Obamacare rollout status report: central place for updates

[chucky2]

I tell you what, I am OK with requiring Congress to buy insurance in the private market under Obamacare, under the condition that they will be required to buy it in the private market if Obamacare is repealed.

As you say:
"If it's not good enough for themselves or their staff, then why did they deem it good enough for the people paying their salary and who they're representing?"

It seems like GOP politicians were fine for decades taking government paid insurance for themselves while millions of their constituents went without insurance or had to get it in the unsubsidized private market.

Not one problem with that at all. And when I say Politicians, I made it a point to not say Dems. I said Politicians for a reason.

 

[fskimospy]

Not one problem with that at all. And when I say Politicians, I made it a point to not say Dems. I said Politicians for a reason.

This isn't a partisan issue as Republicans want this to change as much as Democrats do. There's a reason Boehner was secretly campaigning behind closed doors about it. Everyone knows what a bad idea the Grassley amendment was.

Regardless, the Grassley amendment is explicitly a special rule made for Congress. If you truly want the same rules to apply to everyone, you should oppose the Grassley amendment. If you are just looking for a way to attack junior Congressional staffers that's fine, but own up to your motivations.

 

[theeedude]

Not one problem with that at all. And when I say Politicians, I made it a point to not say Dems. I said Politicians for a reason.

I said GOP politicians because Democrats were not fine with millions of their constituents going without insurance, that's why they passed Obamacare.
If you think that Obamacare is going to get repealed by middle age politicians who will be forced to buy unsubsidized insurance in the private market with their pre-existing conditions, good luck with that.

 

[chucky2]

Congressional staff already had employer provided coverage pre-ACA. You are saying that you want people with employer provided coverage to use a system for people without employer provided coverage. This is nonsensical.

They are using the same solution that they deem good enough for these average joes. Without the Grassley amendment employees of Congress would be treated identically to any other employee in America. Grassley changed that so that there would be special rules for Congress only. All WERE going to be following it with no exemptions, but you support changes to it that made it so that not all Americans would be treated similarly by it.

If your argument is that you DO believe Congress should be treated differently that's fine, but it takes a truly Orwellian twisting of language to cast a situation where one specific group is explicitly targeted for different treatment under the law and then say that it's being done so everyone is treated equally.

I'm saying I want the people who are making the laws for people without employer based HC to be subject to those same exact laws, to ensure that the laws they're making for tens of millions of people are going to be of sufficient quality, given that they and their staffers will have to abide by them. You could look at it this way: Stop spending taxpayer dollars giving Congress and their critters HC on our dime. Let them buy it on the exchanges that the masses have to buy it on, under the same system the masses have to operate under. That way, they can enjoy the consequences of their actions. If they put out quality legislation, they should really have no problem with that. If they didn't put out quality legislation, hopefully they'll feel the pain and thus learn their lesson. Doing it the way you propose, Congress and their faithful minions can make one set of rules for us (us being those who don't have employee based HC; I do, but I use 'us' in the general sense here), and one set of rules for them. That...doesn't sound like a good idea to me. And, before you say it's not one set of rules for them because they're employed and have employee based HC, I realize that. My point is they shouldn't have employee based HC that they voted for themselves, they should have what they've deemed appropriate for the non employee based HC folks they represent.

Common sense. You support special treatment for Congress, so just come out and say so.

Special in the sense they need to enjoy what they foist on us, specifically, the less fortunate of us. I think taking that approach on things like this is very appropriate. You'd agree that Congress and their critters shouldn't be enjoying any benefit not available to the poor that they represent, right? You can't believe that a Congressman should be enjoying a taxpayer funded cadillac plan while some poor working mom with no employer provided HC has to go out on the exchange, regardless of the subsidy she'll get. That would be a travesty, a slight to the poor, and I know you woudn't be for that.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

I said GOP politicians because Democrats were not fine with millions of their constituents going without insurance, that's why they passed Obamacare.
If you think that Obamacare is going to get repealed by middle age politicians who will be forced to buy unsubsidized insurance in the private market with their pre-existing conditions, good luck with that.

