Review: HealthCare.gov a winner despite glitches

PST · Post by **PST** » Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:31 am

rkuntz123 wrote:Supposedly there is an article in Forbes Magazine claiming ...

There is or there isn't. Why deal in rumor?

deerhound · Post by **deerhound** » Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:25 am

PST wrote:
rkuntz123 wrote:Supposedly there is an article in Forbes Magazine claiming ...
There is or there isn't. Why deal in rumor?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... rue-costs/

NachtWürger · Post by **NachtWürger** » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:22 pm

deerhound wrote:
PST wrote:
rkuntz123 wrote:Supposedly there is an article in Forbes Magazine claiming ...
There is or there isn't. Why deal in rumor?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... rue-costs/

Healthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering,” report Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal. “But that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said.” Why was it delayed? “An HHS spokeswoman said the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies.

That word "transparency" comes to mind for some reason.

PST, are you a plant here for Obama?

NachtWürger · Post by **NachtWürger** » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:26 pm

ems wrote:

No link or any data to back this up. You do draw nice lines tho. In my state it's rolling along just fine for such a new program!

Now that I would like to see include "a link or any data to back this up."

But I not waiting with bated breath.

PST · Post by **PST** » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:15 pm

NachtWürger wrote:
deerhound wrote:
PST wrote:
rkuntz123 wrote:Supposedly there is an article in Forbes Magazine claiming ...
There is or there isn't. Why deal in rumor?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... rue-costs/

Healthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering,” report Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal. “But that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said.” Why was it delayed? “An HHS spokeswoman said the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies.
That word "transparency" comes to mind for some reason.

PST, are you a plant here for Obama?

Let me ask you this. Have you ever seen the two of us together in the same room? I didn't think so. On the Internet, no one knows you're the President.

My suggestion was that the OP should have done what deerhound did. Why lead with "supposedly"? Look it up, so the rest of us don't have to. And in fact, I don't think that the article comes remotely close to supporting the allegation that the site was "intentionally sabotaged" to prevent people from discovering what insurance through the exchange would cost them. According to the article, the site was designed to show people exactly what insurance would cost them, not what it would cost someone else -- someone making more money. I tend to agree with you that this was the wrong choice, especially since the extra step seems to be an important reason for the poor performance of the federal site. What was Kathleen thinking! States that made the opposite choice were wiser. But one can understand the reasoning behind keeping it simple for the consumer by showing the net price to the consumer.

OhHelpMe · Post by **OhHelpMe** » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:09 pm

ems · Post by **ems** » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:33 pm

NachtWürger wrote:
ems wrote:

No link or any data to back this up. You do draw nice lines tho. In my state it's rolling along just fine for such a new program!
Now that I would like to see include "a link or any data to back this up."

But I not waiting with bated breath.

As long as you can read, you're good to go:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-0 ... lment.html

Sleep2Die4 · Post by **Sleep2Die4** » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:55 pm

Speaking of California, many of us out here are getting a big laugh at this article that Tirge Caps posted on Daily Kos.

Daily Kos is a far left org that has consistently supported Democrats, Obama and big government programs.

Obamacare will double my monthly premium (according to Kaiser)

by Tirge CapsFollow

Email
221 Comments / 0 New

My wife and I just got our updates from Kaiser telling us what our 2014 rates will be. Her monthly has been $168 this year, mine $150. We have a high deductible. We are generally healthy people who don't go to the doctor often. I barely ever go. The insurance is in case of a major catastrophe.

Well, now, because of Obamacare, my wife's rate is gong to $302 per month and mine is jumping to $284.

I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any fucking penalty. What the hell kind of reform is this?

Oh, ok, if we qualify, we can get some government assistance. Great. So now I have to jump through another hoop to just chisel some of this off. And we don't qualify, anyway, so what's the point?

I never felt too good about how this was passed and what it entailed, but I figured if it saved Americans money, I could go along with it.

I don't know what to think now. This appears, in my experience, to not be a reform for the people.

What am I missing?

I realize I will probably get screamed at for posting this, but I can't imagine I am the only Californian who just received a rate increase from Kaiser based on these new laws.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/3 ... ly-premium

Tirge Caps meets the big government in his own backyard. Real life is approaching.

NateS · Post by **NateS** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:27 am

Sleep2Die4 wrote:Speaking of California, many of us out here are getting a big laugh at this article that Tirge Caps posted on Daily Kos.

Daily Kos is a far left org that has consistently supported Democrats, Obama and big government programs.

Obamacare will double my monthly premium (according to Kaiser)

by Tirge CapsFollow

Email
221 Comments / 0 New

My wife and I just got our updates from Kaiser telling us what our 2014 rates will be. Her monthly has been $168 this year, mine $150. We have a high deductible. We are generally healthy people who don't go to the doctor often. I barely ever go. The insurance is in case of a major catastrophe.

Well, now, because of Obamacare, my wife's rate is gong to $302 per month and mine is jumping to $284.

I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any fucking penalty. What the hell kind of reform is this?

Oh, ok, if we qualify, we can get some government assistance. Great. So now I have to jump through another hoop to just chisel some of this off. And we don't qualify, anyway, so what's the point?

I never felt too good about how this was passed and what it entailed, but I figured if it saved Americans money, I could go along with it.

