[And if you have your own experiences to share, and especially screen dumps, please add them in comments or contact me. Either Federal Exchanges, or state exchanges. I'm especially interested in Covered California! Thank you! --lambert]
email@example.com from Maine had a registration #FAIL at step 3. Here's the screen dump:
... or, as they are Orwellianly named, "Shared Responsibility Payments."* Bob Laszewski makes a good point:
Even if the administration gets 20%, or 25%, or 30% of the eligible group signed-up by March 31, that is nowhere near enough to create a sustainable pool. The long-time underwriting rule calls for at least 70% of an eligible group to participate in order to get enough healthy people to pay for the sick who will always show up first for coverage.
Supporters will cite the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections saying a third of the eventual participants will sign up each of the first three years. Why would they? If Obamacare, with all of the attention and promotion it is getting, is not attractive the first year, particularly because of its steep deductibles compared to the after-subsidy premium people must pay, then why would it be attractive in the third year?
The response might be that the fines for not buying coverage will eventually more than double and force these people to finally buy coverage. Think about that. People don't want to buy this and the solution is to fine a family making $60,000 a year $1,500? If the cancelled policies are creating an election-year nightmare for the Democrats, think about how politically problematic big fines for not buying an Obamacare policy that consumers don't want would be in the 2016 presidential election year.
"Think about that." Read below the fold...
It’s one of the most impressive statistics about the new health care law. The Obama administration says more than 8.9 million people have been, quote “determined eligible” for Medicaid from Oct. 1 through the end of January.
But a new study Monday from Avalere Health estimates the actual number of new sign-ups could be much lower, between 2.4 million and 3.5 million.
The administration’s statistic also includes many people renewing existing coverage.
ObamaCare Clusterfuck: SEIU launches another "Look! Over there! Anything Other Than Single Payer!" effort in California
SACRAMENTO - A California health care workers’ union is collecting signatures to get two measures onto the ballot that it says would lower health care costs.
United Health Care Workers West, or SEIU-UHW, wants to cap what hospitals can charge to 25 percent above the actual cost of services. SEIU-UHW says on average, hospitals charge 320 percent above the cost of care.Read below the fold...
As early as this week, according to two sources, the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCare’s minimum coverage requirements. ...
Prolonging the “keep your plan” fix will avoid another wave of health policy cancellations otherwise expected this fall.
The cancellations would have created a firestorm for Democratic candidates in the last, crucial weeks before Election Day.
So my question is this: Read below the fold...
ObamaCare Clusterfuck: Facing March 31 deadline, Enroll America's Anne Filipic catapults the propaganda
If career "progressives" were worthy of my hatred, I'd hate them with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns. Fortunately for us all, they aren't. This story shows so much that's wrong with the good NPR-listening -- and very well-funded -- Lord and Lady Bountifuls who carry out Obama's policies. The press coverage is pretty soft-ball, too. Even McClatchy:
WASHINGTON — After an horrendous start and months of playing catch-up against a barrage of political attacks, Affordable Care Act supporters have hit the homestretch in their six-month effort to educate and enroll millions of Americans in health insurance.
"Supporters" implies that this "effort to educate and enroll" -- that is, close insurance sales -- is a grassroots effort. It's a well-funded effort that provides a shit ton of walking around money to Democratic operatives. Read below the fold...
WaPo grabs some tidbits from the Clinton Library document dump:
1) Hillary Clinton said an individual mandate would be too risky
Clinton said in a 1993 meeting with Democratic lawmakers that an individual health insurance mandate would send "shock waves" through the American public.
That, I assume, was what the incredibly slow -- and lethal -- implementation of ObamaCare was designed to avoid. Read below the fold...
According to a 28-page indictment handed down in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Thursday, [Democratic California Senator Ron Calderon] is accused of taking some $100,000 in cash bribes, along with plane trips, golf outings and jobs for his children, in exchange for influencing legislation.
Prosecutors say the lawmaker accepted bribes from Long Beach, California, hospital owner Michael Drobot to preserve a legislative loophole that allowed Drobot to defraud the state's healthcare system out of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Now, I realize this doesn't connect directly to ObamaCare, or to Covered California. Read below the fold...
ObamaCare Clusterfuck: Michael Hiltzik, Consumer Reports on Medicaid clawback: "Trust us, and don't worry about a thing."
Summarizing the Medicaid clawback issue, again, Paul Craig Roberts explains what can happen to your estate if ObamaCare forces you into Medicaid because your income is under 138% of the Federal poverty level:
In violation of moral philosopher John Rawls’ second principle of justice [q.v.], some of the poorest Americans will pay the highest cost of health care as they, and they alone, are subject to having the family home and any other assets they might possess confiscated by the state in order to reimburse Obamacare for the cost of their medical expenses....
OBRA 1993 requires all states that receive Medicaid funding to seek recovery from the estates of deceased Medicaid patients for medical services received in a nursing home or other long-term care institution, home- and community-based services and related hospital and prescription drug services regardless of age. It also allows, at state option, recovery for all services used in the Medicaid state plan at age 55 or older. At minimum, states must pursue recovery from the probate estate which includes property that passes to heirs under state probate law, but states can expand the definition of estate to allow recovery from property that bypasses probate. ...
