CNN Breaking: Only 26,794 people completed enrollment through healthcare.gov

[thomastmc]

:o ...

I don't get the reference. :blush:

That's what I thought :)

[xpablo]

So what happens if only 10% of the entire US population signs up for it and the rest don't?

I really think Obamacare is going to fail, the people will decide if it's going to work and my take is it won't!

[thomastmc]

So what happens if only 10% of the entire US population signs up for it and the rest don't?

I really think Obamacare is going to fail, the people will decide if it's going to work and my take is it won't!

Only 15.4% of the entire U.S. population isn't already covered. 10% signing up wouldn't be too bad, and would mean that 94.6% of the population was covered. Not as good as Romneycare's 98%, but still not horrible.

[thealexweb]

It was fine until Obama Care

Depends on your definition of fine is XD

[PGHammer]

This is pretty ridiculous :)

 

America's health care system was just fine if you were healthy and/or made enough money to pay for the extremely high pace of rising prices. To say it wasn't broken is like saying that the Titanic had a good voyage.

 

Most people didn't sign up for Romneycare (which Obamacare was based on) until the last month. It will likely be the same for Obamacare.

 

Everyone has until March 2014 to sign up, and most will wait until the last minute to do so. The vast majority of people just do nothing, because they're already covered.

 

All of this negative speculation about the overall solvency of Obamacare is coming from party loyalists who are simply just wishing out loud, because that's the last resort of the desperate :)

 

2014 will be about the Republican primaries and which ever Tea Party extremists make it through this time. Republicans will be more vicious and appalling in their actions towards one another than they ever have toward any Democrat, disturbing the more centrist majority of the party (this is already beginning to happen, by the way). There will be a lot of talk about social issues such as abortion, women's' rights, gay marriage, and immigration (and probably even rape again). All of which are losing topics for Republicans. Republicans are blamed by most Americans for the dysfunction in government already. Democrats will gain seats in the Senate and the House, and will get the majority of all votes for Congress, just like in 2012. This will set the stage for 2016, in which the Republican Presidential primaries will be a campaign of shock and awe of ridiculousness and "one-downs" that will make the primaries of 2012 look like the primaries of 1980.

 

No matter what happens in 2014 and 2016, it will be a gruesome spectacle of political theatre and savagery with rare comparison, which will become famous in the history of American civics.

 

thomastnc - that is THE major flaw with the PPACA - it basically tried to nuke a fly, but irradiated everyone.  In trying to enable what was a small percentage of the individual health-insurance-policy market for the highest-risk -- in utter contravention of any honest study of actuarial tables for ANY sort of insurance - even life insurance - they have screwed up not just the individual market (the target market), but made hash out of the nascent small-business health-insurance marketplace (which just really got off the ground during Clinton's second term), and is even messing up the health-insurance system for large business, governments (including the public sector) and union plans.

 

In short, you are expecting that the Democrats will try to make this another social-issue election (which 2012 was); however, there are two rather large problems with that:

 

 

1.  2014 is NOT a Presidential election year; it's Congress (House and Senate) that's up for election, and such elections are typically about the record of the incumbent and how the voters of that district (or state) see it.  As long as the GOP candidates stick to that, it will be nearly impossible for them to lose in all but the bluest of districts or states.

 

2.  Even in blue states, given the woeful underperformance of the PPACA, will even Democratic party voters want to return Democrats to office?  I am thinking about 1980, in which an incumbent Democrat - Jimmy Carter - lost to former California governor Ronald Reagan due to inability to govern.  Reagan's coat-tails were surprisingly LONG for a GOP candidate - mostly because Congressional Democrats had overreached in terms of governance.

[seta-san]

anyone notice how obama care is such a cluster that everyone has already forgotten about the shutdown.

[DocM]

No they haven't. And in hindsight the view is very different.

A major new 2014 congressional preference poll by Quinnipiac Univ. (highly respected) shows the GOP has erased a 9 point Democrat advantage and is now tied with them at 39% to 39%. This in spite of a 6% Democrat over-sample.

