Obamacare rollout status report: central place for updates

[fskimospy]

Released by The Heritage Foundation :

Looks like only 4 states have decreases - NJ, NY, DE, and RI.

Virginia is getting raped.

You don't actually expect people to believe Heritage Foundation figures, do you? I'm open to being convinced that premiums are up, but you will need to use a credible source.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You don't actually expect people to believe Heritage Foundation figures, do you? I'm open to being convinced that premiums are up, but you will need to use a credible source.

It completely leaves out the tax credits which most will get. You'd have to be at 400% of the poverty line not to qualify, or below it in one of the red states fucking people over by not expanding medicaid. It also overlooks the ACA's 80/20 rule which would mean rebates if these premium increases overshoot actual cost increases.

 

[First]

It completely leaves out the tax credits which most will get. You'd have to be at 400% of the poverty line not to qualify, or below it in one of the red states fucking people over by not expanding medicaid. It also overlooks the ACA's 80/20 rule which would mean rebates if these premium increases overshoot actual cost increases.

Yup. Pretty pathetic to leave out blatantly obvious subsidies and benefits.

 

[sactoking]

I'm fine with it leaving out the tax credits. Including them distorts the intellectual picture for the sake of the discussion. If something cost $50 and now costs $100, but the manufacturer gets a $50 "prop up" payment from the federal government, the true cost of the product is still $100 even though the "retail" price is $50. It's no different than farm subsidies, and that money has to come from somewhere (unless you believe that unlimited deficit spending can be perpetrated in perpetuity).

I'd rather quibble with their "microsimulation model", which appears to be where they got the "before" premiums from, and to what extent that model provides data that makes a comparison anything other than shit thrown against a wall.

 

[werepossum]

There's some indication that they may make the insurance companies eat the shortfall, referred to in the article.

That though falls into the problem I outlined where insurance companies who participate extensively in the exchanges may go under, or withdraw after 2014 if they survive.

The insurance companies participating have 3 MAJOR problems right now.

1 - Too few enrollees, and of the wrong demographic
2 - The data they are getting from the exchange is wrong, requiring them to go get the data manually, increasing their costs
3 - Since the exchange set the wrong subsidized numbers, they may be on the hook for the difference

I think #3, if it occurs, will result in a bunch of major lawsuits. The Gov't cant really absolve itself of responsibility for providing incorrect information.

#1 kills them for obvious reasons - they're insuring un-insurables without an offset.
#2 kills them because they have to refund anything over 20% admin cost
#3 kills them because, frankly, they don't get paid

So this goes back to the big 3 insurers not participating in very many exchanges - Aetna, Cigna, and UnitedHealthCare.

They knew what they were doing.

Holy crap!

Released by The Heritage Foundation :

Looks like only 4 states have decreases - NJ, NY, DE, and RI.

Virginia is getting raped.

Holy crap #2!

It completely leaves out the tax credits which most will get. You'd have to be at 400% of the poverty line not to qualify, or below it in one of the red states fucking people over by not expanding medicaid. It also overlooks the ACA's 80/20 rule which would mean rebates if these premium increases overshoot actual cost increases.

So the silver lining here is putting most of the population on welfare?

The quality of silver linings is sadly degraded under Obama.

 

[Svnla]

ABC News said the government spent $500 million for the website healthcare =
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/500-million-obamacare-website-bust-20631716

Half of a billion USD and climbing? Really?

 

[shady28]

USA Today article.

I can't believe freaking West Virginia has ONE PROVIDER. New Hampshire is tiny and has only one, yet that's a 90 mile trip even there. But WV?

WTF People with insurance are going to be dying just waiting for their damn ambulance. Better to just use the ER insurance.

Some choice quotes:

"About a third of insurance companies opted out of participating in the exchanges in states where they were already doing business, according to a recent report by McKinsey & Co. "

"That leaves an uneven patchwork of providers — ranging from one insurer in New Hampshire and West Virginia to 16 in New York. "

" … They're crunching the numbers and looking at tightening profit margins," she says. "Part of that is a result of the Affordable Care Act, basically telling these insurance companies that your insurance model to attract healthy people and keep out sick people is no longer allowed."

"Companies doing well tended to be more conservative. Aetna and United Health Care, which have both pulled out of several exchanges, both enjoyed strong revenue growth last year. "

"It is too early to speculate on 2015, but we will use our experience in 2014 to help inform our exchange strategy for 2015 and beyond," says Aetna's Wiggin.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...insurers-some-states-obamacare-plans/2986795/

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

So this thread is really about the enrollment portals, not the rollout of the ACA itself.

 

[glenn1]

So this thread is really about the enrollment portals, not the rollout of the ACA itself.

Well, those seem to be what's in the news lately. The thread isn't intended to be limited to that.

