The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I've been kind of tuning this crap out but it has been reported that more people have lost their insurance then have been able to sign up for insurance. The president has been caught in lies of "you will be able to keep your insurance" and then denying he even said that the dozen or so times he did.

Obviously the website was/is a debacle and things couldn't have gone much worse I don't think.  With more and more confusing things about this surfacing week by week has anyone changed their minds about Obamacare?

2.5 million Americans have lost their individual medical insurance policies since the Affordable Care Act became law

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2491792/Obama-says-sorry-healthcare-shambles-broken-promises-medical-insurance-cancellations.html#ixzz2k1CNWEcO

I haven't changed my mind on Obamacare, but my level of annoyance regarding people bashing the president has grown exponentially...

In MA we've had Obamacare for three years.

Without it I couldn't buy insurance.

With it, I can.

I can't change my mind on it because the conservative party thinks people like me with pre-existing conditions should not be able to afford insurance.

Why did these people lose their plans?

From what I understand, the individual state sites are run more smoothly and have much fewer problems.  If you can't sign up on the national site, go to your state site and see if it works any better. 

I'll probably try it out this month as my insurance plan, ironically provided by my local hospital, is absolute garbage.  If I can take a break from shit tons of school work and family obligations, I'll let you know if it works out.  Nationally, early indications are it's been saving lots of dough for people who don't have Cadillac plans, so I must admit I'm curious if my shitty, crazy expensive plan can be replaced.

Here's (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-greta-van-susteren-out-journalisms-cbs-news-on-florida-womans-junk-insurance/) an example of one of the people who lost their insurance plans:

"Her $54 plan actually doesn’t have copays for doctor visits and prescriptions. It pays $50 toward covered doctor’s visits, Dianne pays the rest, and $15 toward prescriptions, Dianne pays the rest. As for hospitalization, Greta again went where CBS did not, and actually asked about it. [...]

Actually, it doesn’t cover any hospital stays, unless Dianne suffers complications from pregnancy. Then, it pays fifty bucks. It doesn’t cover any outpatient care, except for mammography, osteoporosis screening, diabetes self-management, and complications from pregnancy. For that handful of services, the plan pays $50, and Dianne pays the rest."

This woman was essentially giving a $54 donation to her insurance company every month.  She had the epitome of "junk insurance"; the type of insurance Obamacare was created to get rid of.  And had she gotten sick or injured, her medical costs would have been on her (or more likely, the taxpayers) exactly as if she had no insurance at all.  The plan that she had could not qualify as "having insurance" in any system capable of working.

That being said, if her insurance company had kept her policy the same since the ACA was passed into law and chosen to continue to offer it, she would have been able to keep it under the grandfather clause (even though it does not meet current post-ACA-implementation standards).  "If you like it, you can keep it" does not and never did mean "We will force your insurance company to offer you your current plan at the same price forever."  We still have a private insurance-based system, and private insurance companies have been changing and cancelling plans every year for decades.  This is nothing new under the sun.

Finally, I'd offer that having a reasonably priced plan that can be cancelled at the whim of your insurance company the moment you need to use it is not exactly an upgrade over a more expensive plan with guaranteed coverage.

i hear good things from anyone that's actually tried to register for it here,  .. lower costs, better coverage than what they had

Not all states are running their own sites/exchanges.

The states that refused are 100% republican and were doing so in an infantile tantrum against the entire law itself.

color me unimpressed

I'm curious to hear everyone's feedback. I was informed my premium rose slightly but I am covered by my employer so I don't see it. Has anyone here been informed they lost their coverage, have you seen an increase or decrease in premiums?

I am a bit worried the penalty for not purchasing insurance is not high enough. I expect younger people are not going to be signing up which was what was going to make the plan work.

If you already have employer-based coverage, you are not likely to see much change.  Your premiums might rise, but premiums have been rising for decades, so that isn't really a change (ACA is just supposed to slow the increase).

The primary people who are being affected by Obamacare are people who were/are buying insurance on the individual market (or couldn't/didn't have insurance at all pre-ACA).  This is why it's very important to frame the comparison properly: people with employer-based coverage aren't going to get their insurance cancelled if they get sick, but people who bought insurance on the individual market were having that happen repeatedly.  This action (rescission) is now illegal under the ACA.