I don't think that at all, and I have no idea why you'd even think I did. Seriously, where did you get that?

 

[chucky2]

This isn't a partisan issue as Republicans want this to change as much as Democrats do. There's a reason Boehner was secretly campaigning behind closed doors about it. Everyone knows what a bad idea the Grassley amendment was.

Regardless, the Grassley amendment is explicitly a special rule made for Congress. If you truly want the same rules to apply to everyone, you should oppose the Grassley amendment. If you are just looking for a way to attack junior Congressional staffers that's fine, but own up to your motivations.

Oh I'm not looking for a way to attack any Congresscritter. I'm looking for a way to keep Politicians and their buddies at least in some manner EDIT: I took out honest...I think we all understand they will never, ever, be honest..instead I substitute 'in check'. And in the case of ACA, the best way to do that is ensure that all the Politicians, and their staffers that cooked it up, enjoy what they want the comman man to have. No exemptions, loopholes, sly 'Oh but we have employer based coverage, so we are just like you' soundbites. Just have them enjoy the same system a single working mom making $30k a year with no employer based HC will enjoy.

That's fair, is it not?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm saying I want the people who are making the laws for people without employer based HC to be subject to those same exact laws, to ensure that the laws they're making for tens of millions of people are going to be of sufficient quality, given that they and their staffers will have to abide by them. You could look at it this way: Stop spending taxpayer dollars giving Congress and their critters HC on our dime. Let them buy it on the exchanges that the masses have to buy it on, under the same system the masses have to operate under. That way, they can enjoy the consequences of their actions. If they put out quality legislation, they should really have no problem with that. If they didn't put out quality legislation, hopefully they'll feel the pain and thus learn their lesson. Doing it the way you propose, Congress and their faithful minions can make one set of rules for us (us being those who don't have employee based HC; I do, but I use 'us' in the general sense here), and one set of rules for them. That...doesn't sound like a good idea to me. And, before you say it's not one set of rules for them because they're employed and have employee based HC, I realize that. My point is they shouldn't have employee based HC that they voted for themselves, they should have what they've deemed appropriate for the non employee based HC folks they represent.

They are subject to the exact same laws. If you want to remove employer sponsored health coverage for Congress that's fine, just come out and say it instead of trying to pretend that this is somehow equitable. Removing that coverage is in effect a large pay cut for Congressional staff. If you want that too, that's fine, but again just be honest about your opinion instead of trying to twist yourself into knots saying that this is somehow the equitable way to do things.

It is interesting however that on one hand you complain about the lack of quality legislation but on the other are attempting to act in a way that will directly harm the quality of legislation going forward.

Special in the sense they need to enjoy what they foist on us, specifically, the less fortunate of us. I think taking that approach on things like this is very appropriate. You'd agree that Congress and their critters shouldn't be enjoying any benefit not available to the poor that they represent, right? You can't believe that a Congressman should be enjoying a taxpayer funded cadillac plan while some poor working mom with no employer provided HC has to go out on the exchange, regardless of the subsidy she'll get. That would be a travesty, a slight to the poor, and I know you woudn't be for that.

Chuck

So you think that some people with employer sponsored health coverage should be treated differently than other people with employer sponsored health coverage. That's fine, but just come out and say it. Don't try to mangle the english language to try and give words the opposite meaning.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh I'm not looking for a way to attack any Congresscritter. I'm looking for a way to keep Politicians and their buddies at least in some manner EDIT: I took out honest...I think we all understand they will never, ever, be honest..instead I substitute 'in check'. And in the case of ACA, the best way to do that is ensure that all the Politicians, and their staffers that cooked it up, enjoy what they want the comman man to have. No exemptions, loopholes, sly 'Oh but we have employer based coverage, so we are just like you' soundbites. Just have them enjoy the same system a single working mom making $30k a year with no employer based HC will enjoy.

That's fair, is it not?

Again, this is a simply bizarre destruction of the meaning of words. You want people with employer based coverage in a single organization only to have it removed by the force of law, and in doing so claim that this will somehow make things 'fair'.

