If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Three years and $313 million later...Covered California still can't get its act together. Only 514,000 sign up in California   (latimes.com) divider line 97
    More: Obvious, obamacare  
•       •       •

1305 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Oct 2013 at 10:02 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-03 08:32:13 AM  
Hasn't it only been 2 days jack assmitter?

half a million in two days is pretty decent, especially when for a portion of the time the website experienced failure
 
2013-10-03 09:07:04 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Hasn't it only been 2 days jack assmitter?

half a million in two days is pretty decent, especially when for a portion of the time the website experienced failure


A lot of these people will wait until the last minute.  Just like they do for taxes.
 
2013-10-03 09:32:08 AM  
OMG ONLY HALF A MILLION CALIFORNIANS SIGNED UP IN THE FIRST TWO DAYS OBLACKMACARE IS A FAILURE SARAH TED PALIN CRUZ IS NOW PRESIDENT WHERE ARE MY VELRO SHOES I KNOW I LEFT THEM SOMEWHERE UP HERE
 
2013-10-03 10:05:51 AM  
Really?? ONLY half a million in two days? I feel awful just knowing that those people have insurance.

/Obama!
 
2013-10-03 10:06:03 AM  
They should have planned for this with a dynamic cloud based traffic plan.  Seems the smartest people for web development were not hired.
 
2013-10-03 10:07:07 AM  
If half a million people is nothing, why do they get two senators?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-10-03 10:07:28 AM  
Actually it's 514k unique online visitors, which probably included 513k people who wanted to just check the site out and see what it looks like.

But yeah this is beyond stupid. DAY 2: Health care crisis not completely solved. How will Obama apologize to the American people?
 
2013-10-03 10:07:54 AM  
Ten years and $1 trillion later, Saddam Hussein still had nothing to do with 9/11.
 
2013-10-03 10:11:25 AM  
A half a million in 2 days is impressive. Sean Hannity you should quit submitting.
 
2013-10-03 10:11:38 AM  
The next accurate headline in the politics tab today will be the first.
 
2013-10-03 10:12:34 AM  
History will remember the horrors that Hussein unleashed upon the world when he tried to give all of America affordable health care.  History will not forgive.
 
2013-10-03 10:15:48 AM  
Oh Noes! A half a million people have health insurance. Won't someone think of the children.......oh wait.

/doing my best Gumby voice
//If it doesn't work 100% right the very first day WE ARE ALL DOOMED*
///Republicans are scared that people will like the ACA. 

*sarcasm
 
2013-10-03 10:21:44 AM  
I got PTSD trying to reach the Obamacare web page and doctors won't help me because they don't take no Obamacare patients.

True story.

Thanks Obama
 
2013-10-03 10:22:16 AM  

Imperialism: The next accurate headline in the politics tab today will be the first.


Relax, the deadline isn't until noon yesterday.
 
2013-10-03 10:25:13 AM  

jaytkay: I got PTSD trying to reach the Obamacare web page and doctors won't help me because they don't take no Obamacare patients.

True story.

Thanks Obama


Damn you got Obamacare already?  I guess they allow a few people to get it before Jan 1
 
2013-10-03 10:29:43 AM  
Only half a million?
What a disaster.

/Trollmitter is trolly.
 
2013-10-03 10:30:10 AM  

TNel: jaytkay: I got PTSD trying to reach the Obamacare web page and doctors won't help me because they don't take no Obamacare patients.

True story.

Thanks Obama

Damn you got Obamacare already?  I guess they allow a few people to get it before Jan 1


Shh, don't tell him that the folks who get it early are really signing up for FEMA Care. Death panels, Acorn, and work camps!
 
2013-10-03 10:31:17 AM  
I blame Francisco Franco.
 
2013-10-03 10:33:26 AM  
...except half a million people didn't "sign up."

Half a million visits, about 7100 actual applications, ZERO actually got insurance - because the people who issue the insurance through the site haven't actually been trained yet.

Oops.
 
2013-10-03 10:34:48 AM  
Looks like someone doesn't know the difference between hits, page views, unique visitors and customer orders.
 
2013-10-03 10:43:44 AM  

cirby: ...except half a million people didn't "sign up."

Half a million visits, about 7100 actual applications, ZERO actually got insurance - because the people who issue the insurance through the site haven't actually been trained yet.

Oops.


Zero got insurance because you can't get insurance until Jan 1
 
2013-10-03 10:45:48 AM  
A quarter-million per day?  Pretty impressive.
 
2013-10-03 10:47:32 AM  
if it's not perfect in its first two days it's a failure so we should go back to the old system which was...um, perfect.

ah the good ol' reliable GOP, rooting for America to fail since 2008.
 
2013-10-03 10:50:09 AM  

TNel: cirby: ...except half a million people didn't "sign up."

Half a million visits, about 7100 actual applications, ZERO actually got insurance - because the people who issue the insurance through the site haven't actually been trained yet.

Oops.

Zero got insurance because you can't get insurance until Jan 1


He's doing busy work.
 
2013-10-03 10:52:43 AM  
I keep trying for Virginia but I have yet to see an actual website, just a please check back our server is being crushed message.
 
2013-10-03 10:53:45 AM  

DarkLancelot: I keep trying for Virginia but I have yet to see an actual website, just a please check back our server is being crushed message.


Did they ever post who they contracted to?  I mean whoever is running those servers need a good smear compaign so nobody will ever choose them again.
 
2013-10-03 10:55:13 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Hasn't it only been 2 days jack assmitter?

half a million in two days is pretty decent, especially when for a portion of the time the website experienced failure


Uhm, submitter is making the case that it has been popular. That seems rather obvious. You seem to have a hair trigger on your panty bunching.