So what kind of dollar value should you assign to a policy that is guaranteed vs. a policy that can be cancelled when you try to use it?

my wife's cousin... who voted Obama... Was very upset because her new coverage is much more expensive. She's going to have issues paying it. Her and another democrat's experience are kind of what made me ask you guys as I've seen their opinions change.

CF, does your cousin-in-law have coverage through her employer?  If not, you should encourage her to look at the state Obamacare website (if she lives in a state with one) or the federal website (if she does not).

Many insurers are cancelling their pre-ACA plans and "suggesting" replacement plans that are excessively expensive.  In the story I linked above, the 54-year-old subject of the story was offered a $591/mo replacement plan (for her $54/mo junk insurance that covered virtually nothing) from her insurance company Florida Blue.  However, based on her age and income, she could have gotten a much cheaper plan through Obamacare (which is still light-years better than her old plan) for $209/mo.

In MA, everybody can get a plan like I have for $250 a month.

It's not the greatest plan in the world but the big thing is, it has a five thousand dollar out of pocket max for the year.

This is very affordable and covers everything. 

So does the ACA mean people have to buy insurance that actually covers them when they get sick?


WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am a democrat.  

I have some problems with how Obamacare has rolled out.  But I never expected it to be perfect.  Nothing the government ever does is.  

But it is better than the old system.  

The website stuff seems to be a debacle, of course, and that's pretty tough to defend.  However, working in this industry, it doesn't surprise me at all.  And people losing plans isn't good, either, but I've yet to really see how much is being lost.

I know it will be more expensive for the young/healthy, and even I can see on my Facebook, those that are upset by the higher cost.  But in the long term, this is part of the design.  Over the course of your life, it goes down for everyone.

This isn't making excuses, but here's my opinion: This is a major change that will likely take tweaks and long-term data to determine savings and make judgment -- I'm talking 10 years at least.  So, let it ride.  You can undo this until you really see the long-term impact.

My employer still pays for my coverage, which I am grateful for, but I just heard that my premium is going to be DECREASING by $25/ month starting Jan. 1st.  With rates constantly increasing for years, I have been expecting my employer to start making me pay towards my coverage, so this was welcome news.  I deal with a lot of small businesses in my job, and many have completely dropped coverage for employees or have had the employees pick up a larger amount of the tab; in addition to higher deductibles and copays.  In the long run I think the ACA is going to be a very good thing.

I am appalled at the very poor rollout of the website.  Granted the failure of individual states to setup their own exchanges exacerbated the problem, but this has been an utter failure even if that didn't happen.  I believe the last I heard the gov't knew the site couldn't handle more than 1,100 users at a time.

She's married in her mid 20s.  This was her response

"I called my health insurance company and I can keep my plan until sept of next year then I "have" to switch. Yeah that's (250.00 a month) the lowest plan they offer!! You can pay $330 for a "platinum" plan that they say covers everything but who has $660 a month to spend on just health insurance!

CF, does she get her insurance through her employer, or on the individual market?  Is $250/mo the price on the Obamacare website?  Is that for Bronze or Catastrophic (she can get cheaper Catastrophic coverage if she and her husband are under 30)?

Also, is $250/mo for both of them?  What were they paying before?

I got the impression that its the Obamacare stuff but I don't know for sure. I  know that's the individual price as she doubled it when referring to her and her husband. She works part time for an interior design company while going to school so i don't even think they have comp insurance.

You think this is bad and getting worse by the day. Just wait until the employer mandate goes into effect. This is a walk in the park compared to how that is going to turn out. Why do you think that the Obama administration is choosing not to enforce the law as written until after the midterm elections? Because he knows, that once the proverbial employer mandate shit hits the fan, that every democrat that voted for this bullshit is going to be run out of Washington. There is no other reason to not enforce the employer mandate portion of the law as it is written. You always hear Obama supporters saying that Obamacare "is the law". Well, then enforce the law you asked, campaigned, and voted for. Or do only parts of the law only apply to certain people at certain times chosen by King Barack? Now, as has been spewed here in the past, the Treasury department has claimed that “We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively.” More fucking time? They've had almost 4 years. How many years to they need to mandate that employers provide a certain level of coverage and enforce it? None, it's all a political scam by Obama.