I don't know how to have this conversation with you if it's opposite day in chucky2 land or something.

 

[chucky2]

Again, this is a simply bizarre destruction of the meaning of words. You want people with employer based coverage in a single organization only to have it removed by the force of law, and in doing so claim that this will somehow make things 'fair'.

Sure, why not? Is it not fair that Politicians and their staffers enjoy what they expect the masses to enjoy? I can't think of anything more fair really, given that they in theory represent and work for us, not the other way around.

I don't know how to have this conversation with you if it's opposite day in chucky2 land or something.

I think what's interesting is this is such a foreign concept to you that it confuses you to such a degree. You didn't answer my question though. You think it is fair, do you not, that the Politicians and their staffers enjoy the same system they expect the lower income masses to follow, the ones without employer based HC, the ones ACA was/is for?

 

[fskimospy]

Sure, why not? Is it not fair that Politicians and their staffers enjoy what they expect the masses to enjoy? I can't think of anything more fair really, given that they in theory represent and work for us, not the other way around.

I see no rational reason anyone would think that to explicitly remove health benefits from a certain classification of jobs, and use the force of law to explicitly prevent only a single employer from using funds to sponsor health care for their employees is fair. It is basically by definition not fair.

I think what's interesting is this is such a foreign concept to you that it confuses you to such a degree. You didn't answer my question though. You think it is fair, do you not, that the Politicians and their staffers enjoy the same system they expect the lower income masses to follow, the ones without employer based HC, the ones ACA was/is for?

I see no rational reason anyone would think that to explicitly remove health benefits from a certain classification of jobs, and use the force of law to explicitly prevent only a single employer from using funds to sponsor health care for their employees is fair. It is basically by definition not fair.

Fairness means the same rules apply to everyone. You want special rules to apply to Congress and Congress alone. That's the opposite of fair. It's interesting that this would be so difficult to understand.

 

[chucky2]

They are subject to the exact same laws. If you want to remove employer sponsored health coverage for Congress that's fine, just come out and say it instead of trying to pretend that this is somehow equitable. Removing that coverage is in effect a large pay cut for Congressional staff. If you want that too, that's fine, but again just be honest about your opinion instead of trying to twist yourself into knots saying that this is somehow the equitable way to do things.

Yes? Why is this so hard to understand? If they have their themselves voted in platinum and diamond encrusted HC that we pay for now, and instead they have to use what non employee provided HC masses have to use, which was probably the major piece of ACA, would this not mean their self imposed "employer" provided HC would be scrapped? As for pay cut, my heart bleeds.

It is interesting however that on one hand you complain about the lack of quality legislation but on the other are attempting to act in a way that will directly harm the quality of legislation going forward.

If making Politicians and their staffers who cook up and support the Politicians goals enjoy the same legislation they're foisting upon us means it will "harm the quality of the legislation going forward", then I'd submit that would very likely be a good thing. When you say harm the quality, what I understand that to mean is making Politicians and their staffers at least, for once, have a first thought (second is asking too much) about pushing legislation that they themselves are going to be possibly be forced to adhere to also. I'll take that "harm" all day long, compared to what we have now.

So you think that some people with employer sponsored health coverage should be treated differently than other people with employer sponsored health coverage. That's fine, but just come out and say it. Don't try to mangle the english language to try and give words the opposite meaning.

You're confused. See above.

 

[chucky2]

I see no rational reason anyone would think that to explicitly remove health benefits from a certain classification of jobs, and use the force of law to explicitly prevent only a single employer from using funds to sponsor health care for their employees is fair. It is basically by definition not fair.

Oh well, life is not fair. They can always go get jobs somewhere else that has employee based HC. Since they're in Congress (whether Politician or staffer), they should be hot shit and shoudn't have a problem doing so. Want to work in Congress? Play by a set of rules that at least attempts to keep Congress in check with those they allegedly serve.

Fairness means the same rules apply to everyone. You want special rules to apply to Congress and Congress alone. That's the opposite of fair. It's interesting that this would be so difficult to understand.

What's interesting is that your panties are in a bunch over it. You by chance wouldn't be someone affected by it, would you?

