If you have "no place to go," come here!

ObamaCare Clusterfuck: Suppose I don't want email reminders, or just want to play with the site?


The Obama administration will be able to track the progress of Americans who start to sign up at, beginning next week, and nudge them with e-mail reminders if they don’t finish the process in October, the officials said. They offered no specific estimate for how many sign-ups they expect.

So, suppose I don't want them to track me. Can I opt out?

Suppose I want to give a fake email address, just to experiment with the system. Can I do that? Will I be subject to a perjury rap if I do?

Suppose I want to test the system by entering a broad range of data. Can I do that? Will I be subject to a perjury rap if I do?

And when does the perjury rap kick in? When I enter data, or when I press the submit button?

NOTE Hat tip Alexa. Of course they would design the system this way, because they think they're a commercial insurance company just run by the government.

No votes yet


jo6pac's picture
Submitted by jo6pac on

shocked that you don't believe the new Amerikan govt isn't here to help one and all.

Suppose I want to test the system by entering a broad range of data. Can I do that? Will I be subject to a perjury rap if I do?

I wouldn't worry to much about a fake email address because nsa will see your IP address, so your good to go to jail that is. There's nothing but happy talk about this on the so-called progressive sites. The best comment I've seen. FDL

karenjj2 September 25th, 2013 at 9:59 am
so! 27 year old in peak health in 40hr/$7.25 job is mandated to pay $214-328/mo with $290/wk gross wage????? i’ll take the unspecified, unenforceable “tax penalty.”
from s/s stmt (over 65 late medicare enrollment penalty of 25%) $1558.80 = $129.90/mo.
nuff said.

I'm not sure the govt is going to get very many young people, a lot of them have student loans also.

Rainbow Girl's picture
Submitted by Rainbow Girl on

According to one agent at the website this evening:

(1) Perjury only applies to the application (I'm assuming that means clicking the "submit" button), not to trying different info and scenarios (e.g., for oneself and maybe a friend or relative who doesn't have the internet) before making the application.

(2) No information is available on whether one can opt-out of the tracking function (which is already operational) -- such information will not be available before Oct. 1. But if one were to leave one's phone number one might get a call back in a few business days with an answer from someone higher up in the chain (maybe). If you don't have a phone ...

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

Interesting. still only says "coming soon." looks like they've worked at making it approachable. Unfortunately, what they want you to approach still looks rather radioactive to me.

So far, they've done the easy part: very general info which goes about one twentieth as deep as, say, Corrente. For instance, on income, you tick above $48,238 (or whatever it was, 400% of Fed Pov Level) or below. Then it takes you to a screen where it cheerfully says "You may be eligible for Medicaid!"

Yeah, right. At $48,000. I'm sure. And all it would have taken to make it a bit clearer is four items in a list: FPL or less, 200% FLP, 300% FPL or 400% or less. Then they could have made it clear where the Medicaid applies. Doesn't seem like a difficult coding or formatting problem. I wonder why they couldn't be bothered. (Not.)

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

premium in the Health Exchange (not on friend's current insurance premium).

I am happy if this helps MM's friend (get a better deal--or get insured, period.)

But this calculation is actually "bad news" for millions of working class Montana residents, I would think.

Just saw RG's comment--ditto!

Would this figure mean that a senior couple in Montana who have a combined annual income (maybe only one is still working) of $47,000--I'm assuming that the cut-off for subsidies is $46,000--would be "on the hook" for two times the unsubsidized premium amount quoted in the screenshot--or $1292 per month in premiums?

And for only 70/30 coverage? And as RG points out--what are the other out-of-pocket costs, deductibles, etc., etc.?

I'll try to round up an excerpt that I have of an expert explaining that the "upper-low income or upper-working class" Americans will be the one really punished by this law.

Those individuals, along with Group Health Plan participants--many of whom will be thown out of their plans, into Exchanges which will make their health insurance premiums "skyrocket," in some instances.

Well, not to leave out the millions and millions or very low income (childless) Americans who will be left out of any coverage, due to the ACA's ridiculous policy of treating them as "lessers." (To use a favorite Al Simpson term.)

And by income today--that's close to being the largest chunk of Americans. And this is also the cohort that is expected to remain uninsured in the greatest numbers, and this of course particularly hits working to lower-income Americans "seniors," with the 3:1 ratio for "age rated" policy premiums.

In essence, this does very little to fill in the gap for most seniors in their "near- and pre-retirement years." (more affluent ones may gain, somewhat)

Remember, I heard Tim Geithner testify that the Administration was holding off on raising the Medicare retirement age, until they saw if SCOTUS would uphold the ACA.

