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.

**Dreadclaw69**

Seaward wrote:
dogma wrote:
Relatively impartial observer.

So you don't vote Democrat? I'm legitimately surprised.

I don't know if I'm more surprised that he doesn't vote Democrat, or by the fact that he claims to be relatively impartial

Seaward wrote:
Also, just because I'm enjoying the fact that so many news outlets suddenly decided to report on the actual effect of the ACA rather than what its peddlers promised it would do, another one, from the

LIkewise. Its not as if the warning signs weren't there when some groups who were the biggest cheerleaders for the ACA suddenly wanted exemptions.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:

So you don't vote Democrat? I'm legitimately surprised.

I have only voted twice in my life.

Once because a cute girl dragged me to the polls, and again because I believed the GOP should be denied the Presidency.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I don't know if I'm more surprised that he doesn't vote Democrat, or by the fact that he claims to be relatively impartial

I think you are confusing "relatively impartial" with "absolutely impartial."

**Seaward**

So when you've voted, you've voted Democrat.

**Goliath**

Seaward wrote:
So when you've voted, you've voted Democrat.

Yes. But you have previously argued that you are "in no way a republican" despite having voted for them.

You can't have it both ways

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
You will not die without health care. You will not go untreated without health care in the US. I don't know how you can even equate those two.

Are you referring to the fact that an ER by statute must stabilize people who show up regardless of ability to pay? Because, "stabilize" does not mean "provide ongoing care". You show up at an ER with cancer, they're not setting you up with chemotherapy; for example.

This is true. You can however sign up for Medicade and get such.

**Seaward**

Goliath wrote:
Yes. But you have previously argued that you are "in no way a republican" despite having voted for them.

You can't have it both ways

Oh, I'm not trying to have it both ways, though I've also not voted exclusively for Republicans. Hell, I voted for Obama in 2008, which, in hindsight, is obviously a massive regret.

I just seem to recall that dogma's one of the people who rails against individuals who vote Republican while saying they're not Republican. I found it ironic.

**motyak**

Seaward wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Yes. But you have previously argued that you are "in no way a republican" despite having voted for them.

You can't have it both ways

Oh, I'm not trying to have it both ways, though I've also not voted exclusively for Republicans. Hell, I voted for Obama in 2008, which, in hindsight, is obviously a massive regret.

I just seem to recall that dogma's one of the people who rails against individuals who vote Republican while saying they're not Republican. I found it ironic.

Maybe he means when they vote regularly. According to him he's only voted once for political reasons, so saying 'look he always votes democrat' isn't really fair...

**Alfndrate**

Goliath wrote:
Seaward wrote:
So when you've voted, you've voted Democrat.

Yes. But you have previously argued that you are "in no way a republican" despite having voted for them.

You can't have it both ways

Sometimes you can

, I'm registered Republican, but I believe my local voting was democrat, and on the national scene, I ~~voted libertarian~~ wasted my vote

**cincydooley**

I wasted my vote too

**whembly**

Seaward wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, just because I'm enjoying the fact that so many news outlets suddenly decided to report on the actual effect of the ACA rather than what its peddlers promised it would do, another one, from the LA Times.

Thousands of Californians are discovering what Obamacare will cost them — and many don't like what they see.

These middle-class consumers are staring at hefty increases on their insurance bills as the overhaul remakes the healthcare market. Their rates are rising in large part to help offset the higher costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years.

Although recent criticism of the healthcare law has focused on website glitches and early enrollment snags, experts say sharp price increases for individual policies have the greatest potential to erode public support for President Obama's signature legislation.

“This is when the actual sticker shock comes into play for people,” said Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. “There are winners and losers under the Affordable Care Act.”

Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.

Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don’t qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.

“It doesn’t seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else,” said Harris, who is three months pregnant. “This increase is simply not affordable.”

I think my favorite part is this:
“It doesn’t seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else”

The Math TM shall not be denied...

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:
So when you've voted, you've voted Democrat.

I don't believe that I said who I voted for when the cute girl dragged me to the polls.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
I don't believe that I said who I voted for when the cute girl dragged me to the polls.

I took a relatively impartial guess.