 

[fskimospy]

Oh well, life is not fair. They can always go get jobs somewhere else that has employee based HC. Since they're in Congress (whether Politician or staffer), they should be hot shit and shoudn't have a problem doing so. Want to work in Congress? Play by a set of rules that at least attempts to keep Congress in check with those they allegedly serve.

So you're saying that you want to put our legislative branch at a disadvantage in getting talented employees. Uhmmm, okay.

I'm glad you at least figured out what the word 'fair' meant though.

What's interesting is that your panties are in a bunch over it. You by chance wouldn't be someone affected by it, would you?

What percentage of Congressional staff work in New York City?

 

[theeedude]

Oh I'm not looking for a way to attack any Congresscritter. I'm looking for a way to keep Politicians and their buddies at least in some manner EDIT: I took out honest...I think we all understand they will never, ever, be honest..instead I substitute 'in check'. And in the case of ACA, the best way to do that is ensure that all the Politicians, and their staffers that cooked it up, enjoy what they want the comman man to have. No exemptions, loopholes, sly 'Oh but we have employer based coverage, so we are just like you' soundbites. Just have them enjoy the same system a single working mom making $30k a year with no employer based HC will enjoy.

That's fair, is it not?

You should start with Congressional pensions first. They should rely on 401k's and Social Security, maybe then they'll care more about financial regulation and the long term fiscal picture.

 

[Fern]

You should start with Congressional pensions first. They should rely on 401k's and Social Security, maybe then they'll care more about financial regulation and the long term fiscal picture.

Damn good idea.

Fern

 

[spacejamz]

So it took Obama about a month and a half to release its first set of enrollment numbers from Oct 1 and now they can magically provide real time numbers of who signed up today....

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/deadline-looms-obamacare-2D11792133

Was this functionally that is now available or are they just releasing numbers when it makes them look good? Let the conspiracies begin!!!! LOL

 

[Exterous]

So it took Obama about a month and a half to release its first set of enrollment numbers from Oct 1 and now they can magically provide real time numbers of who signed up today....

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/deadline-looms-obamacare-2D11792133

Was this functionally that is now available or are they just releasing numbers when it makes them look good? Let the conspiracies begin!!!! LOL

:hmm: I don't see sign up numbers for 'today' only 850,000 visitors, 60,000 people put in their email to come back later but no signup numbers for the last day. They provided an over all number of 1M since this started so they are 1/7th of the way to their goal by March

 

[Exterous]

According to the WSJ the deadline for signup was quietly extended on Monday for 24 hours. In what I would call a 'dick move' insurers received no advance warning of the extension and were only informed of the change on Monday.

This means that a large number of people who originally had Christmas Eve off were told Monday they were required to work Tuesday as call centers and offices that were supposed to be closed had to remain open.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304244904579276790686548408

 

[chucky2]

You should start with Congressional pensions first. They should rely on 401k's and Social Security, maybe then they'll care more about financial regulation and the long term fiscal picture.

Damn good idea.

Fern

Fine? Should already be that way IMO.

 

[chucky2]

So you're saying that you want to put our legislative branch at a disadvantage in getting talented employees. Uhmmm, okay.

Bah. I have a high degree of confidence that the ego and/or power trip seeking nature of these individuals will easily, easily, override any hit they'll take on the net profit side. For those that can't stomach serving their country fairly, it's cool. They can go work where they'll end up anyways, working for the lobbyists, Wall Street, Big Banks, etc. figuring out ways to bilk the US sheeple out of Trillions. Your imagined disadvantage not found.

I'm glad you at least figured out what the word 'fair' meant though.

Still confused I see...

What percentage of Congressional staff work in New York City?

The percentage that represent NY and live in NY City, adding in any that telecommute? If you're saying you'd be unaffected, I fail to understand how you could be so sensitive to those poor poor Politicians.

 

[boomerang]

You should start with Congressional pensions first. They should rely on 401k's and Social Security, maybe then they'll care more about financial regulation and the long term fiscal picture.