The oopsie of them saying five million on Tuesday isn't even being mocked in that headline.
 
2013-10-03 10:59:39 AM  
I was waiting for the website to come back up. It's up? I'll go sign up.

/says I should be eligible for Medicaid, but who knows if that means I'll actually get help for what's wrong with me
 
2013-10-03 11:00:16 AM  

FlashHarry: OMG ONLY HALF A MILLION CALIFORNIANS SIGNED UP IN THE FIRST TWO DAYS OBLACKMACARE IS A FAILURE SARAH TED PALIN CRUZ IS NOW PRESIDENT WHERE ARE MY VELRO SHOES I KNOW I LEFT THEM SOMEWHERE UP HERE


i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-03 11:02:06 AM  

DarkLancelot: I keep trying for Virginia but I have yet to see an actual website, just a please check back our server is being crushed message.


I thought VA was one of the states that didn't even bother setting up an exchange, thereby kicking us onto the federal exchanges.

/Which is probably not a bad thing, seeing as our current crop of state leaders are a nice derpy shade of red and would probably have screwed it up anyways.
 
2013-10-03 11:05:28 AM  
Look, I'm not fan of ACA at all, but it's a bit premature to be declaring that "no one is signing up!" after the first 48 hours. Especially when people have until March 15 of next year, right?

I think we need to wait until the end of the year and take stock to see what the adoption rate is.

I am also interested to see how many people on the individual market sign up for plans with lesser benefits than what they had previously, and what percentage of exchange sign-up are for the expanded Medicare portion.
 
2013-10-03 11:06:19 AM  

jayhawk88: Actually it's 514k unique online visitors, which probably included 513k people who wanted to just check the site out and see what it looks like.

But yeah this is beyond stupid. DAY 2: Health care crisis not completely solved. How will Obama apologize to the American people?


The website's actually been up for a couple of months now, so I'd think the looky-loos might have gotten it out of their system.  Though the official opening of sign-ups might have brought a fresh batch.
 
2013-10-03 11:08:17 AM  

Submitter: "California still can't get its act together"

Cletus C.: Uhm, submitter is making the case that it has been popular. That seems rather obvious. You seem to have a hair trigger on your panty bunching.


Why lie about something when the truth is at the top of everyone's screen? Is that fun? Is there some purpose?
 
2013-10-03 11:09:40 AM  

unexplained bacon: if it's not perfect in its first two days it's a failure so we should go back to the old system which was...um, perfect.

ah the good ol' reliable GOP, rooting for America to fail since 2008 1938.


FTFY
 
2013-10-03 11:11:32 AM  

jaytkay: Submitter: "California still can't get its act together"

Cletus C.: Uhm, submitter is making the case that it has been popular. That seems rather obvious. You seem to have a hair trigger on your panty bunching.

Why lie about something when the truth is at the top of everyone's screen? Is that fun? Is there some purpose?


Facetious headlines. Not exactly groundbreaking for fark. They're not lies, they're fark. And yes, they're fun.
 
2013-10-03 11:12:19 AM  

Cletus C.: jaytkay: Submitter: "California still can't get its act together"

Cletus C.: Uhm, submitter is making the case that it has been popular. That seems rather obvious. You seem to have a hair trigger on your panty bunching.

Why lie about something when the truth is at the top of everyone's screen? Is that fun? Is there some purpose?

Facetious headlines. Not exactly groundbreaking for fark. They're not lies, they're fark. And yes, they're fun.


Doh, I get it now.

Sorry.
 
2013-10-03 11:13:30 AM  

Cletus C.: Facetious headlines. Not exactly groundbreaking for fark. They're not lies, they're fark. And yes, they're fun.


Except for "hot chick" headlines that lure the reader into a page that requires eye-bleach.
 
2013-10-03 11:13:57 AM  

WaitWhatWhy: DarkLancelot: I keep trying for Virginia but I have yet to see an actual website, just a please check back our server is being crushed message.

I thought VA was one of the states that didn't even bother setting up an exchange, thereby kicking us onto the federal exchanges.

/Which is probably not a bad thing, seeing as our current crop of state leaders are a nice derpy shade of red and would probably have screwed it up anyways.


I'm actually surprised red states didn't agree to set up exchanges just so they could deliberately screw things up. Deliberately screwing up is pretty much their thing, now.
 
2013-10-03 11:14:03 AM  
$313-million online enrollment system

Seriously? A third of a billion dollars for a website?
 
2013-10-03 11:14:10 AM  

cirby: ...except half a million people didn't "sign up."

Half a million visits, about 7100 actual applications, ZERO actually got insurance - because the people who issue the insurance through the site haven't actually been trained yet.

Oops.


That's 2k per day so far and we're not even through the third day, you turd.  Yes, there are technical problems.  They will be sorted out well before the mid term elections and people will have forgotten about this so just shut the fark up.
 
2013-10-03 11:14:27 AM  
 
2013-10-03 11:14:54 AM  

jigger: $313-million online enrollment system

Seriously? A third of a billion dollars for a website?


Yes, a web-enabled medical enrollment system is nothing more than a Website. That's an accurate understanding. You're very bright.
 
2013-10-03 11:15:07 AM  

monoski: Cletus C.: Facetious headlines. Not exactly groundbreaking for fark. They're not lies, they're fark. And yes, they're fun.

Except for "hot chick" headlines that lure the reader into a page that requires eye-bleach.


Oh come on, yes you would.
 
2013-10-03 11:15:39 AM  
It seems that nobody, including submitter, RTFA. That's 514,000 unique hits to the website, not people who actually signed up. Good luck finding that number. It's something like 1, 2, or 0.
 