**Dreadclaw69**

dogma wrote:
I think you are confusing "relatively impartial" with "absolutely impartial."

Not in the slightest, but thank you for playing

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/23/technology/obamacare-website-fix/index.html?iid=EL

Experts say the major problems with the Obamacare website can't reasonably be solved before the end of 2013, and the best fix would be to start over from scratch.

After assessing the website, Dave Kennedy, the CEO of information-security company Trusted Sec, estimates that about 20% of Healthcare.gov needs to be rewritten. With a whopping 500 million lines of code, according to a recent New York Times report, Kennedy believes fixing the site would probably take six months to a year.

But would-be Obamacare enrollees only have until Dec. 15 to sign up for coverage starting at the beginning of 2014. Nish Bhalla, CEO of information-security firm Security Compass, said it "does not sound realistic at all" that Healthcare.gov will be fully operational before that point.
"We don't even know where all of the problems lie, so how can we solve them?" Bhalla said. "It's like a drive-by shooting: You're going fast and you might hit it, you might miss it. But you can't fix what you can't identify."

Several computer engineers said it would likely be easier to rebuild Healthcare.gov than to fix the issues in the current system. But it's unlikely that the government would toss out more than $300 million worth of work.

The sheer size of Healthcare.gov is indicative of a major rush job. Rolling the site out too quickly likely increased the number of errors, and that makes the fixes more difficult to implement.

"Projects that are done rapidly usually have a lot of [repetitive] code," said Arron Kallenberg, a software engineer and tech entrepreneur. "So when you have a problem, instead of debugging something in a single location, you're tracking it down all through the code base."

To put 500 million lines of code into perspective, it took just 500,000 lines of code to send the Curiosity rover to Mars. Microsoft's (MSFT, Fortune 500) Windows 8 operating system reportedly has about 80 million lines of code. And an online banking system might feature between 75 million and 100 million lines. A "more normal range" for a project like Healthcare.gov is about 25 million to 50 million lines of code, Kennedy said.
"The [500 million lines of code] says right off the bat that something is egregiously wrong," said Kennedy. "I jumped back when I read that figure. It's just so excessive."

Applicants might be able to at least register for Obamacare sooner than that, even if the site isn't 100% perfect. The New York Times report said five million lines of code need to be replaced just so the site can run properly.

But the Obamacare website has bigger problems than simply getting people registered for health care. The code is also riddled with security holes, according to Kennedy, who outlined his cybersecurity concerns on Trusted Sec's company blog.
"If someone can't register, that's obviously bad -- but if the information gets hacked, you're talking about one of the biggest breaches in American history," Kennedy said. "I think security is an afterthought at this point."
That might not be a major issue now, as people are still having trouble logging onto the site. But once it's up and running, that code had better be made more secure.
"At this point, the car isn't even moving," Bhalla said. "But once we're speeding down the road, you're going to want that seatbelt to work."

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:

I took a relatively impartial guess.

A guess which was seemingly based on the assumption that anyone who frequently disagrees with you probably votes Democrat.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Seaward wrote:

I took a relatively impartial guess.

A guess which was seemingly based on the assumption that anyone who frequently disagrees with you probably votes Democrat.

Pfft who the hell cares? Was she cute? Now THATS the important question.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:

I just seem to recall that dogma's one of the people who rails against individuals who vote Republican while saying they're not Republican. I found it ironic.

I've never done that. You seem to be confusing me with someone else.

Frazzled wrote:

Pfft who the hell cares? Was she cute? Now THATS the important question.

Yes. And a natural redhead.

**Frazzled**

Pfft who the hell cares? Was she cute? Now THATS the important question.

Yes. And a natural redhead.

OY!

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
Pfft who the hell cares? Was she cute? Now THATS the important question.

Yes. And a natural redhead.

OY!

A hot red head?

nice catch.

I found this to be appropriate:

**Dreadclaw69**

As a natural redhead should I be nervous?

**whembly**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
As a natural redhead should I be nervous?

Very much so.

(disclaimer... my two boys are pale, red-heads.

)

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

I found this to be appropriate:

I found it to be ham-fisted.

**Dreadclaw69**

But not inaccurate

**dogma**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
But not inaccurate

A ham-fisted expression is inaccurate by definition.

