So the Repulicans don't like it. And the website is shite. But can somebody who isn't a money chaser please explain to me why everybody, should not have health care.
If somebody goes into emergency and can't afford the bill after having their life saved, who picks up that bill? And if it is indeed the tax payer, then what is the problem of having everybody under the umbrella?
But what is the umbrella? Whose umbrella?
It is the taxpayer who picks up that tab...all of us, as taxpayers (I would hope).
When my guy first moved out here, prior to finding a new job and hopefully insurance, we went through several ER episodes, replete with panicky 911 calls and ambulance service.
Bless them all for being there when we most needed it.
So who paid for it?
We did, no one else.
It took some time, but we did.
Now I worry about the next time (because I know there will be a next time).
How much higher will those ER and ambulance fees be? My own current plan has upped those costs bigtime. Were the website functional, I'd have some clue of the expenses via the ACA.
I sure hope we and others won't be fucked down the road.
But can somebody who isn't a money chaser please explain to me why everybody, should not have health care...
While many GOPers might be against the concept of insurance for all, there are many Americans who believe in Universal Coverage. I am one of them. Yet, I have serious concerns about this law. As my earlier posts mentioned, we don't know how this will shake out... it could wind up a wonderful thing, and I think Americans should remain openminded about the ACA. However, there clearly are issues. Both on this site and elsewhere I have seen non-GOPers very upset with the loss of their existing coverage. My doctor is not Republican, but has nothing good to say about the ACA.
There is something fundamentally troubling when the position of the then Speaker of the House was "...But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." Just as I would be very afraid to hear Speaker Boehner saying that, I was very troubled when Speaker Pelosi said it. I, and many other reasonable people, feel that a law was rammed down our throats, and the resulting program might not be a viable solution... it might harm as many as, if not more than, it helps. It doesn't help when the corporate and union friends of (aka contributors to) the Dem administration got waivers, but Joe & Jane SixPack didn't. Especially in light of how Clown Shoes the website and overall program infrastructure are. In addition, it clearly was partisan theatrics on the part of the GOP, but why shouldn't the members of Congress and their staffs be required to submit to this coverage? Isn't it very troubling that the Dem Reps' and Senators' objections to this proposal was that they'd have a brain drain of staff because they don't want the coverage? That's a pretty powerful statement to people who are paying attention.
Don't get me wrong... the GOP sucks, IMO. I'm just hoping that the ACA doesn't, too. I'm far from convinced that this is the case, though.
Last Philly Spectrum Show - Halloween 2009
MSG 1 & 2 2010
Montreal 2011
Missoula 2012
Seattle 2013
Denver 2014
Central Park NYC 2015
Sunrise 2016
Wrigley 2 2016 Seattle 1 2018
~~~~~~~
EV NYC 2 2011
RNDM NYC 2012 TOTD SF 2016
That's how many people signed up for Obamacare on Day 1, according to CBS News, and no that's not a misprint.
The Obama administration has kept the number of enrollments close to the vest. Its touted the number of visitors to the troubled HealthCare.gov website – 4.7 million – but hasn't released the actual number of enrollments.
But according to CBS News, notes from a "war room" meeting the day after the Affordable Care Act launched on Oct. 1 say "six enrollments have occurred so far." By the end of Day 2, enrollments totaled 248 nationwide.
The White House predicted 500,000 would sign up by the end of the month, according to a memo obtained by the Associated Press, and that was considered a "modest start" for the market.
CBS notes that in order to meet the goal of seven million enrollments by March 1, the exchanges need to enroll an average of 39,000 a day.
That's how many people signed up for Obamacare on Day 1, according to CBS News, and no that's not a misprint.
The Obama administration has kept the number of enrollments close to the vest. Its touted the number of visitors to the troubled HealthCare.gov website – 4.7 million – but hasn't released the actual number of enrollments.
But according to CBS News, notes from a "war room" meeting the day after the Affordable Care Act launched on Oct. 1 say "six enrollments have occurred so far." By the end of Day 2, enrollments totaled 248 nationwide.
The White House predicted 500,000 would sign up by the end of the month, according to a memo obtained by the Associated Press, and that was considered a "modest start" for the market.
CBS notes that in order to meet the goal of seven million enrollments by March 1, the exchanges need to enroll an average of 39,000 a day.
That's how many people signed up for Obamacare on Day 1, according to CBS News, and no that's not a misprint.