2013-10-03 11:16:13 AM  

cubic_spleen: unexplained bacon: if it's not perfect in its first two days it's a failure so we should go back to the old system which was...um, perfect.

ah the good ol' reliable GOP, rooting for America to fail since 2008 1938 1860.

FTFY


FTFTFY.
 
2013-10-03 11:16:30 AM  
Need health insurance? The Obama administration has you covered. Simply dial 1-800-farkYO to reach the next available health-care provider.
 
2013-10-03 11:18:40 AM  

LasersHurt: jigger: $313-million online enrollment system

Seriously? A third of a billion dollars for a website?

Yes, a web-enabled medical enrollment system is nothing more than a Website. That's an accurate understanding. You're very bright.


Yeah, it's not much more than a website. What part of online did you not get?
 
2013-10-03 11:20:19 AM  

jigger: It seems that nobody, including submitter, RTFA. That's 514,000 unique hits to the website, not people who actually signed up. Good luck finding that number. It's something like 1, 2, or 0.


Dont worry the first 10 libs that posted think that it was 500k that now have great health insurance. Nevermind the fact that if you go by what other states are reporting the number of people that actually signed up for coverage range from 0-1%.
 
2013-10-03 11:21:37 AM  
There are currently 7.2 million Californians who go without health insurance or coverage all or part of the year.

514,000 / 7,200,000 = .0714 (roughly)

A number roughly equal to 7% of California's uninsured visited in a single day, and that's not impressive? At that pace, we'd have 7.2 million visitors in 2 weeks.

2 weeks to get info to everyone.

2 weeks.

thirtytwentythree.com
 
2013-10-03 11:25:51 AM  

I alone am best: jigger: It seems that nobody, including submitter, RTFA. That's 514,000 unique hits to the website, not people who actually signed up. Good luck finding that number. It's something like 1, 2, or 0.

Dont worry the first 10 libs that posted think that it was 500k that now have great health insurance. Nevermind the fact that if you go by what other states are reporting the number of people that actually signed up for coverage range from 0-1%.


Any number above zero at the end of the year is a win in my book.  Damn poor people shouldn't have insurance am I right?
 
2013-10-03 11:27:57 AM  

usernameguy: WaitWhatWhy: DarkLancelot: I keep trying for Virginia but I have yet to see an actual website, just a please check back our server is being crushed message.

I thought VA was one of the states that didn't even bother setting up an exchange, thereby kicking us onto the federal exchanges.

/Which is probably not a bad thing, seeing as our current crop of state leaders are a nice derpy shade of red and would probably have screwed it up anyways.

I'm actually surprised red states didn't agree to set up exchanges just so they could deliberately screw things up. Deliberately screwing up is pretty much their thing, now.


See, that would have been smart, and if there's one thing the GOP is bad at, it's smart.
 
2013-10-03 11:34:08 AM  

Peki: I was waiting for the website to come back up. It's up? I'll go sign up.

/says I should be eligible for Medicaid, but who knows if that means I'll actually get help for what's wrong with me


Okay done. Need to prove residency but other than that, was a piece of cake.
 
2013-10-03 11:34:12 AM  
Subby must be a Mets fan..
 
2013-10-03 11:34:26 AM  
Here's been my L.A. experience talking to people about ACA in the past two days.

1. People assume "government shutdown" means they can't sign up right now.

2. Nobody wants to be the website's early adopter; waiting until glitches cleared.

3. People who need Obamacare are working their asses off and don't have time during the week to sign up.

4. "Healthcare-dot-gov? Can you write that out for me?"

5. "I don't trust computers. Where can I go in-person to sign up?"

That said, the moment I used the website at work at least five coworkers and a boss swarmed me. Once people find out Obamacare is cheaper than a cellphone bill they'll be signing up quick.

I've looked but haven't signed up yet. Reason #2.
 
2013-10-03 11:34:58 AM  

Peki: I was waiting for the website to come back up. It's up? I'll go sign up.

/says I should be eligible for Medicaid, but who knows if that means I'll actually get help for what's wrong with me


I was able to create an account yesterday at healthcare.gov, but I have not been able to use it to log into to see the market place. I spoke with someone who suggested either waiting until next week or signing on during the off-peak hours of 12Am to 5AM EDT. Not sure where you live, but I wish you luck.
 
2013-10-03 11:35:41 AM  

TNel: I alone am best: jigger: It seems that nobody, including submitter, RTFA. That's 514,000 unique hits to the website, not people who actually signed up. Good luck finding that number. It's something like 1, 2, or 0.

Dont worry the first 10 libs that posted think that it was 500k that now have great health insurance. Nevermind the fact that if you go by what other states are reporting the number of people that actually signed up for coverage range from 0-1%.

Any number above zero at the end of the year is a win in my book.  Damn poor people shouldn't have insurance am I right?


They will be fined if they don't, so no, they should have insurance. They better sign up but they have some time still. If they're poor, subsidies will help them a lot.
 
2013-10-03 11:38:45 AM  

TNel: Any number above zero at the end of the year is a win in my book. Damn poor people shouldn't have insurance am I right?


That's an awfully low and simple minded threshold.

Keep in mind that the truly poor can already get Medicare/Medicaid, especially with the expansion, and not all the Exchange plans are actually better than plans that were available on the individual market.

So some of these people may end up paying as much and possibly more (especially the single, young, healthy ones) than they had before.

And in most cases, the exchanges eliminate previous individual plans, so some number of people who already HAD insurance will be signing up on the exchanges which does not give anyone new insurance.

Lastly, even the CBO is only anticipating that about 1 out of every 7 people eligible for a plan under the exchanges will actually sign up, so I think anything below 15% of eligible people signing up would be considered a "failure". (Although I personally think that all this money and effort for less than 15% of the roughly 15% of the population currently without insurance would be a failure).
 