The ObamaCare backlash has begun.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1187827-gop-erases-democrat-lead-in-congressional-poll/?view=getnewpost

[bradsday]

I had no problems with my coverage until this month... our plan was classified as "too good" basically (it would of been classified as a Cadillac plan under the new rules, so to avoid the excise tax on it, we had to change the plan structure), we use to have zero co-pay for doc visits and $20 co-pay for ER visits which was waved if you were admitted to the hospital.... we were just told we NOW had a $500 deductible to fit into the current requirements..... great, now I have to pay WAY more to get the same coverage that I already pay $18,650 a year for, if I had kids under this plan we'd be almost $25k a year under a family plan.. (paid through employer technically, but that is the cost of the plan for me and my spouse)!

 

Damn.  You have got to tell your story.  This is the type of thing many warned about, but has gone largely ignored.  I think if more people understood the potential harm, then more would be demanding change.  I think the liberal media has played down the fact that this "affordable" health care plan can actually cost some people a lot.  There are a lot of conservative media outlets looking for stories like yours.

[DocM]

Now imagine the lost purchasing power among those who DO most of the. purchasing. The only winners are those Obamacare gives a big fat wet kiss to: bureaucrats.

[neufuse Veteran]

Damn.  You have got to tell your story.  This is the type of thing many warned about, but has gone largely ignored.  I think if more people understood the potential harm, then more would be demanding change.  I think the liberal media has played down the fact that this "affordable" health care plan can actually cost some people a lot.  There are a lot of conservative media outlets looking for stories like yours.

problem is, I don't have time nor the effort to make a big deal out of it... I'll just flat out admit to it... we JUST found out about this change, and all it's doing now is making me not want to go to the doctor because it will cost me money now... instead of before where you would go as preventative measures, not it's a wait and see mentality...

[thomastmc]

thomastnc - that is THE major flaw with the PPACA - it basically tried to nuke a fly, but irradiated everyone.  In trying to enable what was a small percentage of the individual health-insurance-policy market for the highest-risk -- in utter contravention of any honest study of actuarial tables for ANY sort of insurance - even life insurance - they have screwed up not just the individual market (the target market), but made hash out of the nascent small-business health-insurance marketplace (which just really got off the ground during Clinton's second term), and is even messing up the health-insurance system for large business, governments (including the public sector) and union plans.

 

In short, you are expecting that the Democrats will try to make this another social-issue election (which 2012 was); however, there are two rather large problems with that:

 

 

1.  2014 is NOT a Presidential election year; it's Congress (House and Senate) that's up for election, and such elections are typically about the record of the incumbent and how the voters of that district (or state) see it.  As long as the GOP candidates stick to that, it will be nearly impossible for them to lose in all but the bluest of districts or states.

 

2.  Even in blue states, given the woeful underperformance of the PPACA, will even Democratic party voters want to return Democrats to office?  I am thinking about 1980, in which an incumbent Democrat - Jimmy Carter - lost to former California governor Ronald Reagan due to inability to govern.  Reagan's coat-tails were surprisingly LONG for a GOP candidate - mostly because Congressional Democrats had overreached in terms of governance.

 

That fly is actually more like a Brundlefly that effects almost everyone in the country.

 

By 2020, most middle class Americans were not going to be able to afford health care before the ACA. Annual average costs were set to increase 94% from 2008 (~$12,500) to 2020 (~$24,000).

 

If you thought you were having trouble affording your bill this year, take this reality into account: Wages are still growing less than they have since the great depression, but health care was going to cost about $24,000 a year just 6 years from now.

 

The rise in health care prices has slowed since the passage of the ACA. Almost everyone is paying more this year than last, and will pay more next year than this year. That was going to happen even without the ACA, but the rise in price is less with it.

Every year uninsured people were costing the American taxpayer more money by visiting the emergency room and not paying their huge medical bills. More middle class families went bankrupt every year than the previous year due to health care costs prior to the ACA. Every year, more people were being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions or reaching their lifetime caps and dying due to lack of health care. 