With that in mind however, here's a not exactly news related link that I thought belongs here:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-improved-obamacare-program-released-on-35-flop,34294/

 

[spacejamz]

It completely leaves out the tax credits which most will get. You'd have to be at 400% of the poverty line not to qualify, or below it in one of the red states fucking people over by not expanding medicaid. It also overlooks the ACA's 80/20 rule which would mean rebates if these premium increases overshoot actual cost increases.

How would you factor in the tax credits into this table? The amount of the subsidy will vary based on one's situation, won't it??

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

How would you factor in the tax credits into this table? The amount of the subsidy will vary based on one's situation, won't it??

Since it's averages, incorporate each states average subsidy. Or divide each state into specific income brackets. Or just add a damn income/subsidy scale and instructions on how to subtract at the bottom.

How many people at 400% plus of the poverty level are not getting insurance through their employer already? I'm not saying they don't exist, or they they should be taking the brunt like they are, but that chart doesn't reflect the end costs for the vast majority of people.

I'm on this damn exchange, I was buying individual insurance before it, and all this FUD over the changes and even the state of the website is being grossly exaggerated by people with a vested interest to stir up controversy or posture against it. From my own, first-hand experience: my out of pocket expense is lower, my coverage is better, and the website is useable enough to get through.

 

[boomerang]

Well, those seem to be what's in the news lately. The thread isn't intended to be limited to that.

With that in mind however, here's a not exactly news related link that I thought belongs here:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-improved-obamacare-program-released-on-35-flop,34294/

LOL! My first big laugh of the day!

 

[spacejamz]

LOL! My first big laugh of the day!

Finding the right health care option for you and your family is as easy as loading 35 floppy
disks sequentially into your disk drive and following the onscreen prompts

 

[glenn1]

Finding the right health care option for you and your family is as easy as loading 35 floppy
disks sequentially into your disk drive and following the onscreen prompts

Maybe it's the P5 Pentium floating point bug that's causing all the Obamacare problems? Perhaps a switch to the AMD K5 or Cyrix 6x86 is in order...

 

[boomerang]

Since it's averages, incorporate each states average subsidy. Or divide each state into specific income brackets. Or just add a damn income/subsidy scale and instructions on how to subtract at the bottom.

How many people at 400% plus of the poverty level are not getting insurance through their employer already? I'm not saying they don't exist, or they they should be taking the brunt like they are, but that chart doesn't reflect the end costs for the vast majority of people.

I'm on this damn exchange, I was buying individual insurance before it, and all this FUD over the changes and even the state of the website is being grossly exaggerated by people with a vested interest to stir up controversy or posture against it. From my own, first-hand experience: my out of pocket expense is lower, my coverage is better, and the website is useable enough to get through.

Great to hear you feel you're saving money. You did not tell us if your deductible stayed the same/went down/went up, but you're happy and that's what matters - to you. Loads of folks aren't very excited about subsidizing your health care and the health care of millions of others though. You pay less and some other poor schmuck pays all of his and his portion of yours. He either pays it in premiums or he pays it through income tax. Make no mistake, somebody is paying. You got a good deal, somebody else, not so much.

The web site can be fixed. Nobody has ever given an explanation for how Obamacare as it is written, insures more people with broader coverage for less money. Can Obamacare be fixed? Because from the perspective of number-crunching, it's broken.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

My insurance company hasn't even paid for a doctor's visit this year and has come out way, way ahead every year before. I'm healthy, I've spent years subsidizing the healthcare of others. That's how insurance works. If some "poor schmuck" doesn't like paying more than me now he's welcome to take a pay cut to even the field.

 

[werepossum]

Well, those seem to be what's in the news lately. The thread isn't intended to be limited to that.

With that in mind however, here's a not exactly news related link that I thought belongs here:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-improved-obamacare-program-released-on-35-flop,34294/

LOL Thanks!

And the best thing is that because of government's buying power, those thirty-five floppy discs only cost the taxpayer $6,000.

Great to hear you feel you're saving money. You did not tell us if your deductible stayed the same/went down/went up, but you're happy and that's what matters - to you. Loads of folks aren't very excited about subsidizing your health care and the health care of millions of others though. You pay less and some other poor schmuck pays all of his and his portion of yours. He either pays it in premiums or he pays it through income tax. Make no mistake, somebody is paying. You got a good deal, somebody else, not so much.

The web site can be fixed. Nobody has ever given an explanation for how Obamacare as it is written, insures more people with broader coverage for less money. Can Obamacare be fixed? Because from the perspective of number-crunching, it's broken.

Well said. Still, he has a point that insurance is inherently people subsidizing other people's costs. Obamacare merely widens that aspect beyond what the market would deliver.

 

[boomerang]

Still, he has a point that insurance is inherently people subsidizing other people's costs. Obamacare merely widens that aspect beyond what the market would deliver.

Absolutely and if he'd answered my question about his deductible I'd have responded. But the big difference with this program is the mandate. Buy this or else. We've lost sight of this in the years since Obamacare became the "law of the land". This was an over-reach by government of huge proportions.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Buy this or else is the only way the market could potentially deliver.

