Haven't tried and don't care. I'm paying the penalty, it's cheaper than any plan they offer. I've never had insurance and all the money I've spent on heath care combined for my whole life wouldn't cover the premium for 1 year.
Haven't tried and don't care. I'm paying the penalty, it's cheaper than any plan they offer. I've never had insurance and all the money I've spent on heath care combined for my whole life wouldn't cover the premium for 1 year.
In reply to aircooled:
it depends on the state actually. some states are running their own exchange (like cali) and seem to be working relatively well. Other states (like PA) opted out, and are letting the feds do it all.... and it isn't working so good.
people wonder why the sites are hard to get in on... anyone ever try to log on to COD on release day?
I believe our state's exchange site is working just fine, but I won't be needing to worry about it since my employer's plans should still be better than the open exchange (will find out next week for certain). GF will likely need to be signing up via the local exchange though, but hasn't actually gone through and tried to do it yet.
She's not the happiest about it- she's gotten by without health care up until now, but the last few years have seen both of us have some health issues that have needed attending to and even she realizes that if we're planning on having kids she NEEDS to have some kind of coverage (by that point though, she'd be covered by my insurance...).
DILYSI Dave wrote: Healthcare.gov = $634M Facebook operated for 6 year until June of 2010 before they exceed $600M in development costs. By that time they had twice as many users as there are men, women, and children in the whole United States.
The $634M number that people keep throwing around for development of the Healthcare dot gov site is actually the estimated cost for the development of an entire suite of HHS software and implementation over a seven year period. The actual cost of development of the healthcare site is apparently closer to $90M.
Most ironic to me is that the same people who were saying that nobody wanted "Obamacare" are now criticizing the system because the initial response was far beyond what even the developers thought the system could handle.
jg
JG Pasterjak wrote:DILYSI Dave wrote: Healthcare.gov = $634M Facebook operated for 6 year until June of 2010 before they exceed $600M in development costs. By that time they had twice as many users as there are men, women, and children in the whole United States.The $634M number that people keep throwing around for development of the Healthcare dot gov site is actually the estimated cost for the development of an entire suite of HHS software and implementation over a seven year period. The actual cost of development of the healthcare site is apparently closer to $90M. Most ironic to me is that the same people who were saying that nobody wanted "Obamacare" are now criticizing the system because the initial response was far beyond what even the developers thought the system could handle. jg
I'm trying to find the article i read yesterday... general consensus is that the website is REALLY just that bad.
But here's one.
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-experts-architecture-obamacare-website-154731693--sector.html
There's many of these articles out there.
My sister-in-law said that the premiums for their family of 3 are set to double next year with an exchange plan vs what they have now. They are self-employed business owners. My guess is that one (or more) of their employees will loose their job to cover it.
Swank Force One wrote: I'm trying to find the article i read yesterday... general consensus is that the website is REALLY just that bad. But here's one. http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-experts-architecture-obamacare-website-154731693--sector.html There's many of these articles out there.
Sadly, this doesn't surprise me THAT much. When you get down to it, it was STILL a government awarded contract- which means all kinds of BS in the awarding process. I forget whether it was here or elsewhere (Fark), but someone said something along the lines of this-
When bids were requested for building the site, the following were likely received (numbers completely made up):
Either #4 or #5 would get the contract, either because of nepotism or 'the lowest bid must be the best'.
EDIT: holy carp, did the forum software actually just PROPERLY parse an ordered list?!??!
I bet the forum software wasn't designed by the gubment.
DILYSI Dave wrote: Healthcare.gov = $634M Facebook operated for 6 year until June of 2010 before they exceed $600M in development costs. By that time they had twice as many users as there are men, women, and children in the whole United States.
Yes, but they also don't tie in with the IRS, the credit reporting bureaus and a bunch of other databases. At least not in a publicised way.
Also, the requirements for the website changed massively several times, including dropping and adding features very late in the process. That's deadly for any sort of on-time and on-budget software development.
jeffmx5 wrote: My sister-in-law said that the premiums for their family of 3 are set to double next year with an exchange plan vs what they have now. They are self-employed business owners. My guess is that one (or more) of their employees will loose their job to cover it.