2013-10-03 11:41:29 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: TNel: Any number above zero at the end of the year is a win in my book. Damn poor people shouldn't have insurance am I right?

That's an awfully low and simple minded threshold.

Keep in mind that the truly poor can already get Medicare/Medicaid, especially with the expansion, and not all the Exchange plans are actually better than plans that were available on the individual market.

So some of these people may end up paying as much and possibly more (especially the single, young, healthy ones) than they had before.

And in most cases, the exchanges eliminate previous individual plans, so some number of people who already HAD insurance will be signing up on the exchanges which does not give anyone new insurance.

Lastly, even the CBO is only anticipating that about 1 out of every 7 people eligible for a plan under the exchanges will actually sign up, so I think anything below 15% of eligible people signing up would be considered a "failure". (Although I personally think that all this money and effort for less than 15% of the roughly 15% of the population currently without insurance would be a failure).


So what's "truly poor" to you mean?  So keep with the status quo and have everyone run to the ER everytime they have a cold at the tune of thousands per incident that get's paid by tax payers every year?
 
2013-10-03 11:43:42 AM  
I was finally able to get onto my state's exchange website, which had problems the last couple of days.

After going through a lengthy application process and filling out endless forms, I was presented with a list of potential choices for insurance coverage for my family.

These plans are incredible. Deductibles around a thousand dollars, waived for most stuff, annual max out of pocket that's a little higher than I'd like, but livable... $20 office visits, $10 prescriptions, 80% coinsurance with an out of pocket max that will sting but won't kill me.

They're PPO plans, we get to keep our current doctors, pay less, and with credits our premiums will be less than the cost of my car payment.

I knew the ACA was going to be good, but this- this is beyond anything I could have expected. As a freelancer and small business owner, this will make my life so much simpler, and enable me to focus on growing my business instead of worrying about having to go back to work in the corporate sector.

I farking love it.
 
2013-10-03 11:46:08 AM  

DeaH: I was able to create an account yesterday at healthcare.gov, but I have not been able to use it to log into to see the market place.


You have over two months to sign up and the coverage doesn't begin until January.

There's no rush.
 
2013-10-03 11:52:06 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: TNel: Any number above zero at the end of the year is a win in my book. Damn poor people shouldn't have insurance am I right?

That's an awfully low and simple minded threshold.

Keep in mind that the truly poor can already get Medicare/Medicaid, especially with the expansion, and not all the Exchange plans are actually better than plans that were available on the individual market.

So some of these people may end up paying as much and possibly more (especially the single, young, healthy ones) than they had before.


Wrong. I looked into a plan before ACA and the prices were about $175 - $295 a month. ACA is saying my plans could range from $36 - $107 a month, and the plans themselves are light years better as far as deductibles, copays, meds, etc. So not only am I saving per month but I'll be buying services at a greater discount.
 
2013-10-03 11:53:58 AM  

TNel: BojanglesPaladin: TNel: Any number above zero at the end of the year is a win in my book. Damn poor people shouldn't have insurance am I right?

That's an awfully low and simple minded threshold.

Keep in mind that the truly poor can already get Medicare/Medicaid, especially with the expansion, and not all the Exchange plans are actually better than plans that were available on the individual market.

So some of these people may end up paying as much and possibly more (especially the single, young, healthy ones) than they had before.

And in most cases, the exchanges eliminate previous individual plans, so some number of people who already HAD insurance will be signing up on the exchanges which does not give anyone new insurance.

Lastly, even the CBO is only anticipating that about 1 out of every 7 people eligible for a plan under the exchanges will actually sign up, so I think anything below 15% of eligible people signing up would be considered a "failure". (Although I personally think that all this money and effort for less than 15% of the roughly 15% of the population currently without insurance would be a failure).

So what's "truly poor" to you mean?  So keep with the status quo and have everyone run to the ER everytime they have a cold at the tune of thousands per incident that get's paid by tax payers every year?


Also, he needs to keep in mind what "coverage" means.

California does not recognize adult ADHD, so my stepdad is SOL. I'm on the cusp of being effectively untreatable: most of the treatment I'll need will have high copays (shrinks: I have PTSD plus two sleep disorders), and HealthyWayLA would only cover six free shrink appointments per year. I went through that in two months, so if Medicaid is the same. . . . Anything in the $100 range effectively means it's too expensive, as our income is ~$100 a week, and we're feeding five adults. I also probably won't be able to afford treatment for my psoriasis at ~$2,000 a year, if they can convince me to take the shots. The cream is less but will take forever as I'm around 15% body coverage at this point--1% is roughly the size of your palm, for reference, and for me that includes a skull cap that covers my forehead, eyebrows (not eyes), and muttonchop area (I'm female, so thank god I don't have to try to shave too). It's also receding on its own, so I'm tempted to just see if California sun will take care of it.

I'm hopeful and optimistic, but I'm not expecting miracles. I'm more hopeful that getting healthcare this way will make navigating disability a little easier. We'll see.
 
2013-10-03 11:55:30 AM  

qorkfiend: cubic_spleen: unexplained bacon: if it's not perfect in its first two days it's a failure so we should go back to the old system which was...um, perfect.

ah the good ol' reliable GOP, rooting for America to fail since 2008 1938 1860.

FTFY

FTFTFY.


Nah, Lincoln was a pro-civil-rights liberal (for his time) who fought against rich Southern conservatives to keep the country from falling apart.  He also greatly expanded the powers of the federal government in the process.
 
2013-10-03 12:12:32 PM  

Cyclometh: I was finally able to get onto my state's exchange website, which had problems the last couple of days.

After going through a lengthy application process and filling out endless forms, I was presented with a list of potential choices for insurance coverage for my family.

