Obamacare: 7million exchange enrollments, ~8-9m plans sold directly, ~8m covered by other provisions

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

djones520 wrote:
And as of yet, there is no telling how many have lost their employer provided insurance because of this, while having hours cut, and making it harder to come out of pocket for it.

Starting next year I will have to begin paying for health insurance. I was fortunate that the company paid 100% but with the new laws and premium hikes the owner had no choice but to make employees contribute.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
Like I said earlier, my exchange premium would be $200 less than what I would pay under COBRA. My employer match is what makes my job-insurance cheaper, especially since I make too much for subsidies. If I loose my job though I would have the already lower exchange price and possibly subsidies at that point.

The devil is in the detail...

When you did your comparison... was the coverages apples-to-apples?

In MO, I'd be screwed...

**dogma**

easysauce wrote:

by all means, SOMEONE speak up and tell me what a great deal THEY PERSONALLY are getting...

I will pay 200 USD less because the company I purchase coverage from (BlueCross BlueShield) now offers a cheaper plan with comparable coverage.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
easysauce wrote:

by all means, SOMEONE speak up and tell me what a great deal THEY PERSONALLY are getting...

I will pay 200 USD less because the company I purchase coverage from (BlueCross BlueShield) now offers a cheaper plan with comparable coverage.

You're from chicago...right?

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Like I said earlier, my exchange premium would be $200 less than what I would pay under COBRA. My employer match is what makes my job-insurance cheaper, especially since I make too much for subsidies. If I loose my job though I would have the already lower exchange price and possibly subsidies at that point.

The devil is in the detail...

When you did your comparison... was the coverages apples-to-apples?

In MO, I'd be screwed...

No, I'm an idiot and don't know how insurance works.

Comparable coverage, checked it last week.

Was a pain to create the account and log onto the exchange though.

Would $400 a month be affordable if I lost my job? Probably not.
Is it more affordable than the $600 a month I would have to pay under COBRA if I lost my job? Yes.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

You're from chicago...right?

Yes.

Are you implying that I got a good deal because I'm from the place that the President lists as his home?

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Like I said earlier, my exchange premium would be $200 less than what I would pay under COBRA. My employer match is what makes my job-insurance cheaper, especially since I make too much for subsidies. If I loose my job though I would have the already lower exchange price and possibly subsidies at that point.

The devil is in the detail...

When you did your comparison... was the coverages apples-to-apples?

In MO, I'd be screwed...

No, I'm an idiot and don't know how insurance works.

Comparable coverage, checked it last week.

Was a pain to create the account and log onto the exchange though.

Would $400 a month be affordable if I lost my job? Probably not.
Is it more affordable than the $600 a month I would have to pay under COBRA if I lost my job? Yes.

Didn't mean to imply... I'm sorry. I'm having an hard time getting the exact details of the blue choice/blue shields details for MO.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

You're from chicago...right?

Yes.

Are you implying that I got a good deal because I'm from the place that the President lists as his home?

Nah... did your exchange site give you summary of all what's covered?

Chicago is one of the more expensive places to live with Illinois having an existing heavy regulated insurance industry (ie, NY / CA).

The places with good dealio are Nebraska (Cornhusker's Kickback) and LA (LA Purchase).

**easysauce**

whembly wrote:
easysauce wrote:
yes, but are those 40 million, getting a better deal? or are they going to be fined for not being able to afford the premiums?

sounds like all the people who now have "access" to health care are actually just being forced to pay more $ then they actually have for healthcare, or pay a fine, which is also more $ then they have...

by all means, SOMEONE speak up and tell me what a great deal THEY PERSONALLY are getting...

easy... I think it'll be those with pre-existing conditions that'll see the better deal.

See here, anecdote, blah, blah, but there's news all over the place along the same vein:
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area

in theory, yes those who cant get any insurance at all, due to pre existing conditions, benifit in that now they can actually GET insurance,

but why are these people not speaking up saying "it worked for me"...

I hear lots of actual individuals going "this is worse for me"

again, I want to hear a direct "its better for me", but i cannot seem to find a singler person who will say somethign to that effect.

not a theoretcial "it could be better for this specific person under these conditions"

**djones520**

People never talk about the good, only the bad?