They should not even be eligible. The job needs to get cycled back to a desire for public service. No pension, no health care, etc. after leaving office - after they've served their two term limit in the Senate or four term limit in the House.

 

[First]

6M more Americans insured because of Obamacare; 2.1M in private plans, 3.9M in Medicaid

Quick excerpt:

...

"I wouldn't be surprised if we exceed 7 million [nationally] by March," said Timothy Jost, a law professor who specializes in health-care legal issues at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. "I'm encouraged by the fact that we've got close to 2 million people signed up [officially] and in time we're going to get a lot more people signed up by March 31."

...

A couple conservative talking points starting to wither on the vine include the following:

1. Healthcare.gov web site has now clearly been fixed enough to garner significant enrollments, no longer a story anyone will care too much about going forward.

2. Enough total enrollments to satisfy insurance actuaries not a question anymore.

Conservative talking points left to tackle:

1. Those receiving cancellation notices are only partially included in this 6M figure since a bevy of states accepted and rejected the call to renew old plans not compliant with ACA, the renewal of which is not done through federal or state exchanges but with an insurer. To know how many net new people now have health insurance, we'll need to find out what the cancellation numbers actually are. More than likely it's already net positive.

2. The makeup of the risk pool of these 2.1M private plans. If they're going the way it's supposedly going with California, insurers will be happy and the 2015 rates won't shock.

These latter two points are particularly important, as they form the crux of the remaining arguments against Obamacare. When they fall, and the trend is certainly toward that end, you'll have a political environment where Repubs can't campaign against Obamacare to more than a wash in 2014 and especially if we see the economy continue to boom in equities, which helps lagging private-sector employment and public-sector (the true laggard in the recovery) as state revenues increase.

 

[Fern]

6M more Americans insured because of Obamacare; 2.1M in private plans, 3.9M in Medicaid

-snip-

2. The makeup of the risk pool of these 2.1M private plans. If they're going the way it's supposedly going with California, insurers will be happy and the 2015 rates won't shock.

These latter two points are particularly important, as they form the crux of the remaining arguments against Obamacare.

I don't see anything of substance to your first point as even you concede it's an unknown. (I.e., it's hard to know if we're just looking at churn, where approx 4 million paying customers were replaced by 4 million nonpaying Medicaid customers.)

As to the latter I'm hearing differently. Howard Dean, Democrat, was on TV acknowledging that there might be a problem with the make up of the risk pool. According to him there were more gold and platinum plans purchased than expected. Also, according to him the reason people will purchase those is because they have preexisting conditions and can expect to benefit from the deductibles etc even though the premium is higher.

Seems too soon to be drawing any firm conclusions, even about net numbers of insured. Then we still have potential issues wrt employer plans.

Fern

 

[First]

I don't see anything of substance to your first point as even you concede it's an unknown. (I.e., it's hard to know if we're just looking at churn, where approx 4 million paying customers were replaced by 4 million nonpaying Medicaid customers.)

The likelihood of that is basically zero.

As to the latter I'm hearing differently. Howard Dean, Democrat, was on TV acknowledging that there might be a problem with the make up of the risk pool. According to him there were more gold and platinum plans purchased than expected.

I saw the interview too, and Dean didn't say that, some guy at the conservative AEI did. Of course, the comments went un-sourced so they're impossible to coorborate either way, while my NY Times source cites CA officials saying their risk pools through nearly 2 months included 22.9% in the critical young age group while the CA population is 21% in the same young age group, meaning they're getting slightly better youth signup than the population at large.

Also, according to him the reason people will purchase those is because they have preexisting conditions and can expect to benefit from the deductibles etc even though the premium is higher.

Seems too soon to be drawing any firm conclusions, even about net numbers of insured. Then we still have potential issues wrt employer plans.

Fern

It is still too early, yes. Trends don't look good for Repubs either way, though.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I saw the interview too, and Dean didn't say that, some guy at the conservative AEI did.

Yes Dean did. True that the AEI guy noted it first, but Dean said his point was a good one. It was Dean who went on to explain the significance of higher than expected gold and platinum plans.

Fern