 

These are the major problems that the ACA was designed to "nuke", and they effect almost everyone.

 

 

On 2014: I think you're not taking into account the lessons learned and the patterns set in 2010, 2012, and even the most recent 2013 elections.

 

Many solid Republican incumbents will face very tough primary races from far right Tea Party candidates, and a significant amount will lose, like in 2010 and 2012. Quite a few of these Tea Party challengers have already popped up in districts around the country with solid incumbents. It's already starting.

 

The primaries will be mostly about records, but the elections will be defined by the social issues I mentioned, much like in Virginia, and 2012.

 

In some districts, Democrats will beat good decent Republicans. In more though, a Democrat will beat out a Tea Party extremist candidate that is intolerable to conservative moderates, like in 2012 and in Virginia.

 

I'm not saying that Democrats will take back the house, or how many seats they will gain. Just that Democrats will gain seats in both chambers, like in 2012.

 

2014 can't be compared to previous off year elections, other than the most recent. The change going on in American politics is equivalent to the early 20th century, or the 1960s. All bets are off on what used to be the common wisdom or trends.

 

There hasn't been a test of the ACA yet, only the website. The website sucks, but that has no bearing on the overall program. It will be fixed. The first test of the ACA will be the enrollment amount at the deadline in March 2014.

 

If the ACA is struggling in November 2014 and still even in 2016, yes, Democrats will be in trouble. I think you can see now why it is so important to elected Republicans to make sure everyone hates it and that it does perform poorly, whether the ACA is a prudent and solid improvement to health care or not.

[Lord Method Man]

Democrats threaten to abandon Obama over health law:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/us/politics/democrats-threaten-to-abandon-obama-on-health-law-provision.html?hp&_r=0

 

 

WASHINGTON ? Anxious congressional Democrats are threatening to abandon President Obama on a central element of his signature health care law, voicing increasing support for proposals that would allow Americans who are losing their health insurance coverage because of the Affordable Care Act to retain it.       

[Astra.Xtreme]

snip

Cool story... but maybe you should consider the majority of the population that isn't going to be using plans from the ACA.

Taxes and healthcare costs are quickly rising directly due to ACA, so it's actually making the problem of cost a bigger problem.

Something around 60% of the population get health insurance from their employer, so those 60% automatically get screwed by cost and tax increases.  The remaining 40% included the 15% that are uninsured and 25% that buy it themselves.  Many of those 25% have had their plans cancelled and are forced to pay much higher premiums.

 

So how exactly is up to 85% of the entire population having much higher costs a good thing?  What has this solved?  Like has been said time and time again, Obamacare is attempting to patch a small problem by screwing over the middle and upper class (aka the taxpayers).  So far it's off to a laughable start, and I dred seeing the consumer spending reports in the coming years.

[thomastmc]

Cool story... but maybe you should consider the majority of the population that isn't going to be using plans from the ACA.

Taxes and healthcare costs are quickly rising directly due to ACA, so it's actually making the problem of cost a bigger problem.

Something around 60% of the population get health insurance from their employer, so those 60% automatically get screwed by cost and tax increases.  The remaining 40% included the 15% that are uninsured and 25% that buy it themselves.  Many of those 25% have had their plans cancelled and are forced to pay much higher premiums.

 

So how exactly is up to 85% of the entire population having much higher costs a good thing?  What has this solved?  Like has been said time and time again, Obamacare is attempting to patch a small problem by screwing over the middle and upper class (aka the taxpayers).  So far it's off to a laughable start, and I dred seeing the consumer spending reports in the coming years.

 

Healthcare costs have been slowing in growth since the passage of the ACA, and your healthcare is a tax-favored business expense for your employer and not taxed to individuals. 

 

Cool story, but it's just flat out false.

