• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obamacare rollout status report: central place for updates

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
now goggle, redhat and oracle are sending in their experts to help w/healthcare.gov website.

so basically the govt wasted $300M of our tax $$$ and the real website design started Oct 1 😡
 
Genx87 said:
Im already doing that to my fiancee's kid. The shit we used to be able to do in the 80s and 90s would land us in jail today.
Click to expand...

That was actually a Reagan quote warning about Medicare 🙂
Of course now, the Republican base says things like "Government hands off my Medicare."
 
Genx87 said:
Im already doing that to my fiancee's kid. The shit we used to be able to do in the 80s and 90s would land us in jail today.
Click to expand...

It's true. Anything I did with gun powder back in the day or throwing eggs at cars or whatever could get a person in hot shit now. The only safe time to be bad is in video games.

On topic if obamacare rollout doesn't get massively better fast it will screw millions of people as early as next year. I am interested to see how many people in the middle class end up paying more per month. We don't know yet because damn few people have been able to sign up. Those millions kicked off plans will be signing up soon and I can't wait to see what their post-subsidy cost is.
 
berzerker60 said:
Oh yes, the holy grail of liberal/progressivism is a plan made by the Heritage Foundation to preserve free market incentives, pricing mechanisms, and corporate profits.

In reality, it's a GOP plan put forth as a compromise, and a sizable part of the opposition to Obamacare is from people who realize that we would be much, much better off with the same system as the rest of the first world enjoys.

All that said, it's still a LONG way from irretrievably 'failing.' It's definitely flawed, but if the Congress was willing to be grown-ups, it could pass fixes for lots of its flaws right now (and more as new problems reveal themselves). It could fail. But it will take at least a half-decade more to tell, probably more like 10-15 years. Considering there is no alternative out there other than a truly irretrievably fucked status quo ante and single-payer, I doubt there's going to be any change until it's had a good long opportunity to find its legs. As much as Fox wants you to believe the whole nation is hopping mad about it, most people don't really care that much right now, and will form their opinions slowly instead of regurgitating talking points about it.
Click to expand...
Good thing there is mental health coverage as part of Obamacare. Make your first appointment for Jan 2nd.
 
ACA:
funny+ship+004.jpg
 
First said:
I'm not sure we disagree here since the article specifically says the success rate in the private sector is 10%. Though I'm not sure what your point would now be based on your original comment that "most" don't have $300M and 3 years.
Click to expand...

Saying "The success rate in the private sector is 10%" is a meaningless statement. It's a summation of apples to eggplants comparisons. You cant compare a project that has a $10 milllion budget and 6 months to a project with $300 million and 3 years.



I disagree, it's better than not for insurance markets to have more participants.

And nothing that happens now with Obamacare, good or bad, means anything particularly meaningful in the long-term. We'll know more in a year, so that's a good starting point I suppose. But any preliminary public data we're getting now is mostly useless. In 3 or 4 years we'll have some great data and deal with the reality then.
Click to expand...

Which is bullshit kicking-the-can. In 3 or 4 years if Obamacare hasn't worked out, I imagine you and others will be saying "well in 10 years we'll really see the effects[/b]. Bottom line is no law should have an "experimental" period of 3-4 years where the experimenters don't even have a valid hypothesis as to the outcome. Obamacare is legal alchemy in the name of partisanship, and I predict the American people are going to suffer for it for quite some time until we manage to fix it.

"Functional" as in people can buy insurance on healthcare.gov. It has indeed happened. That's at least partway functional though I agree nowhere near adequate. But everyone intelligent knows this is temporary and fixable so it's moot.
Click to expand...

Yeah, temporary in terms of months, if the predictions I'm reading are adequate.




Bottom line, every technology site on the internet is pointing out how much of an unmitigated disaster healthcare.gov is, compared to the private sector. As for the ars article you're cherry picking that last statement and taking it out of the article's context.

The statement:
"Anyone who has written a line of code or built a system from the ground-up cannot be surprised or even mildly concerned that Healthcare.gov did not work out of the gate,” Standish Group International Chairman Jim Johnson said in a recent podcast. “The real news would have been if it actually did work. The very fact that most of it did work at all is a success in itself."
Click to expand...

is in the context of the 7 faults they list. He's saying "Given all of the management's fuck-ups, it's surprising that it worked in any capacity." That doesn't absolve the management of healthcare.gov as you appear to be trying to do.
 
JEDI said:
if they cant pay it, then they should qualify for Medicaid.

if they have too much $ for mediciad, then they can pay the up to $6k deductible.
($6k is max under obamacare)
Click to expand...
And the income cutoff for Medicaid $4K for a family of 2:|

That is about the minimum income level for a person on SS.
 