[A] For cash-strapped states, recovery provides an income stream, and with the expansion of Medicaid states will be in dire need of money, particularly in the current economy.
Obamacare revises Medicaid regulations in order to make more Americans eligible for Medicaid. Revised regulations include an increase in age and income limitations, and the asset test no longer applies. Prior to these revisions, applicants were not eligible for Medicaid if they had more than a specific dollar amount in assets. But, under Obamacare, those who likely own a home or have savings set aside–for example, early retirees or people who have lost their jobs and, as a result, are in a low income bracket–will find themselves in Medicaid, and their assets will be looted by the government when they die for medical services used at age 55 and up. ...
[B] Estate recovery was not an unintended consequence of Obamacare. The House Ways & Means Committee and The House Energy & Commerce Committee share jurisdiction over health care, including Medicare and Medicaid, and both worked extensively on Obamacare. So, don’t bother thinking that the members of these committees didn’t know that estate recovery would impact millions of Americans who would be tossed into Medicaid. The asset test was dropped and the age limit was increased explicitly in order to expand Medicaid. Yet, did We the People hear any concern about estate recovery? Certainly not in the many floor speeches given by Democrats as well as Republicans or from the media.
Obama stated during his 2008 presidential campaign that transparency would be the leverage needed to ensure that people stay involved in the national health care reform process. The expansion of Medicaid was part of the process. [C] Did Obama or your representatives tell you that Medicaid, depending on your age, is a loan subject to deferred payment by your estate? Did they tell you the government subsidy for a private plan at an exchange is a loan, that must be repaid if your income increases? Transparency was highly selective. The bait was shown but not the hook.
(I've bracketed and lettered three points I want to refer back to later.) Well, it looks like the issue of Medicaid clawback is starting to get some traction, since there's pushback. First, let's consider the case of Michael Hiltzik in the LA Times. I know reporters don't write the headlines, but sheesh! Read below the fold...
Sheesh, twice now? LA Times:
The Obama administration again delayed a requirement that large employers provide their workers with health benefits, offering businesses more relief from the president's health law deadlines.
Under the law, employers with more than 50 full-time employees must offer affordable health benefits or pay fines, a requirement originally scheduled to go into effect this year but postponed until 2015.Read below the fold...
ObamaCare Clusterfuck: Is there something about Democrats that caused five separate ObamaCare website debacles?
We all know how Obama -- assuming his staff aren't lying to cover for him -- was never told and worse, never asked about the problems with the Federal Exchange website. And we also know that to this very day nobody has been fired for the debacle, or even disciplined. (Obama, needless to say, is nominally a Democrat.) Now we see the same sort of administrative and executive dysfunction in four Democratic states whose Exchanges failed as well. ProPublica:
Much has been written (and will continue to be written) about the spectacular failure of health insurance exchanges in Minnesota, Massachusetts, Oregon and Maryland—all blue states that support the Affordable Care Act.
One common element emerging in the coverage of these exchanges is that at least some state employees knew they were heading for disaster but didn’t take action early enough to remedy it. All the states have blamed some, if not all, of their problems on outside tech contractors.
Well, yes. With Democrats, it is always, 100% of the time, somebody else's fault. Mean Republicans! Outside contractors! Ralph Nader! Some detail on each state: Read below the fold...
ObamaCare Clusterfuck: Supplemental private insurance emerges to cover the high out-of-pocket costs of ObamaCare's insurance
As out-of-pocket medical costs grow for many Americans, the insurance industry is offering a way to help and, at the same time, expand its business: by selling supplemental policies that may fill the gaps for consumers.
The policies are promoted as helping cover out-of-pocket expenses that can reach thousands of dollars in plans offered by employers and the health law’s online marketplace.
"These supplemental health products have been recently — and we believe will be in the future — one of the fastest growing components of the employer benefits market," said Todd Katz, an executive vice president with MetLife.
Some experts, however, see risk for policyholders in the lightly regulated plans, which tend to be highly profitable for insurers and might be mistaken for more generous coverage.
Just when you think the hilarity can't get more intense, eh? ObamaCare not only guarantees the health insurance parasites a market, it's so poorly designed -- or so well designed -- that it opens up whole new markets for them! You can insure yourself against ObamaCare's crappy policies if you buy a second, additional, crappy policy! It's GENIUS!! Only a satirist of, say, Jonathan Swift's calibre could come up with an appropriate response. But wait! He did! Read below the fold...
ObamaCare Clusterfuck: ObamaCare not so affordable for families at three and four times the poverty line
Who knew? Kaiser Health News:
The lure used to get uninsured Americans to sign up for health law coverage was the promise of generous premium subsidies.
But the promise comes with a catch for almost 3 million people earning between three and four times the federal poverty rate: They may have to pay up to 9.5 percent of their income toward that premium before the subsidy kicks in.
That could take a substantial bite from their budgets — potentially as much as $600 a month for mid-priced plan for a family of three earning between $58,590 and $78,120.
And that's before we talk about the high deductibles, the high co-pays, narrow networks, narrow formularies, and balance billing. Read below the fold...