 

Between early 2009 and now, the Office of the Actuaries at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has lowered its forecast of medical spending in 2016 by 1 percentage point of GDP. In dollar terms, this is $2,500 for a family of four.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-health-care-laws-success-story-slowing-down-medical-costs/2013/11/08/e08cc52a-47c1-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story_1.html

 

Health care is the only significant form of employee compensation that can be delivered tax-free to the employee, while being treated as a business expense by the employer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/15/the-huge-health-care-subsidy-everyone-is-ignoring/

 

If you really think that the argument is that 85% of the country will have higher costs and that's a good thing, you've entirely missed the point and ignored the facts of the healthcare debate. The fact that you think the ACA is patching a "small problem", just makes that even more obvious.

[Astra.Xtreme]

 

Healthcare costs have been slowing in growth since the passage of the ACA, and your healthcare is a tax-favored business expense for your employer and not taxed to individuals. 

Proof?...  My employer healthcare costs have gone up higher than ever before directly due to the cost increases of my insurer being shoveled down to us customers.  I'm not sure where you've been, but this has been a huge problem that has been constantly in the media for months now.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57604782/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/25/double-down-obamacare-will-increase-avg-individual-market-insurance-premiums-by-99-for-men-62-for-women/

 

You can't possibly deny that prices are rising faster due to ACA going into effect in addition to the tax increases we've already seen and will see going forward.  The majority of the people in this country are not getting much, if any, benefit from this program, and it's hurting them with the tax/cost increases being forced on them.  

 

If you can prove otherwise, or can give a solid justification as to why the greater population should be thrown under the bus, I'm all ears...

[neufuse Veteran]

 

Healthcare costs have been slowing in growth since the passage of the ACA, and your healthcare is a tax-favored business expense for your employer and not taxed to individuals. 

 

Cool story, but it's just flat out false.

 

 

 

If you really think that the argument is that 85% of the country will have higher costs and that's a good thing, you've entirely missed the point and ignored the facts of the healthcare debate. The fact that you think the ACA is patching a "small problem", just makes that even more obvious.

I've worked in the health insurance industry since 2001.... and in the past 7 years we've seen the largest increases in health care costs ever... the last 3 years alone the average rate of increase was 13%... in the early 2000's the rate was between 2-6% year over year... insurance costs are NOT going down, in fact we've had to rewrite a lot of clients coverage's just to minimize some VERY large increases... we've seen some large clients get hit with 28% rate increases... rewriting their policy dropped that down to about 17% but at less coverage or higher deductible or moving them to a HDHP (high deductible health policy) which they pay more on their end...

[MorganX]

I leave this issue to you partisans, who have clearly been adversely affected by this. As I am unaffected, with excellent health coverage, whose premiums have not changed. I guess I'm one of the rare lucky ones.

 

It almost seems unreal to listen to all of you discuss how decimated your healthcare has become. :/

[neufuse Veteran]

I leave this issue to you partisans, who have clearly been adversely affected by this. As I am unaffected, with excellent health coverage, whose premiums have not changed. I guess I'm one of the rare lucky ones.

 

It almost seems unreal to listen to all of you discuss how decimated your healthcare has become. :/

Hey I was happy with my coverage until what just happened to mine... we thought ours wouldn't be affected until we reviewed all the policies again with our carrier... last year though we did see a 15% increase in premium, but it didn't change our plan at all, this is the first time our plan had to change because of the cost

[Lord Method Man]

I'm still waiting for my premium to go down $2500 per year, did Obama delay that provision too?

[thomastmc]

Proof?... My employer healthcare costs have gone up higher than ever before directly due to the cost increases of my insurer being shoveled down to us customers. I'm not sure where you've been, but this has been a huge problem that has been constantly in the media for months now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57604782/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/25/double-down-obamacare-will-increase-avg-individual-market-insurance-premiums-by-99-for-men-62-for-women/

You can't possibly deny that prices are rising faster due to ACA going into effect in addition to the tax increases we've already seen and will see going forward. The majority of the people in this country are not getting much, if any, benefit from this program, and it's hurting them with the tax/cost increases being forced on them.

