HealthCare.gov Back-End Status: See You In September 251
theodp writes: "The consumer-facing parts of the Obamacare website may now work (most of the time) for people buying insurance, writes Politico, but beneath the surface, HealthCare.gov is still missing massive, critical pieces that are essential for key functions such as accurately paying insurers — and the deadline for finishing them keeps slipping. Without a fully built and operational system, federal officials can't determine how many of the 8 million Obamacare sign-ups announced last week will have actually paid their premiums. The Obama administration earlier this month indicated that insurers will continue to be paid through an 'interim' accounting process — pretty much a spreadsheet and some informed estimates — until at least September, when what is being called 'the mother of all reconciliations' will be conducted, which some fear could reveal the need for a massive correction and rate adjustments. Still, Oregon decided Friday to switch to Healthcare.gov from its own nothing-wrong-that-$78-million-couldn't-fix Cover Oregon online healthcare exchange."
"What difference (Score:5, Funny)
At this point, what difference does it make?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But this plan, to manually estimate the payments and do the complete reconciliation later? I'm shocked, shocked... except no, yawn, this is how it's done with most of the health insurance industry. I know, I do this for a living.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And 6 million lost the insurance they had due to this shit law. Asshole.
Toxic moderation -- both ways (Score:3)
Just as an off-topic aside, this topic (not just my threads) is the most amusing peak event of "moderation as agree/disagree" that I've seen in my years here. Up, down, up, down, up, down, up, down.
Slashdot moderation. lol. Just lol.
Note to the powers that be: If you EVER thought anonymous moderation was a good idea, this topic alone should serve as the poster child come to completely disabuse you of that notion. Unless, of course, you're one of the ones abusing the moderation system, in which case, well, t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SOMEONE is paying for it, even if it isnt you.
Also you need to take into account the huge deductibles that most plans have now. Why am i, a healthy young person going to pay 100 bucks a month* for a plan that doesnt cover anything until I spend 10K when I spend maybe 3-500 a year in health related expenses? it doesnt make sense to do that.
the ONLY people who are saying the ACA is going well are talking heads
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Madness? A colonoscopy -- a half hour, non surgical procedure involving light anesthesia -- with NO problematic results -- is seven grand. If you have NO other medical expenses in that year, your income has to exceed $70000 to make that cost "only" ten percent of your income. If something SERIOUS happens to you -- you need surgery, you get cancer, serious car accident, diabetes, etc., in order to hit or stay under that ten percent of income mark, your income will have to be much, much higher. And since you
Re: (Score:3)
Holy shit, 10% of your income, for health insurance? Madness.
p>In my case, more like 15% before taxes, and with the new 10% floor for deduction of medical expenses, the deductible portion comes out less than the standard deduction. So the effective amount is 15% of gross and 20% of net. That is a lot of money. Medical insurance is my largest budget item. And this is for retiree's insurance, with my former employer paying about a third of the cost!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What kills me is the supporters of this epically stupid law is that people don't see that problem is the fact that
A colonoscopy -- a half hour, non surgical procedure involving light anesthesia -- with NO problematic results -- is seven grand.
The problem is not that insurance is/was unaffordable, its that the actual care costs to much.
Re: (Score:3)
A colonoscopy is paid for by "insurance." Laser eye surgery for BOTH EYES can be had for under $1000, or $4k on average for both eyes and all post-op care.
That's half a much as the number you're reporting for colonoscopy. The problem has always been that the way the industry is structured provides insufficient pressure to reduce prices and costs.
Re:"What difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If they were supposed to be covered by increased medicaid, but their states opted out, then their states' citizens are now wholly to blame for electing representatives that decided they should pay for coverage only the most expensive way (by subsidizing emergency care for those unable to pay for it) rather than through a more cost effective method.
For the some of the rest - well we need to keep working to give them an opportunity to get signed up and start the preventative care they need to save money in th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
But despite all of it, what the crack team of unsung IT gurus did in Nov 2013 is nothing less than heroic. How long did it take for the comparable services like Amazon, Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL, gmail, eBay etc to create 3 million accounts? OK, that is an earlier generation. Take the current generation of Twitter, WhatsApp, SnapChat, FaceBook, how long did they take to ramp up to 3 million accounts?