This always confuses me. Do they need the employees now to do the work? How will more expensive health care change that need for an employee? My dad (also self employed) has used this argument when we discussed this and I still don't get it.
mazdeuce wrote: This always confuses me. Do they need the employees now to do the work? How will more expensive health care change that need for an employee? My dad (also self employed) has used this argument when we discussed this and I still don't get it.
If your labor cost used to be 50% of total costs and it's now 70%, that means you'll make very different business decisions. Among other things, raising labor costs means companies can't afford to grow and it puts more pressure on you to be productive OR raise your prices. In other words, longer hours for fewer people.
That said, it's not like healthcare spending, overall, isn't already a huge drain on the economy. Costs were going up about 5% per year prior to the ACA and the ACA is projected to raise that 5% growth rate less than another percentage point. (CMS and CBO numbers). The thing that has everyone upset is that it's shifting that spending around quite a bit. Not sure what the implications are at a macroeconomic scale.
In reply to mazdeuce:
I would presume it has to do with the idea that at current operating costs the current employee is a cheaper, better solution than overtime for other employees. At future operating costs, overtime for other employees is a better, cheaper solution. Especially if some of those employees are owners and can work for free.
JG Pasterjak wrote: Most ironic to me is that the same people who were saying that nobody wanted "Obamacare" are now criticizing the system because the initial response was far beyond what even the developers thought the system could handle. jg
The response may not necessarily be out of approval of the act, as much as simple pragmatism. I had pretty much expected the ACA to legislate my current insurance policy out of existence. I found out that it didn't, but the rates had gone up 12% again. If the government is going to keep legislating my insurance rates up, I'm not the sort who has such a strongly held principle that I'm going to say, "Berkley it, I'm going to pay the extra rates and refuse to take any subsidies over it!"
My view on the subsidies is similar to Orwell's Benjamin the Donkey's take on a lot of things in life: "He would say that God had given him a tail to keep the flies off, but that he would sooner have had no tail and no flies." And if the government is going to legislate flies, I'm going to at least investigate if the tail can do anything about them.
I stand by what I have said for years on this subject...
We want health care, but we accept health insurance (which the government calls "health care").
Nothing will ever be sustainable unless we can address health costs. There is no level of health insurance that will protect you from unchecked skyrocketing health costs. It will simply bring you higher health insurance premiums to pay for the higher health costs.
The government is not interested in helping address health costs (something they could actually have a positive impact on), because it will impact the economy and the income of their donors in the medical and insurance industries, both of which will cost them votes.
They'd rather give us berkeleying BS insurance at a very high cost, then pretend they have given us health care so they can butt ream us for our votes.
And it is not a political party issue. Chaos is equally beneficial to both parties. It enables them to spin it for their own benefit.
We the sheeple...
JG Pasterjak wrote: Most ironic to me is that the same people who were saying that nobody wanted "Obamacare" are now criticizing the system because the initial response was far beyond what even the developers thought the system could handle. jg
Do you have any hard, verifiable numbers to back-up those assertions?
Because the govt sure doesn't.
SVreX wrote: I stand by what I have said for years on this subject... We want health care, but we accept health insurance (which the government calls "health care"). Nothing will ever be sustainable unless we can address health costs. There is no level of health insurance that will protect you from unchecked skyrocketing health costs. It will simply bring you higher health insurance premiums to pay for the higher health costs. The government is not interested in helping address health costs (something they could actually have a positive impact on), because it will impact the economy and the income of their donors in the medical and insurance industries, both of which will cost them votes. They'd rather give us berkeleying BS insurance at a very high cost, then pretend they have given us health care so they can butt ream us for our votes. And it is not a political party issue. Chaos is equally beneficial to both parties. It enables them to spin it for their own benefit. We the sheeple...
To take care of this problem we would have to remove the profit motive from providing healthcare and it's associated products.
No we wouldn't.