If you can prove otherwise, or can give a solid justification as to why the greater population should be thrown under the bus, I'm all ears...

 

The ACA is projected to add 0.01% to the average annual health spending, according to the study cited in your link 2. I can't deny that it will add 0.01% throughout 2022 :)

 

Links 1 & 3 rely on the Manhattan Institute study, which is only relevant to the individual market and doesn't take into account subsidies, not people covered by their employers. Those links have no bearing on your situation, or most Americans, what so ever.

 

Likewise, the debate over whether Obamacare will cause health insurance premiums to soar on the exchanges -- so-called rate shock -- needlessly confuses people who have coverage from work, Levitt said.

"They see these headlines that premiums may skyrocket and they think that's them," he said. It's not; it's about insurance people buy directly.

In fact, a survey of employers the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust published last month showed job-based health insurance prices rose an average of just 5 percent for single people this year. "There's no reason to think that's going to change dramatically," Levitt said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/obamacare-change_n_3975425.html

Link 2 is misleading. The number quoted is $621 billion in increased spending. What it fails to mention is that is by 2022, and is the cumulative spending after adding 30 million people to the healthcare system.

 

By 2022, the ACA is projected to reduce the number of uninsured people by 30 million, add approximately 0.1 percentage-point to average annual health spending growth over the full projection period, and increase cumulative health spending by roughly $621 billion.

http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/Proj2012.pdf

I've worked in the health insurance industry since 2001.... and in the past 7 years we've seen the largest increases in health care costs ever... the last 3 years alone the average rate of increase was 13%... in the early 2000's the rate was between 2-6% year over year... insurance costs are NOT going down, in fact we've had to rewrite a lot of clients coverage's just to minimize some VERY large increases... we've seen some large clients get hit with 28% rate increases... rewriting their policy dropped that down to about 17% but at less coverage or higher deductible or moving them to a HDHP (high deductible health policy) which they pay more on their end...

 

Whatever your anecdotal evidence is, prices rose for those in employer plans by 4-5% over the last year. Overall, prices grew at the slowest rate in 50 years. Those are the facts.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

What will probably happen,

Americans will realize that healthcare reform is bad.

They will celebrate the dead of ACA.

Nothing will happen for a few more years (for Americans to realize that nothing good happened)

US will be de-facto example of how not to do healthcare.

[MorganX]

Hey I was happy with my coverage until what just happened to mine... we thought ours wouldn't be affected until we reviewed all the policies again with our carrier... last year though we did see a 15% increase in premium, but it didn't change our plan at all, this is the first time our plan had to change because of the cost

 

Yeah, I feel for you and anyone that happens to. There will be growing pains. Actually there was far more pain with the economic downturn and the cost of insurance (particularly for families). But we have actually no added spousal life insurance at incredible rates.

 

I would imagine eventually things will balance out, but I really don't follow the ins and outs. TBH, I'm not sure Obama was the best candidate for this. Yes, due to his race (along with the blind bipartisanship). It's so polarizing, there's no way he got as much cooperation as there could have been and I'm sure they just forced through what they could.

 

I'm guessing if it remains, it will be tweaked and improved and balanced over time. Someone had to do it, now tweak it. Though many will kill it. Being in power means more than actually making progress to way too many politicians of all parties. I wasn't alive, but I'm sure there was just as much angst over Social Security and the like.

 

It's not Nirvana, it's not perfect by any means. What it is, is progress. And unless we dump the whole idea of universal healthcare, it can only improve.

[PGHammer]

I leave this issue to you partisans, who have clearly been adversely affected by this. As I am unaffected, with excellent health coverage, whose premiums have not changed. I guess I'm one of the rare lucky ones.