Helathcare.gov is something like eBay for health insurance. How long did it take eBay to refer 32 billion dollars worth of business? (8 million accounts, 4 K a year premium per person). No body had done in two quarters. Even banking and mutual fund sites like Schwab, Vanguard, Fidelity do not do 32 billion dollars a year. Even if the do, they did not ramp up in 2 quarters.
They bungled the roll out. They probably squandered tons and tons of money to get it done. But despite all that, no body has ever created a web site that did what Healthcare.gov has done. It is easy to criticize and do Monday morning quarterbacking. But the task they failed to well was not some simple task any hack could do or something others have done before.
Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying the website isn't a big deal, but how many of those websites had the kind of advertising push that this one did? Plus, there's the whole fine if you don't have health insurance thing, and old insurance plans being canceled.
Half of the original problem with the website was the overuse of "Web 3.0" and not showing customers what they wanted to see without them creating an account beforehand. A few static pages on a high volume server could have prevented most of the embarrassing problems the original site had.
Actually my largest gripe is the site has a login E-Mail, and a separate E-mail for something else. The problem is the separate E-mail rejects anything that's not yahoo, google, hotmail, etc... It's really frustrating since they don't restrict the login E-mail.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying the website isn't a big deal, but how many of those websites had the kind of advertising push that this one did?
While that is true, there was also an equally large advertising push trying to convince people not to enroll. That's something that Twitter and Facebook never had to confront.
Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (Score:5, Informative)
Obama raised expectations insanely by saying "as easy as buying books in Amazon..".
Having actually used the website (in March, long after it was fixed from early issues), it's pretty much on the same level as Amazon. They have all the information you need to make an informed purchase, including links to each insurance company's list of providers and covered medications. There might be plenty of arguments about big vs. small government and continuing problems with the back end, but they definitely have a very user-friendly interface.
Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (Score:5, Informative)
Being self-employed, my biggest issue is the near TRIPLING of my insurance costs.
Most people, having their insurance paid for by their employer don't see this, and don't care.
However, my biggest gripe about the "Affordable Care Act" is just how UNAFFORDABLE it has made my health care, and how I am now paying nearly as much for a SHIT TIER BRONZE PLAN as I was for what would be comparable to a Gold Plan.
The only upside is I claim that added insurance cost -- oh but wait, that will certainly put me over the $5,000/year write-off limit on my 1040SE, so I have to fill out additional paperwork for my end of the year tax write-offs. BONUS!
Frankly, ObamaCare is the Worst of All Worlds and I will be surprised if it hasn't turned into a complete Consumer Raping within 10 years a la the California Free Energy Market.
Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actual data. Kudos. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I'm pretty sure you haven't. You've most likely confused me with someone else. Not a problem.
Well. I am required to pay for highways that I never drive upon. I am required to pay for fire extinguishing services and I have never had a house fire. I am required to pay for public schools, even though I never sent a child there. I am required to pay for corporate subsidies, even though I am not in favor of these. I am required to pay for various war efforts, even though I am not only not in favor, but vehemently opposed to same. The idea that I might have to pay to improve someone else's health strikes me a a breath of fresh air. In fact, in a purely selfish way, I don't want to have people, far sicker than they need to be, running around and sharing the bounty of their personal microbial crops with me and mine. Nor am I in favor of them being out of work for any more time than required.
Time for a little anecdote. Fairly recently, the lady and I went to McDonald's for a salad and some coffee. They took our order via the miked menu outside, then our money at window #1, and so we pulled up to window #2, where the food was to arrive. When they opened the window, those poor bastards (uninsured in any sense worth really talking about) collectively managed to do a marvelous impression of a final stage tuberculosis ward. I rolled up the winddow and we drove off without our food.
When you talk about "now" having to subsidize the medical costs of others, let me just point out to you that when these uninsured types zip right down to the emergency room and consume medical services at a premium, while not getting actual decent care but instead, just getting stabilized, you pay for that just as directly via increased costs to the hospital that were "covered" by government grants, increases in the cost of our own medical needs, and higher insurance premiums to pay those higher medical costs, which in turn, you (and I, and everyone else) pay for. There's no free lunch. When people are sick or injured, it's going to cost. It's expensive and it is unevenly distributed, and it is best done in a manner that works to control the costs (prophilactic care, etc.) by pooling our resources and then expending them on a per issue basis, and preventative ones, and in the context of completely addressing problems with an appropriate course of therapy instead of just doing the minimum, or nothing.