I don't know what to think now. This appears, in my experience, to not be a reform for the people.

What am I missing?

I realize I will probably get screamed at for posting this, but I can't imagine I am the only Californian who just received a rate increase from Kaiser based on these new laws.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/3 ... ly-premium
Tirge Caps meets the big government in his own backyard. Real life is approaching.

I suspected there was a reason why you didn't include a clickable url to your quotation, but I found it anyway and it confirmed my suspicions.

Didn't you want us to read the part where it turned out that the complainer was comparing the cost of his old "catastrophic policy" (insurance company sales pitch language for a policy which covers practically nothing and also known within the industry as a "junk plan") with a new cadillac policy? And that he and his wife now have a baby? Along with numerous other "apples =vs= oranges" comparisons he made?

And if you read further down, it turns out that the complainer did not even bother to find out what a PPACA (Obamacare) policy would cost - he is just one of those dimwits who had his existing coverage and premium bumped up and is taking the word of his private ins co that it is Obamacare's fault! Yeah right, ins co.s never lie or blame the govt for what they do, now do they?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/3 ... ly-premium

Nate

Wulfman... · Post by **Wulfman...** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:24 am

The URL/link was in STD4's post last evening when I first saw it. It's the same one you put in yours. I read the post and comments last evening. What I thought was hilarious was that many of his own fellow liberals were slamming him for being a troll.
The date of the original post was Sept. 30th.......the day BEFORE the online portal was supposed to be up and running.

I dunno......

Den

.

deerhound · Post by **deerhound** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:43 am

Well I got my Obamadon'tcare rates from the company I retired from. My $2500 a year promised decrease became a $900 a year increase. I wish The Lyin' King would quit promising the opposite of what he gives. I can't afford anymore lies. Thanks Democrats you own it.

NateS · Post by **NateS** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:55 am

deerhound wrote:Well I got my Obamadon'tcare rates from the company I retired from. My $2500 a year promised decrease became a $900 a year increase. I wish The Lyin' King would quit promising the opposite of what he gives. I can't afford anymore lies. Thanks Democrats you own it.

You've been asked several times whether you have gone on the new exchange to get a quote under the PPACA. Maybe you answered this somewhere but I don't recall seeing it. Is there some reason you chose to select the company you retired from? Who promised you that the company you retired from would give you a $2500 a year decrease? Have you checked for a subsidy?

Maybe you are different, but from what I have seen so far most of the complaints are not coming from checking the exchange but instead are coming from people taking their existing insurance company's word for a rate increase on their old policy, now that the exclusion of pre-existing conditions has been removed, etc.

Regards, Nate

PST · Post by **PST** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:56 am

deerhound wrote:Well I got my Obamadon'tcare rates from the company I retired from. My $2500 a year promised decrease became a $900 a year increase. I wish The Lyin' King would quit promising the opposite of what he gives. I can't afford anymore lies. Thanks Democrats you own it.

If you aren't buying insurance on the exchange, that is to say, if this is simply a rate change in a plan you have been on for years, what does Obamacare have to do with it? Medical care costs have been going up for a long time. What's the Obama connection and when did he promise people in your position a $2,500 cut?

Wulfman... · Post by **Wulfman...** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:06 pm

PST wrote:
deerhound wrote:Well I got my Obamadon'tcare rates from the company I retired from. My $2500 a year promised decrease became a $900 a year increase. I wish The Lyin' King would quit promising the opposite of what he gives. I can't afford anymore lies. Thanks Democrats you own it.
If you aren't buying insurance on the exchange, that is to say, if this is simply a rate change in a plan you have been on for years, what does Obamacare have to do with it? Medical care costs have been going up for a long time. What's the Obama connection and when did he promise people in your position a $2,500 cut?

HUH???
Do a Google search on "video of Obama saying you'll save $2500 on your insurance" and you'll have plenty of links to choose from.

I've personally heard him saying it in speeches and have seen the video clips many, many times.

Den

.

Sleep2Die4 · Post by **Sleep2Die4** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:17 pm

NateS wrote: I suspected there was a reason why you didn't include a clickable url to your quotation, but I found it anyway and it confirmed my suspicions.

Nate

I did clearly include a "clickable url" in my post for anyone to read for himself.

Still laughing heartily at the little leftist's blog on Daily Kos.

So he has a child now? Many parents still have to grow up so there is hope that he starts learning about the real world.

Review: HealthCare.gov a winner despite glitches

Re: Review: HealthCare dot gov not a winner despite glitches

Re: Review: HealthCare dot gov not a winner despite glitches

Re: Review: HealthCare dot gov not a winner despite glitches

Re: Review: HealthCare.gov a winner despite glitches

Re: Review: HealthCare dot gov not a winner despite glitches

Re: Review: HealthCare.gov a winner despite glitches

Re: Review: HealthCare.gov a winner despite glitches

Re: Review: HealthCare.gov a winner despite glitches

Re: Review: HealthCare.gov a winner despite glitches

Re: Review: HealthCare . gov a winner despite glitches

Re: Review: HealthCare.gov a winner despite glitches

Re: Review: HealthCare.gov a winner despite glitches

Re: Review: HealthCare.gov a winner despite glitches

Re: Review: HealthCare . gov a winner despite glitches

Re: Review: HealthCare.gov a winner despite glitches

Mask

Mask

Mask