The Obama administration has kept the number of enrollments close to the vest. Its touted the number of visitors to the troubled HealthCare.gov website – 4.7 million – but hasn't released the actual number of enrollments.
But according to CBS News, notes from a "war room" meeting the day after the Affordable Care Act launched on Oct. 1 say "six enrollments have occurred so far." By the end of Day 2, enrollments totaled 248 nationwide.
The White House predicted 500,000 would sign up by the end of the month, according to a memo obtained by the Associated Press, and that was considered a "modest start" for the market.
CBS notes that in order to meet the goal of seven million enrollments by March 1, the exchanges need to enroll an average of 39,000 a day.
But can somebody who isn't a money chaser please explain to me why everybody, should not have health care...
While many GOPers might be against the concept of insurance for all, there are many Americans who believe in Universal Coverage. I am one of them. Yet, I have serious concerns about this law. As my earlier posts mentioned, we don't know how this will shake out... it could wind up a wonderful thing, and I think Americans should remain openminded about the ACA. However, there clearly are issues. Both on this site and elsewhere I have seen non-GOPers very upset with the loss of their existing coverage. My doctor is not Republican, but has nothing good to say about the ACA.
There is something fundamentally troubling when the position of the then Speaker of the House was "...But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." Just as I would be very afraid to hear Speaker Boehner saying that, I was very troubled when Speaker Pelosi said it. I, and many other reasonable people, feel that a law was rammed down our throats, and the resulting program might not be a viable solution... it might harm as many as, if not more than, it helps. It doesn't help when the corporate and union friends of (aka contributors to) the Dem administration got waivers, but Joe & Jane SixPack didn't. Especially in light of how Clown Shoes the website and overall program infrastructure are. In addition, it clearly was partisan theatrics on the part of the GOP, but why shouldn't the members of Congress and their staffs be required to submit to this coverage? Isn't it very troubling that the Dem Reps' and Senators' objections to this proposal was that they'd have a brain drain of staff because they don't want the coverage? That's a pretty powerful statement to people who are paying attention.
Don't get me wrong... the GOP sucks, IMO. I'm just hoping that the ACA doesn't, too. I'm far from convinced that this is the case, though.
Remember that Obama went the route of the individual mandate in part to appease the GOP. He knew single payer wasn't going to fly even though they had the majority. It was simply to much of a shift from our current system. Also remember that Obama dropped the public option to appease the GOP once they knew he was going the route of the individual mandate. I remember the outrage from the left that not only was he going the IM route but he also dropped the public option....that really pissed off a lot of Dems.
There is really no reason why the GOP shouldn't be embracing the ACA other than just being dickheads. Even Romney was saying that he hoped Obama would pursue the mandate (just like Romneycare in Mass) before the ACA was actually proposed.
Really any of you right wingers should be pretty ashamed of your party.
In due time we will look back and view it as a good thing. Trust me.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Remember that Obama went the route of the individual mandate in part to appease the GOP...
Perhaps, but he also did it to appease Average America, because "...He knew single payer wasn't going to fly... It was simply to much of a shift from our current system." It's not just the GOPers and/or Tea Partiers who have issues with this. I don't count myself as in either of those groups, and I STRONGLY advocate a Universal Coverage system, but adamantly oppose Single Payer. I don't need to elaborate on the various reasons here, but reasonable people can have legitimate concerns with a Single Payer system.
There is really no reason why the GOP shouldn't be embracing the ACA other than just being dickheads.
Does that make many of the Unions dickheads for not embracing it for their members even though the union leaders strongly lobbied for it? Does that make the Dem Reps and Senators dickheads for not embracing it for themselves and their staffs? Again, reasonable people can have very understandable concerns and objections about the ACA.
Really any of you right wingers should be pretty ashamed of your party.
As alluded to above, you are making some erroneous assumptions if you're including me in that "you right wingers" party. Sorry if I misunderstood, but that's how it reads.
In due time we will look back and view it as a good thing.
I truly hope you are correct, but I can't say just yet that I trust that this will be the case. I do hope you are correct, though.
Last Philly Spectrum Show - Halloween 2009
MSG 1 & 2 2010
Montreal 2011
Missoula 2012
Seattle 2013
Denver 2014
Central Park NYC 2015
Sunrise 2016
Wrigley 2 2016 Seattle 1 2018
~~~~~~~
EV NYC 2 2011
RNDM NYC 2012 TOTD SF 2016
I would NOT put my personal information on that site.....
