremendous.

Pabo, it's going to happen. Yes. But it's not necessarily a bad thing. One of the companies that I manage is giving everyone raises and having them to go the government insurance exchange. They will end up with better covereage and it will cost them less out of pocket. In that case, it's a win/win for everyone.

Quote: steeldco

They will end up with better covereage and it will cost them less out of pocket. In that case, it's a win/win for everyone.

Really? Somebody has to lose in the real world.

Why do employers push its employees out of covering its workers? It's a trend that's been continuing since long before Obama took office. One could argue (I am not) that the price of health care has gone up by the least amounts in the last four years (true).

But employers have pressure to save money, of course. It's capitalism at work: nothing wrong with that. Employers have been whittling away at health care coverage for its employees for a long time. When I worked at EXPE in 2003-5, they rolled back coverage to dependents making us pay for dependent coverage and the same thing was happening throughout the tech industry. Now, with ACA in place, employers have been using it as an excuse to terminate coverage. It seems like rather than blame the employers for cutting back coverage and saving money and delivering record growth to its shareholders (when the corporate overlords continue to make astronomical amounts of money and continue to increase the rich/poor gap) you'd rather blame ACA instead.

The story of course is much more richer than that, and yeah, there are some bad things about ObamaCare, absolutely. But rather than look at ACA to blame, look at corporate America too... it's not like Corporate America has been defenders of the American worker in the last 30 years -- they've been whittling away at that, with all of the offshoring, union-busting, and dropping wages and benefits where possible in the name of globalization, executive greed, and shareholder results.

Blame ObamaCare for a few things, but cry me a river when you buy the excuse that corporations are rolling back coverage to its workers due to ACA. It's bullshit.