Just watch: One of the Democratic Party legacies that we'll soon witness is "the raising of the Medicare eligibility age."

If this is one of the cuts included in the Grand Bargain (or anytime during this Administration), I think that the Dems may as well not even put up any candidates in 2014 and 2016.

Actually, if the roll-out of the ACA is as bad as it appears that it may be--Dem apologists are "ALL OVER THE PLACE" lately, trying desperately to "tamp down expectations"--cutting Medicare may be a moot point.

I guess "time will tell."

Thanks for posting your friend's "situation." Would be interesting to hear what some of the other health plan costs are for him/her.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

I think that I may need to make a correction to my comment, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow when I will have time to better substantiate the correction.

At any rate, thanks to LS and MM for this post and comment, 'cause it forced me to do some double-checking and clarification (which was in order). ;-)

Rainbow Girl's picture
Submitted by Rainbow Girl on

If you know. E.g.: deductible(s), co-pay percentages for medical/RX/films.

$277/month out of a gross salary of $35K is steep, especially if it's only the first layer of baked in costs of the policy.

It's funny how benchmarks work, though. Compared to nearly $700/mo, $277 is a bargain. But compared to what one's budget is, $277 is no bargain!

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

Yeah, that reporting boggles me too. All over the place I see: Whee! Premiums for Ocare aren't bad! On average! For some people! Some of the time! (Or whatever.)

But when I go to that Kaiser Foundation calculator, it sure looks like you'll still be done in by the co-pays and deductibles.

A median family of four making $54000 can "afford" $10,400 in premiums + health expenses. Assume a lowish $5000 in taxes and a modest $1500/mo in housing, that means a total of $1700 a month for everything else. Food, clothes for the two kids, school fees, books, utilities, car, gas, car insurance. Oh, and don't forget saving for college (or you're bad parents) and saving for retirement (or you're a stupid waster).

Sure, the premiums, with subsidy, come to about $4000. ($3956) But why pay it if you have to beggar yourself to use it?

I'm seeing lots of stuff right now talking about how well this is going to work. Even C. Pierce fercryinoutloud. But I don't see anyone doing the math for actually using it.

Submitted by lambert on

After you upload the file, look for the Insert button to the right of the file name. Select the image dimensions, whether Medium or Full or whatever from dropdown

1. Click your cursor where you want the image to appear in the comment or post.

2. Now click that Insert button

3. The HTML for the image appears where the cursor is.

NOTE If you change the dropdown, or click somewhere else on the page, you will lose focus in step #1, i.e., the page doesn't know where the cursor is any more.. Perform step 1 again. If the image does not appear or appears in the wrong place, loss of focus is generally the reason.

Rainbow Girl's picture
Submitted by Rainbow Girl on

Because the non-affordability (and likelihood of personal medical bankruptcies) would instantly become apparent and many of the marks would do the math and pay penalties instead of clicking "submit." That's why nobody is doing it (in the regressive mediae -- blue and red).

By letting people individually start getting the sticker shock of their lives one by one after they click "submit - buy" (junk insurance eating up most of the family food or utilities or gas budget), Obama can harvest numbers of enrollees and trumpet them. And I would guess that the Obama PR Machine is calculating that it will be very easy to swat down one fly at a time -- of people's horror stories buying the "low premium policy" and then finding out it will cost them 3 times as much to actually use it (after which it will cost them plenty to use it -- 30/70, 60/40 etc. etc.) -- with Surround Sound "Hope, Change, Rights, Unpatriotic Naysayers, We Did the Best We Could" etc.

I like the phrase "not doing the math" in this context.

Submitted by lambert on

ObamaCare is sure to help some people, and probably more people will be or at least feel they are helped. So they will become the poster children for the marketing campaign, the "happy customers."

That's why I take the line that ObamaCare cannot help everyone equally (all the more important now that Obama has just said health care is a right). Not only does it have the great merit of being true, it puts the fly swatting in perspective.

"I know your sister was helped. Why don't you want everyone to be helped like your sister?"

Rainbow Girl's picture
Submitted by Rainbow Girl on

"in perspective." Indeed. And it seems emblematic of ObamaCare's fraudulent core that stories of the few who go to Happyville with ObamaCare will be used to swat down the many whom ObamaCare will send to Obama Bidonvilles (the address of the tens of millions left uninsured and/or bankrupt). The opposite of what you would expect in a so-called Democracy where the Decider supposedly represents the majority (or the "many" that will be betrayed and struck by O'Care.)

Psychic-Metaphysical-Kabalistic Observation: Shortening ObamaCare we get O'Care, which contains the truth about PPACA: Zero Care!