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.

**Seaward**

Easy E wrote:
Yeah, I also thought three people isn't exactly saying much statistically. I think we all know the saw about anecdotal evidence around here. However, at least it is three people where we know wha tht eeffect was as opposed to speculation that thousands are in an angry mob with pitchforks and torches heading towards Washington DC as we speak.

Interesting. Are you contending that we don't know what the effect was in the literally hundreds of examples from reporting across the country about individuals who had their plan canceled and found only far higher premiums with less coverage available?

Plus, I also knew since it was NPR someone would question it as a source. Can I get a list of "acceptable sources" around here?

NPR's fine as a source. I was simply referring to this, which strikes me as exactly the sort of thing the other side of the aisle used to scream bloody murder about when the Bush administration did it, but I'm sure there's a perfectly valid reason why the Bush administration disseminating talking points to allied journalists to be used on the air is completely different and far more heinous than the Obama administration disseminating talking points to allied journalists to be used on the air.

**dogma**

cincydooley wrote:
Healthy people don't care about lower deductibles.....

I know quite a few healthy people that prefer lower deductibles, this is because they want to minimize their outlay in the event of catastrophic injury.

**cincydooley**

dogma wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Healthy people don't care about lower deductibles.....

I know quite a few healthy people that prefer lower deductibles, this is because they want to minimize their outlay in the event of catastrophic injury.

That's great. And I, as one, know plenty of healthy people that prefer lower monthlies with higher deductibles and copays.

**easysauce**

from http://www.csmonitor.com/Photo-Galleries/Infographics/On-eve-of-Obamacare-US-health-care-vs.-socialized-health-care-in-five-countries#759269

this... pretty much sums up why splitting a broken system, into TWO broken systems... was never the way to go.

I cannot fathom having to worry about things like deductibles for catastrophic injury, or anything of that nature.. I got pretty badly hurt once, luckily they took care of it, I got the rest/psyio I needed, and it didnt put me in the poor house... wasn't out a penny.

**dogma**

cincydooley wrote:

That's great. And I, as one, know plenty of healthy people that prefer lower monthlies with higher deductibles and copays.

Those people you know, do they care about higher deductibles?

**cincydooley**

dogma wrote:
cincydooley wrote:

That's great. And I, as one, know plenty of healthy people that prefer lower monthlies with higher deductibles and copays.

Those people you know, do they care about higher deductibles?

They prioritize low monthlies over low deductibles. It's why they were happy with the low monthly plans that two of them have lost. If I was still single that's exactly the type of plan I'd want was well. I don't need reduced copays or reduced medicine costs that I never use.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

cincydooley wrote:
dogma wrote:
cincydooley wrote:

That's great. And I, as one, know plenty of healthy people that prefer lower monthlies with higher deductibles and copays.

Those people you know, do they care about higher deductibles?

They prioritize low monthlies over low deductibles. It's why they were happy with the low monthly plans that two of them have lost. If I was still single that's exactly the type of plan I'd want was well. I don't need reduced copays or reduced medicine costs that I never use.

Well that's where you're getting things confused. You think you should have a choice

Clearly the government doesn't

**whembly**

Wo.

Do you think the PPACA + Obama's job performance could be toxic by the '14/'16 elections (ala, Bush)?

That's pretty stark and dramatic.

**whembly**

Just rip it out. Let it die.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/online-shop-enrollment-delayed-by-one-year-100438.html?hp=l1

The Obama administration today announced a year-long delay of online enrollment for small businesses looking to purchase health coverage through federal-run exchanges, another setback for HealthCare.gov.

The delay, first reported by POLITICO, comes just weeks after Obama administration officials said the online enrollment for small businesses would be ready by the end of November. The announcement also comes just three days before the White House promises HealthCare.gov will provide a smoother enrollment experience for most users trying to purchase individual and family coverage. Fixing the problems with the individual market has been the White House priority.

Small businesses, which have been able to apply for exchange coverage by paper application since Oct. 1, will have alternative sign-up methods, HHS announced Wednesday. Those looking to enroll through small business exchanges, known as SHOP, can sign up through an agent or broker or directly through an insurer.

“We’ve concluded that we can best serve small employers by continuing this offline process while we concentrate on both creating a smoothly functioning online experience in the SHOP Marketplace, and adding key new features, including an employee choice option and premium aggregation services, by November 2014,” according to an HHS notice issued a day before the long Thanksgiving weekend. Those features give workers more choice of health plans, rather than having the business owner choose it.