Look, there is no question that people will benefit from this. The problem is how many will lose because of it.

There had to be a better way then this monstrosity.

**easysauce**

dogma wrote:
easysauce wrote:

by all means, SOMEONE speak up and tell me what a great deal THEY PERSONALLY are getting...

I will pay 200 USD less because the company I purchase coverage from (BlueCross BlueShield) now offers a cheaper plan with comparable coverage.

thank you, someone spoke up as to how they actually benifit, good to hear,

now, is that 200 usd less per month, or per year?

if its per year, I see that as a very slight pro, debatable if it is worth all the fallout on the other side.

if its per month... well thats a good savings if enough people are actually saving that much, on apples to apples plans. question is, are you in the majority, or minority?

another good question is, why is it that either outcome, is 100% more $ then the healthcare we get in canada, and why didnt obama pick a system that is proven to work for everyone and has no out of pocket expenses for all life/death healthcare, instead of one that appears to be marginally better for some, and much worse for others?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
No, I'm an idiot and don't know how insurance works.

Comparable coverage, checked it last week.

Was a pain to create the account and log onto the exchange though.

Would $400 a month be affordable if I lost my job? Probably not.
Is it more affordable than the $600 a month I would have to pay under COBRA if I lost my job? Yes.

my main point, is that 400 or 600 a month, are both HORRIBLE burdens to have for anyone... and BOTH are rediculous when your neighbor to the north can insure every man woman and child, for no out of pocket expense. The amount of extra taxes we pay is negliable, and shifts the burden to those who can afford to pay more (im upper bracket and i only pay ~28% total income+fed tax, comparable to what you pay in the states)

obama had a great chance to push through a working single payer system and really reform the system, instead we have a franken-system that will make neither side happy, that at worst leaves more people worse off, and at best is making some better off, to the detriment of others whjose premiums go up

**d-usa**

But $400 is better than $600, and could be even less with subsidies. So I benefited from this.

Sometimes the best you can do is have something result in "sucks less".

**Ouze**

I still can't quite get my account working.

I didn't try at all this weekend, but left a tab open for when I got back to work.

Last I checked, I created an account but then could not log in, and the password reset options simply did nothing. This was sometime last week. Keep in mind that I I wrote down my username and password and stuck it to my monitor with a post-it note like the security-minded IT professional I am, so it's not an actual forgotten password.

Today the password reset option works, in that it sends an email allowing a reset. When clicking the link, I get "We weren't able to process your request because we couldn't find a Marketplace profile that matched the information that you provided."

Swell.

OK, I created a new account, it only takes like 5 minutes. I confirm the email. It says all is great. I try and log in: "Unexpected Error - Error ID: "

I'll try again tomorrow. If I didn't already have insurance this would be pretty discouraging.

**easysauce**

d-usa wrote:
But $400 is better than $600, and could be even less with subsidies. So I benefited from this.

Sometimes the best you can do is have something result in "sucks less".

sad but true, I really do hope most people find a savings with this plan, so hopefully people who come out on top are the majority.

I just wonder about all the people who cannot even afford 400, or two hundred a month who are then fined for not having insurance. That fine alone is enough to make me question the whole thing.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
EDIT: This seems apt:

Hang on, is that cartoon saying that the shutdown is somehow protecting America from ACA? That makes no fething sense at all, it isn't even what the Republicans are saying. What the feth?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
The number that keeps being touted is that 40 million who didn't have healthcare before will be getting it. I think that number is a bit bogus. Various estimates prior to the bills passage was 44 million did not have it. So, since this bill isn't giving free coverage, their saying 40 million more people are buying coverage.

Actually, the ACA expands medicaid coverage, to include people with income up to 138% of the federal poverty line. In addition, people with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty line will receive a subsidy on their health insurance.

**djones520**

I think the comic is saying the shut down is blocking America's view of the nuclear explosion that just happened.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
The devil is in the detail...

When you did your comparison... was the coverages apples-to-apples?

In MO, I'd be screwed...

Once again, I just find it the most hilarious thing that when the exchanges first listed their prices, the right wings pundits released a whole bunch of stories about how coverage was so much more expensive under ACA than previously - they did this by comparing cheap but horribly inadequate coverage previously available, to the higher coverage of base level plans now available... finding it shocking that better coverage costs more.