These plans are incredible. Deductibles around a thousand dollars, waived for most stuff, annual max out of pocket that's a little higher than I'd like, but livable... $20 office visits, $10 prescriptions, 80% coinsurance with an out of pocket max that will sting but won't kill me.

They're PPO plans, we get to keep our current doctors, pay less, and with credits our premiums will be less than the cost of my car payment.

I knew the ACA was going to be good, but this- this is beyond anything I could have expected. As a freelancer and small business owner, this will make my life so much simpler, and enable me to focus on growing my business instead of worrying about having to go back to work in the corporate sector.

I farking love it.


You're pretty much the poster boy for why Republicans will never back down on this.

They branded it as Obamacare and have spent every fiber of their beings opposing it, and people will farking love it.
 
2013-10-03 12:13:45 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: They branded it as Obamacare and have spent every fiber of their beings opposing it, and people will farking love it.


The biggest complaint I've seen so far is the application process takes a while- lots of forms to fill out, and that's a PITA when you just want to get costs. But you can't get those costs until all the info is filled out, so...
 
2013-10-03 12:16:19 PM  

TNel: So what's "truly poor" to you mean?


I think it's something like 133% above the federal poverty line?

TNel: So keep with the status quo and have everyone run to the ER every time they have a cold at the tune of thousands per incident that get's paid by tax payers every year?


Why on earth would you think I am advocating that? I did not say I opposed people getting health insurance, I said your standard of "anything above zero" was wrong.

Also, don't you think that there is ALSO a problem with a system that charges "thousands per incident" for a case of the sniffles? And maybe we should be addressing the ROOT problems? And in case you are unaware, the taxpayers are pitching in to pay for many of the exchange plans too, so the 'save taxpayer money' angle isn't a perfect argument either.
 
2013-10-03 12:32:17 PM  

jaytkay: Cletus C.: jaytkay: Submitter: "California still can't get its act together"

Cletus C.: Uhm, submitter is making the case that it has been popular. That seems rather obvious. You seem to have a hair trigger on your panty bunching.
Why lie about something when the truth is at the top of everyone's screen? Is that fun? Is there some purpose?
Facetious headlines. Not exactly groundbreaking for fark. They're not lies, they're fark. And yes, they're fun.

Doh, I get it now.
Sorry.


I submitted because I wanted to point out that the servers crashed with low numbers of viewers. Spending $313 million for a website and having it crash with less than half a million people viewing it is just sad. You would think that kind of money would buy you multiple computers throughout the state that could handle pretty much ANY kind of traffic.

I admit the headline was clumsily written, that is my fault. After I submitted it I came up with a better one.

"3 Years and $313 million for servers that fail on the first day? Drew could build non-crashing servers for them and use the other $312 million for beer!"
 
2013-10-03 12:36:59 PM  

Cyclometh: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: They branded it as Obamacare and have spent every fiber of their beings opposing it, and people will farking love it.

The biggest complaint I've seen so far is the application process takes a while- lots of forms to fill out, and that's a PITA when you just want to get costs. But you can't get those costs until all the info is filled out, so...


CA has a rate calculator.
https://www.coveredca.com/shopandcompare/
 
2013-10-03 12:37:36 PM  

SnapeShots: Spending $313 million for a website and having it crash with less than half a million people viewing it is just sad.


It seems it was actually much, much less.

"State officials said the Covered California website got 645,000 hits during the first day of enrollment, far fewer than the 5 million it reported Tuesday".
"Dana Howard, a spokesman for Covered California, said the error was the result of internal miscommunication."
"Someone misspoke and thought it was indeed 5 million hits. That was incorrect," he said.

So yeah. It's even more of a website fail than we thought.
 
2013-10-03 12:39:32 PM  

Peki: TNel: BojanglesPaladin: TNel: Any number above zero at the end of the year is a win in my book. Damn poor people shouldn't have insurance am I right?

That's an awfully low and simple minded threshold.

Keep in mind that the truly poor can already get Medicare/Medicaid, especially with the expansion, and not all the Exchange plans are actually better than plans that were available on the individual market.

So some of these people may end up paying as much and possibly more (especially the single, young, healthy ones) than they had before.

And in most cases, the exchanges eliminate previous individual plans, so some number of people who already HAD insurance will be signing up on the exchanges which does not give anyone new insurance.

Lastly, even the CBO is only anticipating that about 1 out of every 7 people eligible for a plan under the exchanges will actually sign up, so I think anything below 15% of eligible people signing up would be considered a "failure". (Although I personally think that all this money and effort for less than 15% of the roughly 15% of the population currently without insurance would be a failure).

So what's "truly poor" to you mean?  So keep with the status quo and have everyone run to the ER everytime they have a cold at the tune of thousands per incident that get's paid by tax payers every year?

Also, he needs to keep in mind what "coverage" means.

California does not recognize adult ADHD, so my stepdad is SOL. I'm on the cusp of being effectively untreatable: most of the treatment I'll need will have high copays (shrinks: I have PTSD plus two sleep disorders), and HealthyWayLA would only cover six free shrink appointments per year. I went through that in two months, so if Medicaid is the same. . . . Anything in the $100 range effectively means it's too expensive, as our income is ~$100 a week, and we're feeding five adults. I also probably won't be able to afford treatment for my psoriasis at ~$2,000 a year, if they can convince me to take the shots. The cream is less but will take forever as I'm around 15% body coverage at this point--1% is roughly the size of your palm, for reference, and for me that includes a skull cap that covers my forehead, eyebrows (not eyes), and muttonchop area (I'm female, so thank god I don't have to try to shave too). It's also receding on its own, so I'm tempted to just see if California sun will take care of it.

I'm hopeful and optimistic, but I'm not expecting miracles. I'm more hopeful that getting healthcare this way will make navigating disability a little easier. We'll see.