When the man tried to get a hold of someone in charge to get his personal information off the site he could not reach anyone till he had made MANY calls......Another stupid idea was to let the IRS run this thing....The IRS is always right, if you have a disagreement you Have TO hire a lawyer. Now I don't want to deal with this for my insurance. Not to mention the nasty attitudes the IRS agents have.
Justin Hadley logged on to HealthCare.gov to evaluate his insurance options after his health plan was canceled. What he discovered was an apparent security flaw that disclosed eligibility letters addressed to individuals from another state.
“I was in complete shock,” said Hadley, who contacted Heritage after becoming alarmed at the breach of privacy.
Hadley, a North Carolina father, buys his insurance on the individual market. His insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, directed him to HealthCare.gov in a cancellation letter he received in September.
After multiple attempts to access the problem-plagued website, Hadley finally made it past the registration page Thursday. That’s when he was greeted with downloadable letters about eligibility — for two people in South Carolina. (Screenshot below.)
The letters, dated October 8, acknowledge receipt of an application to the Health Insurance Marketplace and the eligibility of family members to purchase health coverage. One of the letters was addressed to Thomas Dougall, a lawyer from Elgin, SC.
Hadley shared a screenshot and copy of the letter with redacted personal information.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.
My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.
My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.
Countless hours searching for non-exchange plans have uncovered nothing that compares well with my existing coverage. But the greatest source of frustration is Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange and, by some reports, one of the best such exchanges in the country. After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don't have a clue how to best proceed.
Two things have been essential in my fight to survive stage-4 cancer. The first are doctors and health teams in California and Texas: at the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University's Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
The second element essential to my fight is a United Healthcare PPO (preferred provider organization) health-insurance policy.
Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.
But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.
You would think it would be simple to find a health-exchange plan that allows me, living in San Diego, to continue to see my primary oncologist at Stanford University and my primary care doctors at the University of California, San Diego. Not so. UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan—a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan. EPO stands for exclusive provider organization, which means the plan has a small network of doctors and facilities and no out-of-network coverage (as in a preferred-provider organization plan) except for emergencies. Stanford accepts an Anthem PPO plan but it is not available for purchase in San Diego (only Anthem HMO and EPO plans are available in San Diego).
So if I go with a health-exchange plan, I must choose between Stanford and UCSD. Stanford has kept me alive—but UCSD has provided emergency and local treatment support during wretched periods of this disease, and it is where my primary-care doctors are.
Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.
What happened to the president's promise, "You can keep your health plan"? Or to the promise that "You can keep your doctor"? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.
For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that's the point.
Post edited by Better Dan on
2003: San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Seattle; 2005: Monterrey; 2006: Chicago 1 & 2, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Detroit; 2008: West Palm Beach, Tampa; 2009: Austin, LA 3 & 4, San Diego; 2010: Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbus, Indianapolis; 2011: PJ20 1 & 2; 2012: Missoula; 2013: Dallas, Oklahoma City, Seattle; 2014: Tulsa; 2016: Columbia, New York City 1 & 2; 2018: London, Seattle 1 & 2; 2021: Ohana; 2022: Oklahoma City
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
If you like your doctor you'll be able to keep your doctor...
Three weeks ago people were talking about the demise of the GOP because of the slim down. Obamacare will severely hurt the Dems as more and more get dropped. Death panels do exist.
Shit Dan...and I'm embarrassed to have thought my situation was dire. This is outrageous, and actually makes my heart ache for you. I just have no words...
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
Shit Dan...and I'm embarrassed to have thought my situation was dire. This is outrageous, and actually makes my heart ache for you. I just have no words...
Shawshank, the text posted was from the linked article; nonetheless, still sad...and ridiculous...and maddening...and...
Shit Dan...and I'm embarrassed to have thought my situation was dire. This is outrageous, and actually makes my heart ache for you. I just have no words...
Shawshank, the text posted was from the linked article; nonetheless, still sad...and ridiculous...and maddening...and...
Oh ok...thanks for clarifying I just realized that. I started reading it before I realized there was a link there and just got lost in the horror of it.
Everything the government has its hand in cost 10x as much as it should and doesn't work efficiently. We hear stories of it every day, but we just roll our eyes because it doesn't directly impact us. This will directly impact us.