Now that people are looking in detail and reporting instances of cheaper plans (as you'd expect under a more competitive market with a broader pool of applicants) they're just asserting that the plans must be worse than what people used to have... because it must be more expensive because its ACA and if it wasn't then they'd be wrong.

**djones520**

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
The devil is in the detail...

When you did your comparison... was the coverages apples-to-apples?

In MO, I'd be screwed...

Once again, I just find it the most hilarious thing that when the exchanges first listed their prices, the right wings pundits released a whole bunch of stories about how coverage was so much more expensive under ACA than previously - they did this by comparing cheap but horribly inadequate coverage previously available, to the higher coverage of base level plans now available... finding it shocking that better coverage costs more.

Now that people are looking in detail and reporting instances of cheaper plans (as you'd expect under a more competitive market with a broader pool of applicants) they're just asserting that the plans must be worse than what people used to have... because it must be more expensive because its ACA and if it wasn't then they'd be wrong.

Actually, a lot of the stories I've read over the past few months have shown comparable plans to lead to much higher costs. I'd like to provide links, but as I said this is stuff I've been reading over time, so finding all the individual stories again...

**Jihadin**

I think we need a "package" copy and paste here so we can really look at it. I'm curious to see what they offer, price difference, and whatever else we can think of.

**sebster**

easysauce wrote:
in theory, yes those who cant get any insurance at all, due to pre existing conditions, benifit in that now they can actually GET insurance,

but why are these people not speaking up saying "it worked for me"...

I hear lots of actual individuals going "this is worse for me"

Same reason you won't find many people going on to a car manufacturers social media sites and saying 'the dealer was fair and didn't pressure me, and the car I purchased has proved reliable with good performance'... what in the hell kind of weirdo makes a big noise about getting a reasonable deal?

People do make a lot of noise about any time that a product sucks, though. And when its a product that over the past few years has built up a whole following of people led by a major political party in to absolutely hating it.... well I'm a little surprised that the best 'omg ACA sucks' effort we've had so far is a list of twitter posts saying their coverage was a little more expensive.

again, I want to hear a direct "its better for me", but i cannot seem to find a singler person who will say somethign to that effect.

There are two people on this thread who said as much...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
There had to be a better way then this monstrosity.

There are, but they'd involve massive overhauls of the healthcare system from the ground up. Given the insane freak out over the fairly minor reforms of the ACA, we probably have to include that major healthcare reform is not something your country is capable of right now.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Actually, a lot of the stories I've read over the past few months have shown comparable plans to lead to much higher costs. I'd like to provide links, but as I said this is stuff I've been reading over time, so finding all the individual stories again...

And I've read the exact opposite. Funny that

Ultimately, I go with how ACA works, and the basic market mechanisms that will, at worst do nothing, and likely lead to stronger competition and therefore lower prices. The alternative is thinking ACA is more expensive because, I don't know, socialism or something...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
I think the comic is saying the shut down is blocking America's view of the nuclear explosion that just happened.

Ah, maybe, that'd make more sense. I mean, it'd still be silly politics, but at least it'd be coherent.

For that to be clear, though, then they should have called it an obstacle then, instead of a barricade.

Man political cartoons suck.

**Jihadin**

I think we need a "package" copy and paste here so we can really look at it. I'm curious to see what they offer, price difference, and whatever else we can think of.

**Easy E**

My wife who has a pre-existing condition and is self-emplyed can actually get insurance now where before she could not. That is a win.

Granted, she doesn't NEED to because I can carry her on my employers Health Plan, but now if I wanted to stop working for a large corporation and work with her at the famiy business I would have that option.

My Golden Handcuff to my employer has been broken.

**whembly**

Here's a Ars Technica's take on it so far...

...
First of all, there's the front-end site itself. The first page of the registration process (once you get to it) has 2,099 lines of HTML code, but it also calls 56 JavaScript files and 11 CSS files. That's not exactly optimal for heavy-load pages.

Jeebus... 56 JS!!! o.O

That's just dumb design...