Income of $5,200/year for family of 5? That's definitely Medicaid, public housing, food stamps, etc. level.

Good luck.
 
2013-10-03 12:41:06 PM  

SnapeShots: Drew could build non-crashing servers for them


ahhh hahahahhahahah

hhahahhahahhahahha
 
2013-10-03 12:47:04 PM  

SnapeShots: less than half a million people


BojanglesPaladin: It seems it was actually much, much less....645,000

...

Conservative math. Always good for laughs.
 
2013-10-03 12:47:58 PM  

jaytkay: DeaH: I was able to create an account yesterday at healthcare.gov, but I have not been able to use it to log into to see the market place.

You have over two months to sign up and the coverage doesn't begin until January.

There's no rush.


I am eager. I want to see what's there.
 
2013-10-03 12:51:49 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: SnapeShots: Spending $313 million for a website and having it crash with less than half a million people viewing it is just sad.

It seems it was actually much, much less.

"State officials said the Covered California website got 645,000 hits during the first day of enrollment, far fewer than the 5 million it reported Tuesday".
"Dana Howard, a spokesman for Covered California, said the error was the result of internal miscommunication."
"Someone misspoke and thought it was indeed 5 million hits. That was incorrect," he said.

So yeah. It's even more of a website fail than we thought.


In other news 645 thousand is less than half a million.
 
2013-10-03 01:06:53 PM  
No.....514,000 visited the website. They did not buy insurance.

Get your facts straight subby.
 
2013-10-03 01:16:33 PM  

jaytkay: Conservative math. Always good for laughs.


What are you even talking about? I quoted from the LA Times report who were quoting the ACTUAL SPOKESMAN FO RTHE EXCHANGE.

State officials said the Covered California website got 645,000 hits during the first day of enrollment, far fewer than the 5 million it reported Tuesday.
The state exchange had cited the 5 million figure as a sign of strong consumer interest and a major reason people had so much difficulty using its $313-million online enrollment system.
Dana Howard, a spokesman for Covered California, said the error was the result of internal miscommunication.
"Someone misspoke and thought it was indeed 5 million hits. That was incorrect," he said.


Seriously. It was in the quote you read. Maybe you should log off and let the grownups talk?
 
2013-10-03 01:22:58 PM  

BojanglesPaladin:
Lastly, even the CBO is only anticipating that about 1 out of every 7 people eligible for a plan under the exchanges will actually sign up, so I think anything below 15% of eligible people signing up would be considered a "failure". (Although I personally think that all this money and effort for less than 15% of the roughly 15% of the population currently without insurance would be a failure).


In our current projections for 2023, the ACA reduces the number of people without health insurance by 25 million

25 million is 15% of 166.6 million, which is 15% of 1.1 billion people. I think there's something wrong with your math.
 
2013-10-03 01:26:32 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: What are you even talking about?


Somebody wrote "half a million" You responded to that person saying 645,000 is less than half a million.

More than one person pointed it out to you.
 
2013-10-03 01:53:37 PM  

Dansker: 25 million is 15% of 166.6 million, which is 15% of 1.1 billion people.


Why are you using 1.1 Billion? I believe the entire population of the United States is about 314 Million?

jaytkay: Somebody wrote "half a million" You responded to that person saying 645,000 is less than half a million.


Ah. You are correct. I was responding to the 5 million number, which is what my quote referenced.
 
2013-10-03 02:05:14 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Dansker: 25 million is 15% of 166.6 million, which is 15% of 1.1 billion people.

Why are you using 1.1 Billion? I believe the entire population of the United States is about 314 Million?


Excactly. I was trying to show you that your math was wrong; "all this money and effort" is for MORE than 15% of 15% of the US population.
The most recent CBO estimate, to which I linked, says that the ACA will reduce the number of uninsured by 25 million over ten years. I don't know where you got the part about 1 out of 7.
 
2013-10-03 02:15:40 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Why are you using 1.1 Billion? I believe the entire population of the United States is about 314 Million?


Dansker: the ACA will reduce the number of uninsured by 25 million over ten years


Maybe "15% of the roughly 15% of the population" is a short-term estimate?

The 25 million is over ten years.
 
2013-10-03 02:19:04 PM  

jaytkay: BojanglesPaladin: Why are you using 1.1 Billion? I believe the entire population of the United States is about 314 Million?

Dansker: the ACA will reduce the number of uninsured by 25 million over ten years

Maybe "15% of the roughly 15% of the population" is a short-term estimate?

The 25 million is over ten years.


Yes, that's what I said. But I don't see the "1 out of 7 eligible" thing anywhere in the CBO estimate.
 
2013-10-03 02:22:51 PM  
this is what I get when I try to apply

Oracle Access Manager Operation Error
Access to the URL /apspahbx/ahbx.portal has been denied for user.
Contact your website administrator to remedy this problem.


Cutting edge of technology
 
2013-10-03 03:48:36 PM  

Dansker: Excactly. I was trying to show you that your math was wrong; "all this money and effort" is for MORE than 15% of 15% of the US population.The most recent CBO estimate, to which I linked, says that the ACA will reduce the number of uninsured by 25 million over ten years.


That doesn't answer where you got the 1.1 Billion number from, or why you are using it.

I'm trying to find the cites from a thread a week or more ago, but let's just run through it again:

According to the Census' Current Population Survey (CPS) during 2011, an estimated 48.61 million people were without insurance, or 15.7% of the population.

55.1% of the population was covered by employer-sponsored insurance
15.2% of the population was covered by Medicare
16.5% of the population was covered by Medicaid
15.7% of the population was uninsured
aspe.hhs.gov

Based on CBO numbers, the Obama administration is counting on signing up 7 million Americans, including 2.7 million younger and healthier consumers who are needed to offset the costs of sicker members, in the first full year of reform through the state exchanges.