When you want to bitch about paying for everyone else's healthcare, to whatever extent that may be so, just remember, the better health the population is in, the better health you -- and yours, and the economy -- are are likely to be able to maintain. It's a fact, and there's no way around it.
Do you not understand that if you fall and break your leg, or catch something horrible, or develop chronic asthma, or cancer, or manage to detach a retina, or get burned really badly, that without insurance, your capital and wealth will evaporate like smoke on the windiest day you can imagine? I think you do, since you tell me you had insurance previously. Now I ask you: Would you want to have that happen to someone else? Seriously? When just by putting your shoulder to the same wheel the rest of us are trying to roll around, you can prevent it to some useful extent?
Ok. Delighted you're being forthcoming. Let's work it. If your new insurance is being delivered under the aegis of the ACA, then at $455/mo for your premium, you're paying $5460/year, and your income (after business deductions, if you're taking those) should be (at least) $54600, because under the ACA, no one has to pay more than 10% of their income unless t
Re: (Score:2)
"Something worth noting is that there have been cases of insurance companies cancelling individual and group policies, blaming it on the ACA, when in actuality, it was just the usual dicking around on their part."
Before the ACA, insurance premium increases were just insurance premium increases. About a few years ago they were "due to expectations about the ACA" and now after the ACA and henceforth they will be "due to the ACA we will have to ask you for more money we are totally sorry about this and it's o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My money is more on the insurance companies using it as an excuse to jack up their rates. If Obamacare was repealed tomorrow, I really doubt the rates would go down.
Re: (Score:2)
It was always about the insurance companies.
Anyone who was paying attention knew that.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no IRS form called a 1040SE. There is a Schedule SE that feeds into the regular form 1040, so maybe that's what you are talking about. The deductable limit for health insurance varies with self employed income and several other factors, and so has no set value, so I don't see what this "$5,000/year write off limit" is supposed to be. Are you saying that paying more than $5,000 per year specificaly for self employed health care forces the filer to do an additional form? (and are you claiming that g
Expensive coverage? (Score:3)
My lab tests are covered, as are my prescriptions. My copay is less, too -- $5 if they're in our group, and $10 if not -- Sounds to me like you simply picked the wrong policy. Make sure you look into equivalent meds, too. For instance, my insurance won't pay for Ventolin HFA, but they will pay for PROAIR HFA. Either one addresses the asthma just fine. I pay less than 10% of my income. I consider that a great bargain.
Again, your choice of policy is not the fault of the ACA. This is very much a situation wher
Re: (Score:3)
Well .. People who are being honest, and aren't complete idiots, will be able to tell success stories.
People who have rates that tripled were the ones with such shit plans that insurance wouldn't cover anything.
I was in a car accident before the ACA took effect. I had "good" insurance through my employer. My insurance wouldn't cover the surgery necessary to do pesky things like to let me walk normally again. Most of my prescriptions weren't covered, and those that were, were about 10% less than the cas
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that sounds right along the lines of the other stories we've heard from real people. I'm very glad to hear you're covered now, and that you've got a real shot at a meaningful recovery.
Regarding costs: Yes, very painful. Some are litigation related, including preventive insurance (used to be married to a surgeon, know all about that) and some is the hospital trying to make your saline bag and ambulance trip pay for all the bills they produce that don't get paid. And some of it, probably a lot of it, is
Re: (Score:2)
Two many doctors want the low risk and high return gigs. Treating someone with a spine issue with drugs for the rest of his (my) life is safe. They won't do any new physical damage with it. It also guarantees they'll keep making money for a long as I live (or as long as the insurance will pay for). It's riskier to do the surgery that he (me) needs, and possibly cripple or kill me. He also only gets paid for that incident. After the follow up a few weeks after surgery, I may never see that doctor again
Re: (Score:2)
The insurance companies have been raising the rates before Obamacare too. Were you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The most *anyone* pays under the ACA is less than 10% of their income.
If you can't afford that, it's time to reconsider your budget (and perhaps some behaviors... like smoking), because you're doing it wrong.
I'll tell you what you can't afford: injury or serious illness. If you think *insurance* is expensive, you have NO idea what's waiting for you just around the corner.