If that's the case, how do countries with single payer systems provide better healthcare and keep costs significantly lower than the U.S.?
For starters, they ration healthcare and they dont have nearly as many lawyers and lawsuits.
I am not a fan of the ACA, but my premiums will go down $150/month, with deductible going up $1000, and I can keep my HSA. I was surprised. I have individual insurance. My group plan at work is getting more expensive
Shit Dan...and I'm embarrassed to have thought my situation was dire. This is outrageous, and actually makes my heart ache for you. I just have no words...
Shawshank, the text posted was from the linked article; nonetheless, still sad...and ridiculous...and maddening...and...
Oh ok...thanks for clarifying I just realized that. I started reading it before I realized there was a link there and just got lost in the horror of it.
Yes, it's a horrible, horrible story. While reading it I was just thinking about Obama's words that you can keep your doctor and insurance if you like them. I supported this act, because I thought "affordable healthcare for everyone is good." Unfortunately, like many in congress that voted for the law, I was ignorant about many things that were in it. I admit that i still am. Now, and in the future, we will start to see the real effects of this law and how it is impacting people. I know not everything is bad though and I hope we start hearing some positive news soon.
2003: San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Seattle; 2005: Monterrey; 2006: Chicago 1 & 2, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Detroit; 2008: West Palm Beach, Tampa; 2009: Austin, LA 3 & 4, San Diego; 2010: Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbus, Indianapolis; 2011: PJ20 1 & 2; 2012: Missoula; 2013: Dallas, Oklahoma City, Seattle; 2014: Tulsa; 2016: Columbia, New York City 1 & 2; 2018: London, Seattle 1 & 2; 2021: Ohana; 2022: Oklahoma City
I like my low premium, high deductible plan (as much as I can like the scam known as health insurance) and I'm almost 100% sure that it will be cancelled and I will be forced to pay an extremely high premium for a plan with a slightly lower deductible.
Might be time to look at other countries I can re-locate to. This country's government is shameful and downright evil.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I like my low premium, high deductible plan (as much as I can like the scam known as health insurance) and I'm almost 100% sure that it will be cancelled and I will be forced to pay an extremely high premium for a plan with a slightly lower deductible.
Might be time to look at other countries I can re-locate to. This country's government is shameful and downright evil.
If you are hoping to find a country where the government is made up of decent people with the best interests on the population at heart, then good luck with that, you can probably count them on one hand. America is not much worse than anybody else in that respect, and a good deal better than many.
On the other hand if all you want is a better healthcare system, then pretty much any other country in the civilised world should do fine.
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
The site's secureness is still messed up. Just read about the personal and policy information/confirmation of a man in South Carolina, I believe, was mis-sent to someone else.
Tip of the iceberg? One of many?
Has anyone here actually and successfully signed up for a plan under the ACA? And if so, how are the terms, premiums, etc.?
My monthly premium has been reduced $24 dollars a month for the same plan....
C) Thanks O-bamz...!!
A) Maybe you should read the thread, as others are getting royally fucked.
Good on that monthly savings. Again though, others are getting fucked.
C) Maybe your shout-out to "O-bamz" was sarcastic (I'll assume not). So if he's to be thanked for this, should he not also be held accountable for the misinformation - to put it oh-so-gently - given so far?
Is he a liar. Yep. And the young people that are needed to pay into the fraud plan are not piling in.
Great news though.
How can he say that with a straight face. Just admit you misspoke or left out information. It's pretty obvious he left out the information for political reasons. If people knew they would lose coverage/doctors, it would lower support for the ACA and could have also hurt his reelection chances (although I think he would have won anyway).
2003: San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Seattle; 2005: Monterrey; 2006: Chicago 1 & 2, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Detroit; 2008: West Palm Beach, Tampa; 2009: Austin, LA 3 & 4, San Diego; 2010: Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbus, Indianapolis; 2011: PJ20 1 & 2; 2012: Missoula; 2013: Dallas, Oklahoma City, Seattle; 2014: Tulsa; 2016: Columbia, New York City 1 & 2; 2018: London, Seattle 1 & 2; 2021: Ohana; 2022: Oklahoma City
Is he a liar. Yep. And the young people that are needed to pay into the fraud plan are not piling in.
Great news though.