The administration originally delayed online enrollment in the federal-run small business exchanges just days before the failed Oct. 1 launch of HealthCare.gov. At the time, HHS said online enrollment would be available “sometime in November.” Weeks ago, administration officials said online enrollment would be ready by the end of this November.

The delay applies only to the federal-run SHOP exchanges in almost three dozen states. With a few exceptions, SHOPs in states running their own exchanges have had a smoother rollout.

Small Business Majority, a group that supports the health care law, called today’s announcement “disappointing,” but said the exchanges still offer a competitive marketplace to shop for coverage.

“It’s disappointing that the online portion of the federal small business marketplace through Healthcare.gov will be delayed and it’s important it get up and running as soon as possible,” Small Business Majority CEO John Arensmeyer said in a statement. “However, it doesn’t change the fact that the marketplace can offer the most competitive combination of price and quality for small businesses purchasing health insurance,” he said.

This could be problematic as business may not want to go through the offline process and determine that it'd be cheaper to release their employers into the individual markets.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT-- Is it jadded of me thinking when I read this?
"We’ve concluded that we can best serve small employers by continuing this offline process..."

Translation: We're delaying this rolling clusterfark of a disaster until after the 2014 midterms, so we can get re-elected and ream you even more.

**Seaward**

Hopefully someone will pound that message home.

**Dreadclaw69**

So much for that argument that any delay would be illegal and unconstitutional

**Frazzled**

I'm confused now. Whats been delayed and hasn't been delayed?

**Dreadclaw69**

Frazzled wrote:
I'm confused now. Whats been delayed and hasn't been delayed?

Yeah, it is getting to that stage isn't it. I think that the Democrats would like the entire thing delayed.... until after the 2014 elections

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
I'm confused now. Whats been delayed and hasn't been delayed?

Basically, it's a Holiday news dump-- WH to delay online federal PPACA exchange for small businesses for one year.

The individual mandate is still in force.

**Easy E**

Tomorrow is the Government's own imposed deadline to have Healthcare.gov fixed. I can't wait to see the massive talking points dump from everyone!

**Relapse**

It's the Law of the Land. Just because that law changes a couple of times a week should mean nothing....

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:
Tomorrow is the Government's own imposed deadline to have Healthcare.gov fixed. I can't wait to see the massive talking points dump from everyone!

Can't see the "talking points" changing much... I think right now, this administrations is hoping for something bigger to distract everyone from this fiasco.

You still *for* the PPACA as it stands Easy E?

**Easy E**

I am for single payer.

However, I am still more for PPACA than what we had before, or the current Republican alternative.

**djones520**

Easy E wrote:
I am for single payer.

However, I am still more for PPACA than what we had before, or the current Republican alternative.

What about this are you for? More people have lost then gained. I fail to see how this is better then before.

**easysauce**

its worse then before... the only thing worse then a wholly private system, which is broken, which at LEAST people coult opt out of without paying a tax, err sorry, "fine"

is to take that system, break it in two, and have TWO broken systems... and you HAVE to be in one of them, or a mandatory tax/fine on those LEAST able to afford an extra expense

rediculous.... and that is saying something... its HARD to get a worse system then what the states had before.

Democrats should have looked at systems that actually work, and done what they do (IE single payer, copy any one of the numerous countries that have sucessful programs)

instead they rolled out somthing that wasnt properly thought through, and lied /and/or were clueless about how it would affect people

**KalashnikovMarine**

Everyone is worse out, and that too is a form of equality.

**whembly**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Everyone is worse out, and that too is a form of equality.

Another term for wealth distribution.

**Easy E**

djones520 wrote:
Easy E wrote:
I am for single payer.

However, I am still more for PPACA than what we had before, or the current Republican alternative.

What about this are you for? More people have lost then gained. I fail to see how this is better then before.

So, what's the Republican alternative then, I have been waiting a long time to hear it. Repeal and Replace you say? Replace with what?

Oh yeah, and Tort reform doesn't cut it because it doesn't reduce costs, get more people insured, or make sure people with pre-existing conditions can get covered. Therefore, it isn't really healthcare reform but.... Tort reform.

**djones520**

Easy E wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Easy E wrote:
I am for single payer.

However, I am still more for PPACA than what we had before, or the current Republican alternative.

What about this are you for? More people have lost then gained. I fail to see how this is better then before.

So, what's the Republican alternative then, I have been waiting a long time to hear it. Repeal and Replace you say? Replace with what?