Re: (Score:3)
Working for You (Score:3)
True, clueless politicians made last minutes changes like, "don't show them raw premium, sticker shock, make them do subsidy calculation first" a week before roll out. True, dimwitted bureaucrats gave out contracts with idiotic levels of fragmentation and blame-dodgeability. Obama raised expectations insanely by saying "as easy as buying books in Amazon..".
Of course, these are the reasons government-run health care will be so much better: politicians can control it and tell you how much better off you are.
Re: (Score:3)
For example, wait times were down [cnn.com] for VA doctor visits in Arizona and waiting times in the ERs [telegraph.co.uk] in UK's NHS are down, the government has no problem finding ways to lower certain metrics... And rewarding employees [wsj.com] for their efforts!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The size of the transaction isn't an issue, it's the number of transactions. After three years of planning, it took healthcare.gov 6 mont
A failure... (Score:2)
...of our corporate-controlled government.
I'm sure the insurance companies have it set up so they make out like bandits no matter what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
...of our corporate-controlled government. I'm sure the insurance companies have it set up so they make out like bandits no matter what happens.
All the better reason to not force people to buy insurance from them.
Re: (Score:2)
...of our corporate-controlled government.
I'm sure the insurance companies have it set up so they make out like bandits no matter what happens.
Well ... yeah. What better system could you ask for than a federal law that mandates that people buy your product, or else, especially when that "or else" includes fines and the IRS on your neck? And by the way, insurance companies can't pass laws, politicians have to do it for them. Thank you oh so much, Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Prove it. Original cost and benefits and exact policy, your income, your state. Show us that we can't slot you right into the ACA at a reasonably similar cost and benefit.
Because so far, *everyone* who has made this claim just doesn't *want* to purchase insurance. Under the ACA, no one has to pay over 10% of their income. Period. If you failed to use the exchange and went galloping off to the local insurance broker, you may indeed be paying more, but that would be YOUR failure for not keeping yourself infor
Re: (Score:2)
So, you can't prove your claims.
You are therefore dismissed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't dismissing you from slashdot, silly, I was dismissing your argument because of your non-informational response, not to mention the name-calling.
However, since you elected to actually provide data elsewhere, I've picked the discussion right up again.
If it's actually fucked you, I seriously want to know about it. You may have trouble believing that, but it's true. I'm going to give you every opportunity to make your case, if you so choose.
Re: (Score:2)
So says a post that brings ZERO facts to the table, in criticism of one that brought many.
Anything wrong with this picture? Hello? Hello?
Re: (Score:2)
So says a post that brings ZERO facts to the table
I brought several facts to the table, and you just provided a citation for one of them. You are a democrat and you immediately attacked the messenger. You guys are too shallow to not be easily predictable.
Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (Score:5, Insightful)
The administration has no idea :
1. how many have insurance now that did not a year ago
2. how many do not have insurance now that did a year ago
3. how many that have insurance through the federal exchange have paid for it
4. how many that have insurance through the federal exchange have a significantly higher rate and/or deductible than before
Re: (Score:3)
At least (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have general ideas, not exact numbers. What more could you expect? The numbers will gain some precision after the Census releases its report later this year, but even then it's based on polling, so it won't be exactly right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We won't know the exact delta, but we'll have a much better idea. According to the article you linked, the difference between the old and new questions was about 2% in the total uninsured rate. If the upcoming Census report shows the uninsured numbers dropping by less than that, then that would be evidence that Obamacare was ineffective.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I missed the memo, but isn't shitting on Obamacare last year's bugaboo?
No, it will continue until the mid-term elections on November 4th.
Re: (Score:2)
One things for sure. They're going to push things back so the shit doesn't fully hit the fan until after the midterm elections...every wonder why? It's not because things are all wonderful. I don't know how bad it is but we'll find out down the road. The bill comes due eventually and the longer you put it off the worse it's going to be. It's not going to hurt the President any, he'll be winding up things by then getting ready for those lucrative speaking deals and such in his retirement years. I guess
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they know # of people that signed up, they just don't know how many people PAID.
Maybe they could politely ask the NSA?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That MUST be why the Obama administration has yet to release the number of people who've actually PAID for the Obamacare plans they got.
I'm sure it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that the last wave have until April 30th to pay...