We would have to have regulation that controlled the escalating costs, something the government can potentially be effective at (theoretically).
In reply to Xceler8x:
Removing the profit incentive effectively means nationalizing healthcare and eliminating insurance - except for those who can (and will) pay more for extra coverage.
A national healthcare system may be a preferred route but it cannot happen until there is massive public support for it. Expect massive resistance until something happens to reverse the current sentiment.
oldsaw wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: Removing the profit incentive effectively means nationalizing healthcare and eliminating insurance - except for those who can (and will) pay more for extra coverage. A national healthcare system may be a preferred route but it cannot happen until there is massive public support for it. Expect massive resistance until something happens to reverse the current sentiment.
Like legislating dramatic cost increases for health insurance as a first step?
MadScientistMatt wrote: The response may not necessarily be out of approval of the act, as much as simple pragmatism. I had pretty much expected the ACA to legislate my current insurance policy out of existence. I found out that it didn't, but the rates had gone up 12% again. If the government is going to keep legislating my insurance rates up, I'm not the sort who has such a strongly held principle that I'm going to say, "Berkley it, I'm going to pay the extra rates and refuse to take any subsidies over it!"
YMMV, etc, etc, but in the 6 or so years I've spent working in small businesses with employer-provided insurance I have never seen a year-over-year cost increase for exact equivalent coverage anywhere near as small as 12%. It has typically been 30% or more, which generally results in the agent pushing a lesser policy on us to keep the increase manageable, as we don't have the means to keep the existing policy. Which is a giant pain in the ass from my perspective as I think I have had 5 different insurers in the last 6 years (well, 4 if you count two runs with the same company separated by a year). I have also never gone through a renewal without BOTH a substantial reduction in actual benefits AND a cost increase. So forgive me if I don't consider the mere existence of some people getting a rate increase to be an irrefutable failure of the ACA. How many of those people were going to get a rate hike this year (and the next, and the next) regardless of the legislation?
oldsaw wrote: Removing the profit incentive effectively means nationalizing healthcare and eliminating insurance - except for those who can (and will) pay more for extra coverage. ..
Not necessarily. As I mentioned previously, Japan, Taiwan, German and Switzerland all have universal healthcare and still use private insurance companies. Those companies are of course heavily regulated (not that ours aren't) and are also non-profit.
Also of note, even though these companies are non-profit, they are still in competition, so there are still free market pressures on them.
As Swank mentioned, the non-profit thing may not be a big deal (insurance companies don't seem to be operating on huge profit margins). More significant is they tend to operate with much lower administrative costs. I believe the number for the US are around %20, while these other countries are around 6%.
I am not entire sure why their admin costs are so much lower but I suspect it has something to do with a more government forces / standardized system. Either way, "solving" whatever issues there are with insurance will likely only get us part way there.
I'd honestly be surprised if admin costs today were 20% in the private sector. That would only work for small group (non-ASO) plans, and would essentially render them a non-profit with today's regulations. Would represent a 5% loss in the large group portion.
aircooled wrote: I am not entire sure why their admin costs are so much lower but I suspect it has something to do with a more government forces / standardized system. Either way, "solving" whatever issues there are with insurance will likely only get us part way there.
I tend to agree with you, as does this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qSjGouBmo0M
It's a worth-it, 8 minute synopsis on US healthcare costs.
How did the 800 number work out?
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/03/need-health-care-coverage-just-dial-1-800-berkeleyyo-to-reach-obamacares-national-hotline/
You can't make this stuff up! 
trucke wrote: How did the 800 number work out? http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/03/need-health-care-coverage-just-dial-1-800-berkeleyyo-to-reach-obamacares-national-hotline/ You can't make this stuff up!
No, but you CAN really reach to make it work. "Uh, yeah- just ignore that we left out the '1' in the middle of that (and if you dial as we said it won't connect because it's missing a number) and it TOTES WORKS!"
They could of course have been warning people that they were about to get hit by a badly thrown frisbee with '1-800-DUCK-YO' (again, ignoring the '1'). 
You'll need to log in to post.
