Just Curious... Who Here Has Signed Up Through www.healthcare.gov?

Now three weeks into the launch, has anyone here signed up for Obamacare through www.healthcare.gov?

I should probably preface that with several questions first:

1. Do you plan on signing up for Obamacare?

2. If you plan on getting Obamacare, have you been able to sign up yet?

3. If you don't plan on signing up, why not?

 

Easy, I already have health insurance like the vast, vast majority of working people and Obamacare isn't an issue for over 80% of the country. The only difference for me is that I can no longer be denied for pre-existing medical conditions, I don't have to worry about my college age kids not having health care, and I can't have my insurance coverage maxed out on me.
People who sign up for it are finding a much more affordable alternative than the health care market that existed prior to the ACA. Don't take my word, go google it.

 

A Tale of Two Cities

Apparently if you live in one of the red states where the republican governor has opted out of creating their own insurance exchanges, you are definitely going to have more issues signing up for health insurance through the federal government's health care insurance exchange. A much, much large system than any state-level exchange.
However, if you live in one of the blue states that set up their own insurance exchange, not only are you basically problem free, you have probably noticed already how cheaply you can buy health coverage. I heard one CPA say that she has been receiving calls from her clients asking if it was okay to be getting health coverage so cheaply.

By the way, any story about people having trouble signing up for insurance through the federal health care exchange, will almost always be in a red state.
Now you can blame the federal government for technical difficulties and it would be hard to argue that they have no culpability in creating something that has never been done before and something that is being actively sabotaged by half of the political divide in this country(the law, not the exchange of course). I seriously doubt it was destined to be problem free from the git-go considering those factors.
However, Republican governors bear a lion's share of the responsibility for not setting up their own exchanges and for making it as difficult as possible for their own constituents to buy health care. Again, party over the needs of their constituents is a theme the GOP/Tea Party is comfortable with.
So if you live in a red state and need health care, you can thank your local Right-wingers for the problems you will face. If you are lucky enough to live in a blue state and need health care, the Dems got your back. Thank GOD! I live in a blue state with sane people.

 

Yeah, I have Googled it. The average increase for males is 99% and 62% for females. Remember http://www.partisanlines.com/thread...station-of-obamacare.50553/page-5#post-231312 or http://www.partisanlines.com/thread...station-of-obamacare.50553/page-5#post-231314

 

Inane nonsense again.

 

See http://www.partisanlines.com/thread...station-of-obamacare.50553/page-5#post-231323

We have done this before. Why are you trying again? Also, rates only count when you but the same coverage/deductible.

 

So, you don't plan on signing up for Obamacare? Lucky you. Also, why would you worry about your college-age adults (not kids) not having healthcare coverage? If you wanted them to have it, shouldn't you buy it for them or, as many other college-age adults have done, shouldn't they buy it for themselves? Why should insurance companies be burdened with providing adults free health insurance?

 

I don't need to signup, either...not yet. However, I have an open mind and would like to see what's available. Regardless of how this all pans out...I'll need to consider healthcare at some point so I'm interested to see what this new law means for me.

The website took all my personal information, but then shut down and wouldn't let me see the plans. Was that by design or just a "glitch"...don't know. I'm still interested to know what I would have to pay if I lost my job...or retired early. I've been trying to get back in...no luck.

Btw, why do I have to register to see what's available? ...and once I register, why won't they show me the plans? Something just doesn't add up.

 

I don't even know what you're talking about. I do pay for my kids health insurance because they are still on my group plan which they wouldn't have been without Obamacare. The one in college also pays for student health insurance for colds and the flu and other minor medical problems through his student fees AND has major medical coverage through the school health plan in addition to being covered by my health plan.
I don't know where you get this free health insurance BS from (FOX most likely) but if you do find free health insurance, let the rest of us know will ya? As far as why I cover my kid's health insurance costs.... What a dumb question. It's not like he is sitting on his butt doing nothing at college. He has two different part-time jobs and a full load of courses every semester. I saved all of his tuition in a 429 so he could quit his jobs but he prefers to pay for his own expenses beyond his tuition. If I can help him in any way, I certainly have the means and he has proven with his grades and his work ethic that he deserves my help. Why wouldn't I help him? That's the real question. Nobody helped me at that point in my life and I am just glad that I am able to help him. Wouldn't you do the same for your kids?

 

So, the "vast, vast majority" already have insurance & it "isn't an issue", huh?
Why then is everyone forced to subject themselves to BO's folly? Seems to me a much smaller, opt-in system to benefit those in need would be better & cheaper for the country. Creating a system where employers are reducing worker's hours, cutting jobs & dumping worker's health benefits doesn't seem to serve the greater good, does it?