Re: (Score:2)
That MUST be why the Obama administration has yet to release the number of people who've actually PAID for the Obamacare plans they got.
I'm sure it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that the last wave have until April 30th to pay...
And there's no possible way to know how many have paid SO FAR until the deadline has passed? That doesn't seem to stop them when it comes to announcing how many have "enrolled" (whatever their definition of that is).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that the last wave have until April 30th to pay...
...nor does it consider shenanigans like signing up jail inmates whether they want it or not [oregonlive.com], counting medicaid enrollees as obamacare signups [washingtonpost.com], and similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Of the things we force inmates to do whether they want to or not, signing up for health care is neither shocking nor problematic. I presume we'd have to pay for it anyway.
Increasing access to medicaid was part of the ACA initiative, so calling that "Obamacare" (a made up term that might as well be used to cover all increased insurance coverage that happened due to Obama) sounds reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they can't do any calculations until enrollment is closed? They can't say, for example, as of Nov. 1st, Dec. 1st, Jan. 1st, Feb. 1st, Mar. 1st, or Apr. 1st how many people have paid their premiums? Are you really arguing that they can ONLY say as of May 1st how many people have paid their premiums?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they can't do any calculations until enrollment is closed? They can't say, for example, as of Nov. 1st, Dec. 1st, Jan. 1st, Feb. 1st, Mar. 1st, or Apr. 1st how many people have paid their premiums?
Information for prior periods is already available, albeit from insurers individually, not from the feds overall.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
you missed the memo where administration claims 8 million plus subscribers, supposedly 2.7 million appeared out of nowhere after March to give us this 8M total
And apparently you both missed the memo where those weren't paid subscribers, either, but supposedly the number who applied.
So... Obama has decided to bypass even more of the law he helped shove down our throats and is now ignoring on a massive scale?
Hint, Mr. President: you aren't a King. When you sidestep laws passed by Congress, you're a criminal. Even if it's your own pet law.
(Or he would be, if the law were Constitutional in the first place. SCOTUS says it's a "tax"? Well, tax laws have to ori
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
(Or he would be, if the law were Constitutional in the first place. SCOTUS says it's a "tax"? Well, tax laws have to originate in the House. Obamacare didn't.)
"The Affordable Health Care for America Act (or HR 3962) was a bill that was crafted by the United States House of Representatives in November 2009."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act
Re: (Score:3)
Wikipedia is an authoritative source? Seriously?
The bill that passed in the house was an completely re-written bill that originated in the Senate and passed to the House for a reconciliation vote quick before Scott Brown was sworn into office. See, there wasn't enough time to properly pass a House bill though the Senate before Brown took office and messed up their party-line vote.
But hey, what do I know - I just paid attention while this train wreck occurred - it's not like I read it on Wikipedia.
oops, you looked-up the wrong bill. (Score:3, Informative)
The Democrats lost their super-majority in the Senate before they could ram-through Pelosi's house bill as the "Affordable Care Act" and since they were absolutely determined that no Republican input would be tolerated they needed a scheme to solve their dilemma. Harry Reid (Nevada Democrat who runs the Senate) used a tactic of taking another bill, stripping out all its content and then injecting in whatever language he wanted; Harry inserted the ACA language we ended-up (which could not perfectly match Nan
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Every one of these hard radical Right talking points and phony anecdotes that has been investigated has proven to be false, most of the maliciously so. Every single one. But apparently we are supposed to just blindly swallow the latest from the breitbart propaganda machine ?
sPh
What is it with the hard radical right talking points infesting Slashdot of late? Is
Re: (Score:2)
They've been shown to be false by who? John Stewart or Stephen Colbert? The mainstream media that you probably insist isn't liberally biased? The White House?
Because the "phony anecdotes" I keep seeing are from people whose insurance got cancelled because of Obamacare, people whose hours got cut because of Obamacare, and people whose premiums shot up because of Obamacare.
You can keep insisting everyone who claims to have been hurt by this legislation is a liar, but that wears thin after the thousandth time.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might be too generous with your skepticism.
Congressional Budget Office projections on ObamaCare raise questions about future enrollment [foxnews.com]
What is it with the hard radical right talking points infesting Slashdot of late? Is this a concerted effort to take over the site?
