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 22
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-03 10:07:54 AM  
4 votes:
Ten years and $1 trillion later, Saddam Hussein still had nothing to do with 9/11.
2013-10-03 10:07:07 AM  
4 votes:
If half a million people is nothing, why do they get two senators?

upload.wikimedia.org
2013-10-03 08:32:13 AM  
4 votes:
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 10:43:44 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:32:08 AM  
2 votes:
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
2013-10-04 10:26:34 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-10-03 04:45:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:09:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:47:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:12:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:55:30 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:52:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:43:42 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:34:58 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:34:26 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:34:08 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:47:32 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:45:48 AM  
1 votes:
A quarter-million per day?  Pretty impressive.
2013-10-03 10:34:48 AM  
1 votes:
Looks like someone doesn't know the difference between hits, page views, unique visitors and customer orders.
2013-10-03 10:33:26 AM  
1 votes:
...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 10:15:48 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:07:04 AM  
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 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