How can he say that with a straight face. Just admit you misspoke or left out information. It's pretty obvious he left out the information for political reasons. If people knew they would lose coverage/doctors, it would lower support for the ACA and could have also hurt his reelection chances (although I think he would have won anyway).
he does not say it with a straight face...he has that look of "I care and i am deeply concerned"
based on the amount of "I did not know" that he has accumulated from his own team. this has been a tactic liars surround themselves with. blame someone else.
I also think this style of politics will be the norm from now on....make promises that are too good to be true.
information is gathered from many sources and liars are caught quickly.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
The site's secureness is still messed up. Just read about the personal and policy information/confirmation of a man in South Carolina, I believe, was mis-sent to someone else.
Tip of the iceberg? One of many?
Has anyone here actually and successfully signed up for a plan under the ACA? And if so, how are the terms, premiums, etc.?
It gets better
Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that Obamacare navigators don't need to undergo criminal background checks:
"So I want to ask you about the navigators," said Senator John Cornyn at a hearing today on Capitol Hill. "The president is in Dallas, Texas today, touting the navigator program, which, as you know, are people who are hired to help people navigate the Affordable Care Act. But I would just like to ask you this question, if you would answer it: Isn't it true that there is no federal requirement for navigators to undergo a criminal background check, even though they will receive personal -- sensitive personal -- information from the individuals they help to sign-up for the Affordable Care Act?"
"That is true," said Sebelius. "States could add an additional background checks and other features, but it is not part of the federal requirement"
"So a convicted felon could be a navigator and could acquire sensitive personal information from an individual unbeknownst to them?"
The site's secureness is still messed up. Just read about the personal and policy information/confirmation of a man in South Carolina, I believe, was mis-sent to someone else.
Tip of the iceberg? One of many?
Has anyone here actually and successfully signed up for a plan under the ACA? And if so, how are the terms, premiums, etc.?
It gets better
Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that Obamacare navigators don't need to undergo criminal background checks:
"So I want to ask you about the navigators," said Senator John Cornyn at a hearing today on Capitol Hill. "The president is in Dallas, Texas today, touting the navigator program, which, as you know, are people who are hired to help people navigate the Affordable Care Act. But I would just like to ask you this question, if you would answer it: Isn't it true that there is no federal requirement for navigators to undergo a criminal background check, even though they will receive personal -- sensitive personal -- information from the individuals they help to sign-up for the Affordable Care Act?"
"That is true," said Sebelius. "States could add an additional background checks and other features, but it is not part of the federal requirement"
"So a convicted felon could be a navigator and could acquire sensitive personal information from an individual unbeknownst to them?"
Comments
It is the taxpayer who picks up that tab...all of us, as taxpayers (I would hope).
When my guy first moved out here, prior to finding a new job and hopefully insurance, we went through several ER episodes, replete with panicky 911 calls and ambulance service.
Bless them all for being there when we most needed it.
So who paid for it?
We did, no one else.
It took some time, but we did.
Now I worry about the next time (because I know there will be a next time).
How much higher will those ER and ambulance fees be? My own current plan has upped those costs bigtime. Were the website functional, I'd have some clue of the expenses via the ACA.
I sure hope we and others won't be fucked down the road.
There is something fundamentally troubling when the position of the then Speaker of the House was "...But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." Just as I would be very afraid to hear Speaker Boehner saying that, I was very troubled when Speaker Pelosi said it. I, and many other reasonable people, feel that a law was rammed down our throats, and the resulting program might not be a viable solution... it might harm as many as, if not more than, it helps. It doesn't help when the corporate and union friends of (aka contributors to) the Dem administration got waivers, but Joe & Jane SixPack didn't. Especially in light of how Clown Shoes the website and overall program infrastructure are. In addition, it clearly was partisan theatrics on the part of the GOP, but why shouldn't the members of Congress and their staffs be required to submit to this coverage? Isn't it very troubling that the Dem Reps' and Senators' objections to this proposal was that they'd have a brain drain of staff because they don't want the coverage? That's a pretty powerful statement to people who are paying attention.
Don't get me wrong... the GOP sucks, IMO. I'm just hoping that the ACA doesn't, too. I'm far from convinced that this is the case, though.
MSG 1 & 2 2010
Montreal 2011
Missoula 2012
Seattle 2013
Denver 2014
Central Park NYC 2015
Sunrise 2016
Wrigley 2 2016
Seattle 1 2018
~~~~~~~
EV NYC 2 2011
RNDM NYC 2012
TOTD SF 2016
Highlights Of Last Spectrum Show
Mike DESTROYING in Seattle 2013
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" - HST
Instagram (great concert shots of many bands): concertaholic
That's how many people signed up for Obamacare on Day 1, according to CBS News, and no that's not a misprint.