Discussion instead of choir practice? What "hard radical right" would that be?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't really matter if the sign ups are people who otherwise lost insurance from some other means- even if it is due to obamacare. The number of people signed up or enrolled in the exchanges were never about the number of people uninsured who are now insured.
The point of needing a number of people was in order to make the exchange profitable for the insurance companies so the government wouldn't need to bail them out (which is built into the law if for some reason the insurance market place becomes a l
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much profitable as viable - it was/is believed that a lower number might be indicative of a risk pool that is overly skewed toward the sick and elderly as opposed to the young and healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we could actually tell all the folks that signed up, "Fooled you! You thought you'd get access to health care, but we're gonna take that away now! Haha!" in a comedic Nelson voice. That'd be more dishonest.
That might still happen. We'll see how the elections go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Back end' is sooo appropriate (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone might be naturally healthy, but the dumbass who ran the guy over with their humvee sadly wasn't informed of that. The scaffolding that fell on them wasn't informed either. The guy who prepared your hamburger with the same unwashed fingers he just wiped his ass with wasn't either, Mr. Healthy Guy.
Your problem is that you have no sense of your own mortality. The "I'm bulletproof" argument is one only put forth by idiots. You have no idea what will happen next. None whatsoever. It's all a matter of odds and happenstance. Your idea that the young and healthy people are going to pay for everyone else... our kids are paying a lot less money for a lot more insurance than we're getting... it just isn't so. In some states, young people can get by with just catastrophic. So please, drop the pretense.
And despite your presumption that you are "naturally healthy", eventually, the odds are very high that something will happen, and at that time you'll be expecting the rest of us to pay for it. We will. But you will too. Live with it. It's not really a bad thing, once you take reality into account.
Re: (Score:2)
Those with fancy stuff who hate taxes probably already hate Democrats anyhow.
Actually, the Cadillac plan tax is projected to mainly affect health plans run by unions. Unions, and in most unionized industries union members, overwhelmingly support Democrats.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As a Libertarian, I am going to have to side with the republicans on this one. The ACA is complete and utter crap. The fact that the backend of the website doesn't work is just the tip of the iceberg. But by all means, go ahead and continue to follow your elites and their welfare state agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
The CBO's current estimate is that Obamacare has reduced the net number of uninsured persons by 12 million just this year, and is on track to get another 14 million insured within a couple more years. I would have preferred single payer, but Obamacare is a LOT better than what we had before, and it's the best we could have gotten in the face of Republican obstruction.
You can call it "complete and utter crap" all day, but we all know that that's just because you want it to fail. You already admitted you're
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I find it morally reprehensible that the richest nation on the planet chose to deny basic medical care to its citizens. Sorry, but your brand of libertarianism is too close to sociopathy in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
" Sorry, but your brand of libertarianism is too close to sociopathy in my book."
Is there ANOTHER brand of libertarianism?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As a Libertarian, when have you NOT followed the Republicans? Seriously. You mention; "go ahead and continue to follow your elites and their welfare state agenda" which is exactly the kind of phrase that comes out of a think tank created by wealthy elites who get the government to look after the welfare of big business.
You do know that the ACA codifies money to insurance programs? It's the exact opposite of a welfare state. If they had expanded Medicare, it would be a lot cheaper. 54% of all medical expense
When did reality become Republican propaganda? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is a FACT, admitted by the Obama admin in testimony under oath before congress that [1] the backend of the website is not yet written, [2] the Obama administration has no solid numbers on how many people have paid (heck, they even said under oath that they did not have a count of people who'd "signed up" about a month before the deadline) and [3] that they are using estimates to pay insurers for now and will need to "settle-up" at some point. It's also true that insurance companies have started issuing w
Re:When did reality become Republican propaganda? (Score:4, Funny)
Are you saying that the Obama administration is part of some "vast right-wing conspiracy" to help Republican trolls with their talking points?
To be fair, that would explain a lot of things...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to just step back and realize, there are people out there who disagree with me. Their opinions are just as valid as mine, and the fact that someone is criticizing the government doesn't make them a troll. Go into timeout
Re: (Score:2)
No one says that - they say the Health Care LAW (PPACA) is bad...
Re: (Score:3)
We also know that this bill won't increase the deficit by one thing dime... President Obama said he would never sign a bill that added one thin dime to our deficit in the next decade. [youtube.com]