So about 50 million Americans are without insurance. (15% of 314 Million). The administration is expecting no more than 7 million to get on the exchanges. 7 Million X 7 = 49 Million.

So about 1 in 7 of the approximately 50 Million currently without insurance are expected to do so in the next year.

Obviously, these are estimates and rough numbers, but its about right.

/Now, the CBO and JCT now project that fewer people will be enrolled in health insurance exchanges than estimated previously-for example, 24 million in 2023 rather than 25 million. So over the next DECADE, there will be more, but then the overall population will also increase, so I don't know what the future percentages might be, or why the other 6 out of 7 would wait 2-10 years to join. But even if that number is right, and the population doesn't grow at all, that is STILL barely half of the currently uninsured getting insured through the exchanges.
 
2013-10-03 03:54:31 PM  

Dansker: Yes, that's what I said. But I don't see the "1 out of 7 eligible" thing anywhere in the CBO estimate.


Probably because the CBO doc you linked to is talking about costs, budgets and dollars, and not numbers of people who are expected to sign up. I have linked to that doc, but haven't had a chance to dig to find it.

It's a pretty well known number, and one the White House themselves frequently reference.

Here is a recent report referencing it. (While pointing out that investors think the actual number is closer to 4 million)

Here is another from the day they opened, which says "This year, 7 million people are expected to use the exchanges to buy private insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
 
2013-10-03 04:09:16 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Dansker: Excactly. I was trying to show you that your math was wrong; "all this money and effort" is for MORE than 15% of 15% of the US population.The most recent CBO estimate, to which I linked, says that the ACA will reduce the number of uninsured by 25 million over ten years.

That doesn't answer where you got the 1.1 Billion number from, or why you are using it.


That is how large the US population would have to be, for all that money and effort beiing spent for only 15% of 15% of the population.
The point is that 25 million is more than 15% of 15%.

...
Based on CBO numbers, the Obama administration is counting on signing up 7 million Americans, including 2.7 million younger and healthier consumers who are needed to offset the costs of sicker members, in the first full year of reform through the state exchanges.


In the first year. The effort and money spend to establish the exchanges is aimed at long term results, not just one year.

So about 50 million Americans are without insurance. (15% of 314 Million). The administration is expecting no more than 7 million to get on the exchanges. 7 Million X 7 = 49 Million.

CBO is independent, and doesn't speak for the administration. I'd expect Obama & Friends hope that more than that will sign up.
And CBO estimates that 25 million will enroll: "CBO and JCT now project that fewer people will be enrolled in health insurance exchanges than estimated previously-for example, 24 million in 2023 rather than 25 million."

So about 1 in 7 of the approximately 50 Million currently without insurance are expected to do so in the next year.

And the ACA will presumably exist for more than a year, so the money and effort is not just for the benefit of those who sign up ion the first year.
 
2013-10-03 04:16:49 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Dansker: Yes, that's what I said. But I don't see the "1 out of 7 eligible" thing anywhere in the CBO estimate.

Probably because the CBO doc you linked to is talking about costs, budgets and dollars, and not numbers of people who are expected to sign up.


It also talks about numbers of people signing up, as you can see in the bit I quoted above. Or just follow the link and read, if you don't believe me.

...
Here is another from the day they opened, which says "This year, 7 million people are expected to use the exchanges to buy private insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office."


But why are you so focused on the first year? In the comment of yours, that I replied to first, you sounded like you thought the 1 in 7 signing up would be the end result of all this money and effort. By CBO's estimete it will benefit far more Americans than that.
 
2013-10-03 04:24:47 PM  

Dansker: CBO is independent, and doesn't speak for the administration.


I did not suggest they did. You SEE that I specifically said "Based on CBO numbers, the Obama administration is counting on signing up 7 million Americans", right?  The Administration is citing CBO numbers (because they are impartial). The number came from the CBO. I provided some links. This is common knowledge stuff, man. And that doesn't change anything about my point.

Dansker: I'd expect Obama & Friends hope that more than that will sign up.


Expect what you want. The administration has repeatedly referenced "up to 7 million in the first year". I cannot speak to what they may be "hoping".

Dansker: And the ACA will presumably exist for more than a year, so the money and effort is not just for the benefit of those who sign up ion the first year.


Again, you SEE that I referenced the CBO estimates through 2023 and even addressed that. Even a best case of barely half isn't very good considering all the resources, IMHO.

But here, we were talking about the money spent to set up the exchanges websites, and plans, etc. which are required for the fisrt people who sign up. That others, may later also do so doesn't change that. And these costs continue. next year there will be MORE money spent for next year's joiners,

Undskyld mig, but I said it seemed like a poor return, but I also said your mileage may vary. You asked where the "1 in 7" came from, and I showed it to you a couple different ways, and nothing you are saying here seems to be an attempt to dispute it.

Was there something else you were looking for from me, or was there some other point you wanted to make?
 
2013-10-03 04:30:10 PM  

Dansker: But why are you so focused on the first year?


Why are you so focused on extremely unreliable predictions of the long term future?

Because that is what I am talking about. If you notice above, I said that we had to wait at LEAST until the end of this year to draw conclusions, and I think a year is about as far out as we can reliably make predictions, and a year is enough time to see how it has gone. The fact that even optimistic projections from advocates are only 1 out of 7 (with other estimates being much lower) is why I think the exchanges are a poor way of trying to solve the problem. Even if it was TWICE that, I would still consider it a flop.

Dansker: In the comment of yours, that I replied to first, you sounded like you thought the 1 in 7 signing up would be the end result of all this money and effort.