**Relapse**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

I found this to be appropriate:

I found it to be ham-fisted.

I found it to be exalted.

**Dreadclaw69**

dogma wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
But not inaccurate

A ham-fisted expression is inaccurate by definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ham-fisted

awkward or clumsy

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ham-fisted

lacking dexterity or elegance; clumsy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ham-fisted

clumsy, inept, or heavy-handed:

Want to try again?

The cartoon itself may be blunt in its styling and execution, but the message is very accurate

**dogma**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Want to try again?

No, because my comment was correct.

To be accurate is to be free from error, to be ham-fisted is to be clumsy; a state which implies action in error.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

The cartoon itself may be blunt in its styling and execution, but the message is very accurate

It really isn't. It is an example of the GOP, and its sympathizers, painting themselves as persecuted patriots (hence the tricorne hat) and, an example of how little Americans know about the Federal legislative process.

Simply because a particular provision was part of a particular piece of legislation does not mean that all elements of the two pieces of legislation were identical, and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

**djones520**

Some folks wanted to see some of the fun convo's taking place at DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023936922

This post just goes how far to show how out of touch they are with reality.

Enthusiast (24,119 posts)
4. There isn't a trace of a liberal media in this country.

MSNBC pretends to be liberal but they always betray their true intentions. The other networks are no better than more palatable versions of Fox "News".

BTW, the link is about a discussion of this topic, just the line I qouted was an attack on the media source of their OP.

**Dreadclaw69**

dogma wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Want to try again?

No, because my comment was correct.

To be accurate is to be free from error, to be ham-fisted is to be clumsy; a state which implies action in error.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/clumsy

1. Lacking physical coordination, skill, or grace; awkward.
2. Awkwardly constructed; unwieldy: clumsy wooden shoes; a clumsy sentence.
3. Gauche; inept: a clumsy excuse.

Nope, nothing about error there either. Two swings, and two misses

dogma wrote:
It really isn't. It is an example of the GOP, and its sympathizers, painting themselves as persecuted patriots (hence the tricorne hat) and, an example of how little Americans know about the Federal legislative process.

Simply because a particular provision was part of a particular piece of legislation does not mean that all elements of the two pieces of legislation were identical, and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

You see them claiming to be persecuted patriots, I saw a reference to the Tea Party.
So it is disingenuous to claim that the Democrats acted in a hypocritical manner by refusing to delay the individual mandate (which in part caused the shutdown) and lecture the Republicans that their wanting to delay the mandate was illegal and unconstitutional, and then the Democrats go ahead and delay the same mandate with nary a word of protest about their supposedly illegal deferral?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Some folks wanted to see some of the fun convo's taking place at DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023936922

This post just goes how far to show how out of touch they are with reality.

Enthusiast (24,119 posts)
4. There isn't a trace of a liberal media in this country.

MSNBC pretends to be liberal but they always betray their true intentions. The other networks are no better than more palatable versions of Fox "News".

BTW, the link is about a discussion of this topic, just the line I qouted was an attack on the media source of their OP.

And they talk about bias, and trying to frame the narrative

I'm guessing the irony is lost on them

**djones520**

Yeah, they do it from a place that bans anyone who tries to break the "narrative". Irony is a word that isn't even in their vocabulary.

**motyak**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

dogma wrote:
It really isn't. It is an example of the GOP, and its sympathizers, painting themselves as persecuted patriots (hence the tricorne hat) and, an example of how little Americans know about the Federal legislative process.

Simply because a particular provision was part of a particular piece of legislation does not mean that all elements of the two pieces of legislation were identical, and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

You see them claiming to be persecuted patriots, I saw a reference to the Tea Party.
So it is disingenuous to claim that the Democrats acted in a hypocritical manner by refusing to delay the individual mandate (which in part caused the shutdown) and lecture the Republicans that their wanting to delay the mandate was illegal and unconstitutional, and then the Democrats go ahead and delay the same mandate with nary a word of protest about their supposedly illegal deferral?

Isn't the counter argument that the Democrats say the manner in which the Republicans were doing it was illegal, irresponsible, and dangerous to the nation's economy, while the Democrats are trying to do it through the proper channels?