The Obama administration has kept the number of enrollments close to the vest. Its touted the number of visitors to the troubled HealthCare.gov website – 4.7 million – but hasn't released the actual number of enrollments.
But according to CBS News, notes from a "war room" meeting the day after the Affordable Care Act launched on Oct. 1 say "six enrollments have occurred so far." By the end of Day 2, enrollments totaled 248 nationwide.
The White House predicted 500,000 would sign up by the end of the month, according to a memo obtained by the Associated Press, and that was considered a "modest start" for the market.
CBS notes that in order to meet the goal of seven million enrollments by March 1, the exchanges need to enroll an average of 39,000 a day.
http://news.yahoo.com/day-1-of-obamacare-yielded-six-enrollees-233817649.html
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Yeah I think the website was down :idea:
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Remember that Obama went the route of the individual mandate in part to appease the GOP. He knew single payer wasn't going to fly even though they had the majority. It was simply to much of a shift from our current system. Also remember that Obama dropped the public option to appease the GOP once they knew he was going the route of the individual mandate. I remember the outrage from the left that not only was he going the IM route but he also dropped the public option....that really pissed off a lot of Dems.
There is really no reason why the GOP shouldn't be embracing the ACA other than just being dickheads. Even Romney was saying that he hoped Obama would pursue the mandate (just like Romneycare in Mass) before the ACA was actually proposed.
Really any of you right wingers should be pretty ashamed of your party.
In due time we will look back and view it as a good thing. Trust me.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Does that make many of the Unions dickheads for not embracing it for their members even though the union leaders strongly lobbied for it? Does that make the Dem Reps and Senators dickheads for not embracing it for themselves and their staffs? Again, reasonable people can have very understandable concerns and objections about the ACA.
As alluded to above, you are making some erroneous assumptions if you're including me in that "you right wingers" party. Sorry if I misunderstood, but that's how it reads.
I truly hope you are correct, but I can't say just yet that I trust that this will be the case. I do hope you are correct, though.
MSG 1 & 2 2010
Montreal 2011
Missoula 2012
Seattle 2013
Denver 2014
Central Park NYC 2015
Sunrise 2016
Wrigley 2 2016
Seattle 1 2018
~~~~~~~
EV NYC 2 2011
RNDM NYC 2012
TOTD SF 2016
Highlights Of Last Spectrum Show
Mike DESTROYING in Seattle 2013
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" - HST
Instagram (great concert shots of many bands): concertaholic
When the man tried to get a hold of someone in charge to get his personal information off the site he could not reach anyone till he had made MANY calls......Another stupid idea was to let the IRS run this thing....The IRS is always right, if you have a disagreement you Have TO hire a lawyer. Now I don't want to deal with this for my insurance. Not to mention the nasty attitudes the IRS agents have.
Justin Hadley logged on to HealthCare.gov to evaluate his insurance options after his health plan was canceled. What he discovered was an apparent security flaw that disclosed eligibility letters addressed to individuals from another state.
“I was in complete shock,” said Hadley, who contacted Heritage after becoming alarmed at the breach of privacy.
Hadley, a North Carolina father, buys his insurance on the individual market. His insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, directed him to HealthCare.gov in a cancellation letter he received in September.
After multiple attempts to access the problem-plagued website, Hadley finally made it past the registration page Thursday. That’s when he was greeted with downloadable letters about eligibility — for two people in South Carolina. (Screenshot below.)
The letters, dated October 8, acknowledge receipt of an application to the Health Insurance Marketplace and the eligibility of family members to purchase health coverage. One of the letters was addressed to Thomas Dougall, a lawyer from Elgin, SC.
Hadley shared a screenshot and copy of the letter with redacted personal information.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/02/exclusive-healthcare-gov-users-warn-of-security-risk-breach-of-privacy/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0423780446
Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.
My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.
My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.
Countless hours searching for non-exchange plans have uncovered nothing that compares well with my existing coverage. But the greatest source of frustration is Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange and, by some reports, one of the best such exchanges in the country. After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don't have a clue how to best proceed.
Two things have been essential in my fight to survive stage-4 cancer. The first are doctors and health teams in California and Texas: at the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University's Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
The second element essential to my fight is a United Healthcare PPO (preferred provider organization) health-insurance policy.
Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.
But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.
You would think it would be simple to find a health-exchange plan that allows me, living in San Diego, to continue to see my primary oncologist at Stanford University and my primary care doctors at the University of California, San Diego. Not so. UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan—a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan. EPO stands for exclusive provider organization, which means the plan has a small network of doctors and facilities and no out-of-network coverage (as in a preferred-provider organization plan) except for emergencies. Stanford accepts an Anthem PPO plan but it is not available for purchase in San Diego (only Anthem HMO and EPO plans are available in San Diego).
So if I go with a health-exchange plan, I must choose between Stanford and UCSD. Stanford has kept me alive—but UCSD has provided emergency and local treatment support during wretched periods of this disease, and it is where my primary-care doctors are.
Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.
What happened to the president's promise, "You can keep your health plan"? Or to the promise that "You can keep your doctor"? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.
For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that's the point.
Three weeks ago people were talking about the demise of the GOP because of the slim down. Obamacare will severely hurt the Dems as more and more get dropped. Death panels do exist.
Oh ok...thanks for clarifying I just realized that. I started reading it before I realized there was a link there and just got lost in the horror of it.
For starters, they ration healthcare and they dont have nearly as many lawyers and lawsuits.
I am not a fan of the ACA, but my premiums will go down $150/month, with deductible going up $1000, and I can keep my HSA. I was surprised. I have individual insurance. My group plan at work is getting more expensive
Yes, it's a horrible, horrible story. While reading it I was just thinking about Obama's words that you can keep your doctor and insurance if you like them. I supported this act, because I thought "affordable healthcare for everyone is good." Unfortunately, like many in congress that voted for the law, I was ignorant about many things that were in it. I admit that i still am. Now, and in the future, we will start to see the real effects of this law and how it is impacting people. I know not everything is bad though and I hope we start hearing some positive news soon.
Might be time to look at other countries I can re-locate to. This country's government is shameful and downright evil.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
:corn:
If you are hoping to find a country where the government is made up of decent people with the best interests on the population at heart, then good luck with that, you can probably count them on one hand. America is not much worse than anybody else in that respect, and a good deal better than many.
On the other hand if all you want is a better healthcare system, then pretty much any other country in the civilised world should do fine.
Tip of the iceberg? One of many?
Has anyone here actually and successfully signed up for a plan under the ACA? And if so, how are the terms, premiums, etc.?
C) Thanks O-bamz...!!
Now he and his team say- we did not say this.
Is he a liar. Yep. And the young people that are needed to pay into the fraud plan are not piling in.
Great news though.
C) Maybe your shout-out to "O-bamz" was sarcastic (I'll assume not). So if he's to be thanked for this, should he not also be held accountable for the misinformation - to put it oh-so-gently - given so far?
(ps...Sibelius can kiss my sweet-apple-ass)
How can he say that with a straight face. Just admit you misspoke or left out information. It's pretty obvious he left out the information for political reasons. If people knew they would lose coverage/doctors, it would lower support for the ACA and could have also hurt his reelection chances (although I think he would have won anyway).
he does not say it with a straight face...he has that look of "I care and i am deeply concerned"
based on the amount of "I did not know" that he has accumulated from his own team. this has been a tactic liars surround themselves with. blame someone else.
I also think this style of politics will be the norm from now on....make promises that are too good to be true.
information is gathered from many sources and liars are caught quickly.
It gets better
Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that Obamacare navigators don't need to undergo criminal background checks:
"So I want to ask you about the navigators," said Senator John Cornyn at a hearing today on Capitol Hill. "The president is in Dallas, Texas today, touting the navigator program, which, as you know, are people who are hired to help people navigate the Affordable Care Act. But I would just like to ask you this question, if you would answer it: Isn't it true that there is no federal requirement for navigators to undergo a criminal background check, even though they will receive personal -- sensitive personal -- information from the individuals they help to sign-up for the Affordable Care Act?"
"That is true," said Sebelius. "States could add an additional background checks and other features, but it is not part of the federal requirement"
"So a convicted felon could be a navigator and could acquire sensitive personal information from an individual unbeknownst to them?"
"That is possible," said Sebelius.
http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sebel ... 66342.html
simply amazing...speechless.
damn that O-bamza....
"Just" savings...same plan, same doctor...
me likey...