**Relapse**

Looks like Reid's state, Nevada got an exemption from Obamacare because it will destabilize the market there:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-waivers-granted-nevada-and-new-hampshire_567465.html

**whembly**

Relapse wrote:
Looks like Reid's state, Nevada got an exemption from Obamacare because it will destabilize the market there:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-waivers-granted-nevada-and-new-hampshire_567465.html

It's good to be King... eh?

**Jihadin**

New Hampshire to. I serious hope its not for the reason of swinging voters their way for the upcoming election....they can't be that stupid to make it that obvious. Its like the perception of the Business Mandate in ACA/ObamaCare. To gain the most votes they can on the upcoming elections...no one can be that seriously dumb....or are we that seriously that dumb that we cannot see it.....hence I favor removal of all of them. Politicians working for their advantage when they need to and then later on dropping the other shoe....

**Ouze**

Still no luck on this. Today's error:

Spoiler:

I'll try again tomorrow.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Still no luck on this. Today's error:

Spoiler:

I'll try again tomorrow.

Huh... I thought you were one of 5 Iowan who signed up.

**Jihadin**

Ouze you need to let us know how your mentally olding up trying to go into ACA website. I would feel guilty if you turn nutjob and start capping people off....

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Huh... I thought you were one of 5 Iowan who signed up.

No; and the inaccessibility of the site is why I'm taking all of the "only x people signed up for the whole site of y" posts with a grain of salt. I mean, I'm literally checking in once a day at work and then shrugging; and I have to imagine many people with insurance don't even bother to do that. It appears The only people that even can sign up are the small subset of people that can afford to pay the premiums, have no insurance, and apparently have all day to spend reloading pages over and over again - so not really a representative of the desirability of the programs at large. And, of course, I'd be concerned with the accuracy of enrollment data which presumably comes from the same people who - and I use this term loosely - are "administering" the sites and associated databases.

Jihadin wrote:
Ouze you need to let us know how your mentally olding up trying to go into ACA website. I would feel guilty if you turn nutjob and start capping people off....

Well, I'm not getting frustrated because it's just me trying to sate my curiosity. I have pretty good insurance already. When I see this thread on Dakka, and I;m at work, I check it, and that's it. If I didn't have insurance though, I could only imagine how frustrating this would be.

**Maddermax**

Relapse wrote:
Looks like Reid's state, Nevada got an exemption from Obamacare because it will destabilize the market there:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-waivers-granted-nevada-and-new-hampshire_567465.html

Christ, the amount of right-wing bullshut sites I had to trawl through to find one legitimate news site which actually said what the hell was going on.

Lasvegas Sun:

Nevada’s Insurance Division had appealed to the feds to reduce the federal requirement that health plans serving people who buy insurance on their own must spend at least 80 percent of the money they collect on medical expenses. Under the national rule, companies that don’t spend that percentage of revenue on medical costs have to cut policyholders rebate checks starting this year.

Nevada asked that requirement be reduced to 72 percent for one year, arguing that top insurance providers would be so strapped to make the payments that they’d exit the state market.

Health and Human Services didn’t fully buy that argument, but did agree to reduce the requirement to 75 percent for a year, expressing concern about what might happen to people with policies from insurers Golden Rule and Aetna if they didn’t.

Together, Golden Rule and Aetna cover 24 percent of Nevada’s insured; but they, along with Sierra Health and MEGA, which cover another 4 percent, are spending nowhere near 80 percent of revenue on health care coverage.

The change is less the feds giving underperforming insurance agencies a free pass than buying time for providers to shape up, or policyholders to ship out with reasonable warning time: Nevada has no law that says if you lose insurance because your insurer shuts down, another company has to pick you up. To prevent that, Health and Human Services determined it had to “provide the opportunity for plans with low ‘medical loss ratios’ to adjust their business models to reach 80 percent” with the reduced, 75 percent mandate for the rest of 2011 — that being the average medical loss ratio that the state’s top 10 insurers currently post.

So one temporary and partial exemption from one part of the law in response to concerns the industry couldn't adapt fast enough in those areas. Yep, that 5% change for a year is absolutely the rock hard truth you guys needed to show how much Obamacare sucks, run with it.

/Preferably run far away from here.