Oh yeah, and Tort reform doesn't cut it because it doesn't reduce costs, get more people insured, or make sure people with pre-existing conditions can get covered. Therefore, it isn't really healthcare reform but.... Tort reform.

Ok... well I know Whembly on at least 3 occasions over the last few weeks has posted a slew of links showing an alternative. But we're not even talking about that. We are talking about how is the PPACA better then what we had 2 months ago? All we've done is step back.

**easysauce**

yeah PPACA is worse then the private system...

takes a lot of stupid to go backwards like the dem+obama did, especially when working healthcare systems around the world ABOUND and people would be HAPPY to show the democrats how they work...

**Easy E**

Great, I hope it fails so badly that we all realize that single payer is the way to go.

I know it has worked that way for Whembly!

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:

I know it has worked that way for Whembly!

To be fair... I was for single-payer waaay before the PPACA.

The danger here now Easy E... is that if the PPACA keeps going on it's current trajectory of spectacular failure... that the voting public won't have anything to do with a single payer system.

I'm going to ask you, that djones has repeatedly ask you... given what we know now of the PPACA... is it better than the way it was pre-PPACA?

**dogma**

easysauce wrote:
its worse then before... the only thing worse then a wholly private system, which is broken, which at LEAST people coult opt out of without paying a tax, err sorry, "fine"

is to take that system, break it in two, and have TWO broken systems... and you HAVE to be in one of them, or a mandatory tax/fine on those LEAST able to afford an extra expense

The US has not had a wholly private system since 1965*, and part of that healthcare system has been funded by way of FICA (which no one can opt out of) since then.

easysauce wrote:

Democrats should have looked at systems that actually work, and done what they do (IE single payer, copy any one of the numerous countries that have sucessful programs)

Some of them (Democrats) tried for a public option, but that was deemed "Evil Socialism**" by members of both the Democrat and Republican Parties.

*And even prior to that year, it wasn't wholly private as de facto State health benefits were provided.
**Not a quote, just my summation.

**Ouze**

dogma wrote:
Some of them (Democrats) tried for a public option, but that was deemed "Evil Socialism**" by members of both the Democrat and Republican Parties.

One of the areas I agree with Frazzled wholly on. Single payer was the way to have gone. This is one of Obama's biggest failings IMO. Yeah, I know politics is the art of the possible, but I feel like going for the middle ground was just as expensive, political-capital-wise; for something lesser.

**whembly**

The deadline is almost a month away.... It just seems like they're trying to get through this news cycle.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/insurers-still-reporting-significant-problems-with-obamacare-enrollment-data/article/2540044

Insurers still reporting 'significant problems' with Obamacare enrollment data

Obama administration officials insisted Monday that the tech team overseeing fixes to the troubled federal healthcare.gov website had resolved most of the errors plaguing the enrollment information being sent to insurers.

But insurers haven’t yet noticed a difference, according to a spokesman for industry lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans.

The files, known as "834" forms, contain all of the relevant personal information for individuals who have signed up for health insurance, along with details on their plan choices. But these forms have been riddled with errors such as duplicated enrollments and spouses getting mixed up with children.

If these forms are not fixed, then insurers cannot smoothly process payments or ensure that individuals are enrolled in the right plans. This could be a nightmare come Jan. 1, when individuals start attempting to use their insurance. Some may show up at doctors’ offices thinking they are covered, but find out that they never were actually enrolled.

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
“We believe that the majority of fixes to the 834 forms have been made, including significant ones over the weekend,” White House spokesman Jay Carney insisted.

Speaking on a Monday afternoon conference call, Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said that the tech team “working with issuers determined that more than 80 percent of the 834 production errors were actually due to one bug that prevented a Social Security number from being included in an application.”

Bataille continued, “The bottom line is that we have fixed many of the bugs that led to the 834 issues. The software fixes we implemented over the past several weeks will ensure better quality information is sent to issuers so accurate 834s can be produced and enrollment completed.”

But reached by email after the conference call, AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelback told the Washington Examiner: "Health plans continue to experience significant problems with the ‘834’ enrollment files."

During the CMS call, Bataille would not disclose the error rates on the 834 transactions, despite several attempts from several different reporters.

On an Oct. 24 conference call, Bataille claimed that the errors were "isolated" and then a day later Jeff Zients, who was brought in to oversee fixes to the troubled Obamacare website, said the errors were actually on top of CMS's list of fixes.