That is an inference you drew, not something I implied. When we are talking about first DAYS results, I have no idea why you would jump to the conclusion that I really meant from now into the indefinite future.
 
2013-10-03 04:39:24 PM  

BojanglesPaladin:
Again, you SEE that I referenced the CBO estimates through 2023 and even addressed that. Even a best case of barely half isn't very good considering all the resources, IMHO


IMHO 25 million is a regular shiatload of people..

But here, we were talking about the money spent to set up the exchanges websites, and plans, etc. which are required for the fisrt people who sign up. That others, may later also do so doesn't change that. And these costs continue. next year there will be MORE money spent for next year's joiners,

I assume the websites etc. will continue to exist, so the money spend on signing people up in following years should be significantly lower than the cost of establishing the whole thing in the first place.

Was there something else you were looking for from me, or was there some other point you wantd to make?

I've made my point: The ACA will benefit far more than 7 million Americans.
And thanks for making the effort of politeness in my native tongue. Unexpected and very friendly-like.
 
2013-10-03 04:45:42 PM  

BojanglesPaladin:
Dansker: In the comment of yours, that I replied to first, you sounded like you thought the 1 in 7 signing up would be the end result of all this money and effort.

That is an inference you drew, not something I implied. When we are talking about first DAYS results, I have no idea why you would jump to the conclusion that I really meant from now into the indefinite future.


Because you said: I personally think that all this money and effort for less than 15% of the roughly 15% of the population currently without insurance would be a failure, and I didn't think a reasonable påerson would deem something, which is supposed to run for years and years, a success of failure after just one year. I stand corrected, figuratively.
Let's stop here, there are more interesting threads than this one.
 
2013-10-03 06:39:51 PM  

Dansker: And thanks for making the effort of politeness in my native tongue. Unexpected and very friendly-like.


I'm surprised given how long you and I have been here that you hadn't noticed that I am a son of an immigrant. Without giving away personal information on the internet, let's just say that by now, I can drive from Copenhagen to Roskilde by memory and I say "Hosay Annerson" when talking about a certain fairytale author :)

(But to be clear, Jeg kan tale meget lidt dansk)

I'm glad we cleared up that my comments were about the initial start up specifically of the exchanges, and not the entirety of ACA, which was the root of the disagreement. (Although I still hold that regardless of how badly reform was needed, ACA is doing it wrong in a huge number of ways).

Have a good day/Hav en god dag
 
2013-10-04 04:22:54 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Dansker: And thanks for making the effort of politeness in my native tongue. Unexpected and very friendly-like.

I'm surprised given how long you and I have been here that you hadn't noticed that I am a son of an immigrant.


Well, I knew you were a son of a ... something;)
But I'm sure, if it had come up in our polite exchanges of opinions, that I would have remembered a Danish connection. Duly noted now.
And what the hell: If you ever find yourself in København again, drop me line if you want to share a beer with a stupid libtard. I'll buy the first round.

(Although I still hold that regardless of how badly reform was needed, ACA is doing it wrong in a huge number of ways).

Is the lack of a public option one of them? From my distant vantage point that seems like the biggest flaw.

Have a good day/Hav en god dag

You too, halfdane.
 
2013-10-04 10:26:34 AM  

Dansker: Is the lack of a public option one of them? From my distant vantage point that seems like the biggest flaw.


Not really, though I have no particular beef if we decided to let anyone who wanted to buy into Medicare. My issues are mostly that ACA does little if anything to control the rising costs of both health care insurance and healthcare itself. These were the actual problems that desperately needed reform, and despite all the vague promises of "savings" these problems are not being addressed. Instead we got a convoluted, overcomplex, overly expensive, overly bureaucratic mess of government entangling regulatory interference that seem to be making things worse for the majority of Americans who were already insured and the businesses who were already insuring their employees (of which I am one). With payout cuts to healthcare providers, all kinds of taxes, fees, and additional expenses, not to mention tying it into the tax code and creating a new army of IRS auditors to enforce the mandate and a variety of other red tape monsters, it seems to be far more oriented toward increasing the involvement power of the federal government than in just fixing what was broken. Even the CBO has concluded that health care costs under ACA will be higher than if we had done nothing.

b-i.forbesimg.com

Now that is not to say that Everything about ACA is terrible. There are some gold nuggets in the turd pile, like coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime caps, and a few others. I am happy to see that improvements were made, but these could have been done in and of themselves without spending a trillion dollars or whatever the 10 year estimate is. For the most part, this was a godawful pig in the poke government over reach so full of contradictions and "to be determined" and ineffective power grabbing.

I have no doubt that you favor public health care (interestingly, My Dad is one of the most vehement opponents of public health care you will ever meet, having seen it fail family members), but the ACA is not that. It's just bad policy. Well intentioned to be sure, incorporating a handful of genuinely good reforms, certainly.

But damaging, bad, ineffective policy on the whole. It is proof that sometimes "Something, Anything!" is NOT better than nothing,

/Just my .02 kroner.
 
2013-10-04 10:59:53 AM  
Clarification: The graph is not from the CBO. It's from a Forbes article discussing CBO numbers. I notice that it may appear to be cited as a CBO graph because of its placement in mu post, but it is NOT.
 
2013-10-04 10:56:27 PM  
I sincerely hope your pessimism will be proved wrong with time. From what I understand, people are already seeing lower rates, and providing more people coverage, even if it's only 7 million in the first year, and getting them away from using the ER instead of seeing a doctor will definitely result in some savings.
I'll be surpised, if you're still spending close to 18% of your GDP on health in five years, but we'll just have to wait and see.
 
2013-10-04 11:02:05 PM  
Yay, graphs!
img.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 97 of 97 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report