 

As usual, you can't see the forest for the trees. "Everyone" is by no means subjected to anything good or bad about the new law. You just have been pushing that nonsense and buying into it for so long, you think everyone without exception is doomed to some level of hell thanks to the ACA. I am a perfect example of the 80% that have no part in this law except that my employer sent out a one page letter explaining that since I already had health insurance, there was nothing I had to do. Somehow, I survived that ordeal.
What you don't understand, among many other things, is that the more people that buy into the system, the cheaper and better the system will be. It's called pooled risk. Younger, healthier people will not use as many medical services as say people of child bearing age or older people that aren't quite old enough for Medicare, the actual government run health insurance program. Those younger people support older workers and in turn they will be supported by the next generation. The greater good happens when the 50 or 60 million uninsured actually have health insurance making us all healthier and decreasing expensive ER visits. That and preventative medicine coverage will over time decrease health care costs for everybody. This isn't rocket science, it's basic economics.

 

....and there'll be unicorns dancing & people holding hands & angels singing....

The reality is people won't be able to afford the increased premiums, coverages are worse, deductibles are higher, jobs are being eliminated, hours are being cut, quality of care will suffer, fraud & abuse will be rampant and eventually the whole deal will be so screwed up you'd think the Post Office was running things.

 

So you base your opposition on what you believe will happen? Sarcasm about unicorns and angels might seem wild and unrealistic but then again, so is predicting the future as you seem to believe you can do. You're not looking to understand the ACA as much as you are looking for it to fail. It won't and you'll continue to rail against it all the way to the nursing home. You'll be like that old guy in the wheelchair always complain about the kids on his lawn. See! I can predict the future too.

 

Kinda like you, huh?
The difference, unfortunately, is that several of the things I mentioned have already come to pass.

 

Really? Such as what?

 

Yet somehow, you posted this;

Weren't affected? Do you really think that the insurance companies are giving you those for free. Well, maybe you expect them for free, but most Americans understand they are not free. BTW, you are also paying for pregnancy coverage as I understand it. And birth control. That is at least $3,000 per year according to Fluke's testimony. And ............

 

To what RLM contributed, I'll ask you to recall the employers that cut hours, the employers that cut positions & the employers that eliminated group health insurance. Maybe that didn't affect you because your college kids can now be on your policy but for those who were affected, it probably wasn't a good thing.

 

If being obtuse were an art, you two would be Picasso and Rembrandt.

BTW There is exactly zero evidence the ACA is creating more part-time workers. It's BS.

Obamacare Isn't Cutting Full-Time Jobs: White House
Reuters | Posted: 10/22/2013 12:30 pm EDT

By Jason Lange

WASHINGTON, Oct 22 (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday there was no evidence President Barack Obama's signature healthcare program is driving up the number of part-time workers, challenging the view of many business owners in the country.

Conservative Republicans have pointed to the high level of part-time employment as evidence businesses are cutting hours for their staffs in response to the new healthcare law, which will require them to offer health insurance to full-time workers.

And, indeed, one in five businesses in the service sector think the program, popularly known as "Obamacare," has hurt employment at their firms over the last three months, a National Association of Business Economics survey showed on Monday.

Many businesses polled by the NABE said they were holding back on hiring due to the costs imposed by the law, and the survey also showed 15 percent of service sector firms planned to shift to more part-time workers due to Obamacare.

But economic data on employment has been less compelling.

The number of people with part-time jobs who want full-time work, for example, was essentially flat in September at 7.9 million.

"We are not seeing any effect in the data," Jason Furman, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told Reuters Insider.

Also, the number of part-time workers spiked in 2008, well before Obamacare was enacted, and has been slowly falling as a share of total employment since 2010. In September, people working part time because they could not find full-time work made up 5.5 percent of the employed, unchanged from August.

The spike in 2008 and the steady drift downward since then suggests the elevated level of part-time workers is more likely due to the economy's weakness.

The issue is a sensitive one for the administration, which is also on the defensive over a clunky roll-out of a website workers use to navigate the new health insurance landscape created by Obamacare.

While many economists say there is a logical reason for employers to cut back on workers' hours, the pressure to do so this year eased in July when the White House delayed the beginning of Obamacare's so-called "employer mandate" until January 2015.

Under the mandate, which was previously due to take effect in January 2014, firms with more than 50 employees must provide reasonable healthcare insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours a week.

"Health reform's employer mandate is likely to have some effect on hours worked, but it hasn't yet shown up in the data," Paul Van de Water, an analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, wrote in a report earlier this month.

Ron Axelrad, chief executive of Access Staffing, which places part- and full-time employees across the greater New York City area, said his firm had been getting a lot of calls from companies six months ago about how to prepare for Obamacare.

But the delay of the employer mandate has pushed the issue "out of everyone's mind," he said.

"Probably toward the second or third quarter of next year, companies will be very aware again that they have to prepare," Axelrad added.

 

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf

Oh, and if Obamacare isn't cutting full time employment, Obama is doing it all by himself.

 

I have private insurance through my employer. But I know people who have signed up. My sister-in-law was finally able to provide coverage for herself and two kids because it allowed her to afford it. It was less than 1/3 what she was quoted prior to the bill for less coverage than she's able to get now. Yeah, that may be only one positive example, but I'd bet it's not the only one.