As noticed; many companies decided to stay out of the market (and/or individual states); reducing the "competition that would lower costs" potential.

I would expect that some of the insurance companies that chose to participate will back out of some markets after a couple of years. To costly!

 

[rudder]

So it appears the states that chose to use the federal exchange are causing a bit of trouble. The way the bill was written that states that opted to not set up exchanges make it against the law to offer people subsidies. Oooops there goes the subsidies for the poor.

There is a lawsuit submitted by states that setup their own exchanges and are angry about this so we will see how that goes. Guess congress should have read the bill afterall.

And here come the hordes blaming the Republican governors. But being in a state that has opted to use the federal exchange, I would be angry if Tennessee had not gone that route. The feds pay 100% for three years but after that it is anyone's guess how many additional state tax dollars will have to go to this program. Something that was not need in Tennessee as they had their own program. But oh well.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Finding the right health care option for you and your family is as easy as loading 35 floppy
disks sequentially into your disk drive and following the onscreen prompts

And 9,999 out of 10,000 floppy 35s are damaged causing a fatal system error.

 

[fskimospy]

So it appears the states that chose to use the federal exchange are causing a bit of trouble. The way the bill was written that states that opted to not set up exchanges make it against the law to offer people subsidies. Oooops there goes the subsidies for the poor.

There is a lawsuit submitted by states that setup their own exchanges and are angry about this so we will see how that goes. Guess congress should have read the bill afterall.

And here come the hordes blaming the Republican governors. But being in a state that has opted to use the federal exchange, I would be angry if Tennessee had not gone that route. The feds pay 100% for three years but after that it is anyone's guess how many additional state tax dollars will have to go to this program. Something that was not need in Tennessee as they had their own program. But oh well.

The lawsuit will most likely fail. The law states that the federal government will set up the state exchange if the state fails to do so. To learn more read here:http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-legally-flawed-rearguard-challenge.html

Even if you turned out to be right that means that conservatives will be deliberately working to not only deny the poor medicaid funding, but will be deliberately acting to deny them federal health subsidies, screwing them over financially in order to pursue their ideological agenda.

Let me know how that works out for you.

 

[rudder]

The lawsuit will most likely fail. The law states that the federal government will set up the state exchange if the state fails to do so. To learn more read here:http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-legally-flawed-rearguard-challenge.html

Even if you turned out to be right that means that conservatives will be deliberately working to not only deny the poor medicaid funding, but will be deliberately acting to deny them federal health subsidies, screwing them over financially in order to pursue their ideological agenda.

Let me know how that works out for you.

we will see what the result of this legal wrangling will be. As for whether it works out for me.... Not sure if you have noticed lately bit the U.S. Government is having to borrow money to pay current obligations. To me that is not very encouraging.

And if you are so concerned why aren't you enrolling in med school and helping the situation? The doctors need to be paid but if we had more concerned folk like you well it all might work out.

 

[werepossum]

Absolutely and if he'd answered my question about his deductible I'd have responded. But the big difference with this program is the mandate. Buy this or else. We've lost sight of this in the years since Obamacare became the "law of the land". This was an over-reach by government of huge proportions.

Agreed, but as Eaglekeeper says

Buy this or else is the only way the market could potentially deliver.

As noticed; many companies decided to stay out of the market (and/or individual states); reducing the "competition that would lower costs" potential.

I would expect that some of the insurance companies that chose to participate will back out of some markets after a couple of years. To costly!

Therefore I don't think the mandate is entirely unreasonable. We as a society guarantee some measure of health care, essentially emergency & life saving care, regardless of ability to pay. Given that guaranty, requiring that an individual carry health insurance serves the same purpose as auto insurance - protecting others from financial loss. My biggest problem with the ACA (other than transferring authority to the federal government) is the notion that the mandate is some sort of solution. The problem is that most people without insurance cannot afford it; the notion that "we'll make them buy it" is a solution is laughable. However, the restriction on discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions and the exchanges DO help somewhat, albeit by increasing overall health care spending and therefore increasing the premiums of most of us with health insurance.

So it appears the states that chose to use the federal exchange are causing a bit of trouble. The way the bill was written that states that opted to not set up exchanges make it against the law to offer people subsidies. Oooops there goes the subsidies for the poor.

There is a lawsuit submitted by states that setup their own exchanges and are angry about this so we will see how that goes. Guess congress should have read the bill after all.

And here come the hordes blaming the Republican governors. But being in a state that has opted to use the federal exchange, I would be angry if Tennessee had not gone that route. The feds pay 100% for three years but after that it is anyone's guess how many additional state tax dollars will have to go to this program. Something that was not need in Tennessee as they had their own program. But oh well.

Agreed. After three years, this is likely to begin transitioning to yet another federal mandate on the states, i.e. we'll tell you what to do and you'll figure out how to pay for it.

 

[Svnla]

Top 4 complaints of Obamacare = http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-4-obamacare-complaints-145344173.html