CNN is really blasting Obama and the ACA. It's like they have an agenda to see it fail. I'd give them some time to fix things and maybe Obama can slow down any deadlines associated with the plan. It's too way to early to call it a failure.
The healthcare.gov site isn't the only way to apply as mail, phone and in person options are available. I don't get why the administration doesn't highlight these option more. Hell in Alberta the only way to apply for a health care card is by filling a form and taking it to a registry.
Edit: Matthew Yglesias explains it more eloquently
I was reading today how they hired CGI to make it, and how many doomed projects CGI already has in their past.
I always wonder about IT projects when it come to government. Look at the gun registry, I mean how tough can that be to make a fricken database, but no, it was a pos right out of the gate and probably cost 100X more than it should have.
How is it banks etc. can run millions of transactions each and every day and you never, well, very seldom ever here of IT related problems. I think whoever is in charge of this from an IT perspective should've been axed a long time ago.
__________________
Pass the bacon.
The Following User Says Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
I was reading today how they hired CGI to make it, and how many doomed projects CGI already has in their past.
I always wonder about IT projects when it come to government. Look at the gun registry, I mean how tough can that be to make a fricken database, but no, it was a pos right out of the gate and probably cost 100X more than it should have.
How is it banks etc. can run millions of transactions each and every day and you never, well, very seldom ever here of IT related problems. I think whoever is in charge of this from an IT perspective should've been axed a long time ago.
I'd imaging you'd take the minor politics between departments in a normal organization for large projects and multiply it by 50.
CGI makes a ton of money off of failed projects, they underquote, then hammer the crap out of you on change orders etc. When the projects eventually fail and the contract is canceled there's rarely any enforceable penalty and they make a ton of projects.
CGI makes a ton of money off of failed projects, they underquote, then hammer the crap out of you on change orders etc. When the projects eventually fail and the contract is canceled there's rarely any enforceable penalty and they make a ton of projects.
So whoever chose them to begin with should've been replaced with someone who knew how to pull of a project like this.
I understand they probably only had what 2 years to work on it, and it was obviously going to be a huge deluge of online acitivity on go live day. Still you'd think they could've foresaw that, and done better, but then again it is the governement.
This might end up really, really bad for the President.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
This might end up really, really bad for the President.
Ok, but isn't this probably going to end up being a good thing?
I would assume those plans don't meet minimum requirements set by the government in terms of coverage provided? Might provide partial coverage on certain things so that insurance companies get their money at the end of the day?
I realize it looks bad, but it probably is for the best in the long run.
This might end up really, really bad for the President.
I can't find the link at the moment, but I recently read that most of those people whose existing coverage doesn't meet the minimum requirements of ACA would ultimately end up with better coverage for less money, including possible tax credits.
I don't doubt that there are going to be some people that end up getting less for more, but overall they will be in the vast minority.
Also, on a seperate note, why does the mainstream media always rely on the extreme opposition of an issue for a soundbite and/or quote? For example:
Quote:
“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.
(emphasis added)
^That's like asking a die-hard Flames fan his/her opinion of the Oilers.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
This article forgets about the subsidies provided in the ACA.
I did this with an income of $50,000 with 2 adults and one child living in Bellingham, Washington.
Quote:
Results
The information below is about subsidized exchange coverage. Note that subsidies are only available for people purchasing coverage on their own in the exchange (not through an employer). Depending on your state's eligibility criteria, you or some members of your family may qualify for Medicaid.
Household income in 2014:256% of poverty levelMaximum % of income you have to pay for the non-tobacco premium, if eligible for a subsidy: 8.22% Health Insurance premium in 2014 (for a silver plan, before tax credit): $7,173 per year You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to: $3,061 per year
(which covers 43% of the overall premium) Amount you pay for the premium: $4,112 per year
(which equals 8.22% of your household income and covers 57% of the overall premium)
Ok, but isn't this probably going to end up being a good thing?
I would assume those plans don't meet minimum requirements set by the government in terms of coverage provided? Might provide partial coverage on certain things so that insurance companies get their money at the end of the day?
I realize it looks bad, but it probably is for the best in the long run.
Does that justify the dushonesty on the administrations' part while trying to sell ACA to the public?
I posted the article because of that. That is what jumped out at me the most.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
This might end up really, really bad for the President.
So, if I understand the article correctly, people are complaining that they cant renew the old plan, and are instead being offered or are signing up for new plans that are not on the exchanges.
These people then complain they can't afford the new plan they were offered? Without factoring in any of the subsidies available.
Maybe they should, you know, try the exchanges and apply for the subsidies?
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
I was moderately in favour of Obamacare, and am a moderate supporter of Obama, but this is turning out all kinds of awful. I think the worst thing is it completely screws people who are working but just under the poverty line. I know a couple people in that category. Both divorced mothers with a couple dependents. Now they are in a position that the most basic insurance plans are even more expensive, but do not qualify for any subsidies, and make too much to qualify for medicaid. The people who probably could use this the most are now in a worse position and that is complete failing of this law, with the only consolation offered to them being that they don't have to pay the penalty for not having insurance.
So, if I understand the article correctly, people are complaining that they cant renew the old plan, and are instead being offered or are signing up for new plans that are not on the exchanges.
These people then complain they can't afford the new plan they were offered? Without factoring in any of the subsidies available.
Maybe they should, you know, try the exchanges and apply for the subsidies?
Hmm, good point. If only those exchanges actually worked and could get you to the point of seeing what options are available .
I can't find the link at the moment, but I recently read that most of those people whose existing coverage doesn't meet the minimum requirements of ACA would ultimately end up with better coverage for less money, including possible tax credits.
I don't doubt that there are going to be some people that end up getting less for more, but overall they will be in the vast minority.
Also, on a seperate note, why does the mainstream media always rely on the extreme opposition of an issue for a soundbite and/or quote? For example:
(emphasis added)
^That's like asking a die-hard Flames fan his/her opinion of the Oilers.
Not to mention that the same Robert Laszewski later in the article claims that he is getting a cancellation letter for his 'Cadillac' of a policy. This begs the question...
Is he lying about getting a cancellation letter, or lying about having a 'Cadillac' policy, or admitting that 'Cadillac' policies don't even meet the basic government mandate? One of those three things must be true. Two out of three make him less credible if true, while the third being true would just emphasize the need for healthcare reform in the first place.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
The healthcare.gov site isn't the only way to apply as mail, phone and in person options are available. I don't get why the administration doesn't highlight these option more. Hell in Alberta the only way to apply for a health care card is by filling a form and taking it to a registry.
Edit: Matthew Yglesias explains it more eloquently
Mail in, requires to mail a form, and then they eventually get back to you with a login for the web system that doesn't work. In person, is just people who walk you through the website that doesn't work. Phone, I don't know, might work. But you really going to be able to compare complicated insurance plans and rates over the phone?
Everything about it is a massive failure so far, and I have gone from being a supporter to just thinking it should be scrapped. It benefits so few people, and has made the situation far worse for for too many people. And the people who it does benefit can't apply anyway.
.