Can someone explain two things to me? One, how can you live near both Philadelphia and Delaware? And two, how do you pay almost $1300 a month for a bronze level plan when a silver one looks to run about $425? TIA

http://news.msn.com/us/sticker-shock-often-follows-insurance-cancellation/
The Griffins, who live near Philadelphia, pay $770 monthly for their soon-to-be-terminated health care plan with a $2,500 deductible. The cheapest plan they found on their state insurance exchange was a so-called bronze plan charging a $1,275 monthly premium with deductibles totaling $12,700. It covers only providers in Pennsylvania, so the couple, who live near Delaware, won't be able to see doctors they've used for more than a decade.
Click to expand...

Corrected Age:
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-...s[1][tobacco]=0&child-count=0&child-tobacco=0

That's still with zero subsidy, which being retired he would likely qualify for one.
 
Last edited:
Gonad the Barbarian said:
Can someone explain two things to me? One, how can you live near both Philadelphia and Delaware? And two, how do you pay almost $1300 a month for a bronze level plan when a silver one looks to run about $600? TIA

http://news.msn.com/us/sticker-shock-often-follows-insurance-cancellation/

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-...s[1][tobacco]=0&child-count=0&child-tobacco=0

Well there's a bronze plan listed below at about $425. So who's bullshitting here?
Click to expand...

You put in the wrong age. Put in 64 and it is jumps up to $16,000
 
Corrected. So we are still left to wonder about this guy's actual out of pocket expenses.

Edit: So I'm running numbers on the kff.org calculator to see how much this guy would have to make to be worse off as far as out of pocket expenses with a subsidy. At $62,000 it lists he could get an $11000 subsidy, dropping his monthly expense to about $500 a month for a silver plan. At $63,000 he loses the subsidy altogether. Is this drop off accurate, that making that extra $1000 in effect costs $11000?

Another Edit: It looks like you might be able to deduct your health insurance premiums if you have an individual policy. So if your premiums take you back under the threshold for a subsidy a tax adjustment could be possibly be made. Does anyone know for sure?
 
Last edited:
schmuckley said:
yep..brilliant! (IF your goal is to hurt the USA)
Click to expand...
Really? You so badly want everyone to know you really, really, really suck at math that you posted this in two threads? You should sue your math teacher for malpractice.

Hint: $360 million for 317 million people is NOT one million dollars per person. It's not even $1,000 per person. It's under $1.14 per person, as in one dollar and 14 cents.
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
Another Edit: It looks like you might be able to deduct your health insurance premiums if you have an individual policy. So if your premiums take you back under the threshold for a subsidy a tax adjustment could be possibly be made. Does anyone know for sure?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. While health insurance premiums are deductible in some circumstances the tax credit is based on MAGI (Modified Adjusted Gross Income). MAGI is, for all intents and purposes, Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) with Social Security wages added back in. AGI is basically income prior to deductions, exemptions and credits (Line 4 on a 2012 1040-EZ form, Line 21 on a 2012 1040A form, or Line 37 on a 2012 1040 form).
 
Interesting article in Forbes (Need to click through an ad 🙁 )

What a tangled web is woven when politics are put above the good of the nation.
Another example of Obama letting his staffers run the country. :thumbsdown:
 
Bowfinger said:
Really? You so badly want everyone to know you really, really, really suck at math that you posted this in two threads? You should sue your math teacher for malpractice.

Hint: $360 million for 317 million people is NOT one million dollars per person. It's not even $1,000 per person. It's under $1.14 per person, as in one dollar and 14 cents.
Click to expand...

schmuckley pwned!!!!!

nominate ownage of the year
 
Last edited:
EagleKeeper said:
Interesting article in Forbes (Need to click through an ad 🙁 )

What a tangled web is woven when politics are put above the good of the nation.
Another example of Obama letting his staffers run the country. :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...
If he were to fire Valerie Jarrett, who would take over? Somebody has to make the decisions.
 
Genx87 said:
Some data on premium increases has come out.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...miums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/
Click to expand...

Wow, talk about a downer for anti-Obamacarers. Not only does the "average" 41% increase in premiums not take into account subsidies, but it effectively is preliminary due to the risk pool not yet being known. So any increase in young, healthy citizens (i.e. Obamacare voters) from this point forward merely bends the cost curve down and further refutes any negative effects of this law in terms of premium increases, especially given the higher mandated coverage. The typical slanted disdain for ACA in Avik Roy's Forbes article is completely missing here, with preimums coming in far lower than the scare mongering initially indicated ("Triple digits % increase across the board!") and clearly surprising him enough that he can't admit it.

Meanwhile, it helps covers tens of millions of people on both the individual insurance market and Medicaid, continues to eliminate pre-existing conditions and probably buys progressives more sway with older voters due to the health wealth transfer toward them.

Win win. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top