 

It almost seems unreal to listen to all of you discuss how decimated your healthcare has become. :/

MorganX - only three groups of folks are NOT affected by this change in the law:

 

1.  The local/state public sector (except for municipalities in Chapter 9 or 13, such as Stockton or Detroit) - yet.

2.  Those already on Medicare or Medicaid - I fall into this group.  (I never said I was directly affected - however, because of what has happened with primary-care physicians and Medicare, what I have seen with the PPACA was VERY predictable simply based on that - which I made plain.)

3.  The national public sector.

 

Finding a primary-care physician that takes Medicare is not that easy - primarily because of the reimbursement record that Medicare has - in a word, AWFUL.  (I live in Prince George's County, Maryland - an aforementioned minority-majority county - and that includes the medical community.  Atop that, I live in the southwestern portion of said county, which means I have to travel to get to primary care - either to another part of the county or outside the county, due to a lack of primary-care providers that take Medicare in my area.)  PPACA is going to force insurers to do what Medicare has done historically to drive costs down - lower reimbursements to doctors.  That invariably means that more of those costs are going to be paid by patients.  That is just at the individual-patient level - and will affect ALL patients - including those normally outside of PPACA's bailiwick, as those inside it will NOT be feeling that pain alone.  In other words, the pain WILL get to you - maybe not yet, but it's coming - count on it.

 

The direct effects are bad enough - and were predicted (and mostly easily predictable) - the indirect effects, however, are going to be more widespread, and far worse, than even the most nightmarish of predictions.

[thomastmc]

I'm still waiting for my premium to go down $2500 per year, did Obama delay that provision too?

 

You're only waiting because you didn't understand what the statement was, and are woefully uninformed.

 

You were never told that your premium would go down $2500, but that you'd be saved $2500 through the slowed pace of the growth in prices. It's simple accounting, and it's right on track for Obama's last year in office.

 

Between early 2009 and now, the Office of the Actuaries at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has lowered its forecast of medical spending in 2016 by 1 percentage point of GDP. In dollar terms, this is $2,500 for a family of four.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-health-care-laws-success-story-slowing-down-medical-costs/2013/11/08/e08cc52a-47c1-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story_1.html

 

[MorganX]

MorganX - only three groups of folks are NOT affected by this change in the law:

 

1.  The local/state public sector (except for municipalities in Chapter 9 or 13, such as Stockton or Detroit) - yet.

2.  Those already on Medicare or Medicaid - I fall into this group.  (I never said I was directly affected - however, because of what has happened with primary-care physicians and Medicare, what I have seen with the PPACA was VERY predictable simply based on that - which I made plain.)

3.  The national public sector.

 

Finding a primary-care physician that takes Medicare is not that easy - primarily because of the reimbursement record that Medicare has - in a word, AWFUL.  (I live in Prince George's County, Maryland - an aforementioned minority-majority county - and that includes the medical community.  Atop that, I live in the southwestern portion of said county, which means I have to travel to get to primary care - either to another part of the county or outside the county, due to a lack of primary-care providers that take Medicare in my area.)  PPACA is going to force insurers to do what Medicare has done historically to drive costs down - lower reimbursements to doctors.  That invariably means that more of those costs are going to be paid by patients.  That is just at the individual-patient level - and will affect ALL patients - including those normally outside of PPACA's bailiwick, as those inside it will NOT be feeling that pain alone.  In other words, the pain WILL get to you - maybe not yet, but it's coming - count on it.

 

The direct effects are bad enough - and were predicted (and mostly easily predictable) - the indirect effects, however, are going to be more widespread, and far worse, than even the most nightmarish of predictions.

 

I agree with you on Medicare. Medicare has been bilked for decades, ask Ross Perot, though affiliation does not matter here.

 

With regards to the doom and gloom, these effects should be mitigated. Once we commit to universal healthcare, you must be agile. That's difficult with legislation, but not impossible.

 

Instead of "get rid of the Democrat and his socialist plan." And do everything possible to see that it fails as we said it couldn't be done. Everyone should say, yes, we want to cover these people. We've gotten a plan through, let's fix it where it's broken and make this work. I applaud Romney's efforts and am puzzled why he's running away from what he tried to accomplish.