Interestingly, due to the complete failure of healthcare.gov portal. We have actually in real life, seen concerns about the individual mandate and need for more time to implement them effectively. In a strange twist, the individual mandate is more and more looking like the portion of the law that should have been delayed instead of the employer mandate. Even democrats that were calling the republicans terrorists for wanting the individual mandate delayed have turned tail and said that the individual mandate should be delayed. Hypocritical? You bet your ass. And while I'm discussing the healthcare.com debacle. How does a Canadian company with an owner that was a classmate of "masculine Michelle" Obama get a $678 million no-bid contract to develop the disaster that is healthcare.gov? Never mind, you won't get a real answer here, only spin from Obama nuthuggers. Deep down we all know the truth though. Best thing to do is let it play itself out and then fire everyone in Washington and start over.

Ya know something that irks me, well one of them anyways, is how Fox news and others make this BIG DEAL about people having to change their doctor.  You would think that there was only one good doctor in the whole country and you have them.  Granted some people that may be undergoing treatment may have a certain relationship with their doctor, but overall I file this under the heading of people just wanting to complain for the sake of complaining.  And another thing, as for Fox's "fair and balanced" coverage, I have yet to see them interview someone who hasn't been able to get coverage and now they will, and yes I am sure there are many.

Here is your real answer. Your facts are misleading. CGI did win $678M for various services but not all of that is for Healthcare.gov. CGI is an IT vendor that was one of 16 companies who were granted certification of a $4B (the companies I work with call it a vendor of record bid) opportunity as part of an upgrade to Medicare/Medicaid systems (you probably have no interest in knowing this happened back in 2007 before Obama was in office). Since CGI was already vetted and chosen (as one of 16 pre-approved vendors) there was no bid necessary for this extension of the project. The companies had already done their bidding process. New vendors (remember there are already 16 approved) are not allowed into the process.

In total there were 55 vendors involved with CGI being the main contractor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/16/meet-cgi-federal-the-company-behind-the-botched-launch-of-healthcare-gov/

It is hilarious to watch the right insist that the mandate be delayed at the same time they cry foul about the mandate being delayed.

Kind of like how they want to hold hearings to get to the bottom of why the federal website isn't working at the same time they are actively discouraging people from signing up.

Or how governors who are supposedly in favor of "states' rights" and insist that programs like these are better run at the state level choose not to set up their own exchanges and instead rely on the federal exchanges.

Whatever it takes to deny Obama a victory, at any level.

I was actually able to sign up. It took a few tries, but I finally got in a couple of weeks ago early in the morning.
I've paid for my own coverage for the past 7ish years. Each year it's gone up about $30-40. I now pay $348ish with $25 deductible for doctor, $50 for specialists.

As of Jan 1 I'll be paying $76 (with my subsidy) a month with $10 copays. $25 for specialists. Deductible remains the same, if I recall.

And, I couldn't be turned down for my previous rather serious illnesses.

My current insurer did this. Mine rose about $40, but I found a much cheaper plan through ACA.

Wow, we seem to go head to head so much that sometimes I forget how much we have in common.

With Buddha's permission, wouldn't it be great to get this story published? I'm tired of hearing people complain about losing insurance that wouldn't cover an ingrown toenail!

I don't see $350 a month as a win. Anyone in my family who doesn't work for a company who provides health insurance certainly can't afford this. $14 an hour equates to about $29,000 a year or about $560 a week before taxes and whatever else. 350 is about 75 percent of their one week take home pay. I don't know anyone making that who can afford to give up anything let alone almost a check a month.

I'm not paying $350 a month. My new fee will be $72.67.

Here's my actual bill:

(http://i.imgur.com/h7bN3Yp.jpg?1) (http://imgur.com/h7bN3Yp)

Her health insurance cost dropped from ~$350 a month to ~$75 a month.  I call that a win. 

With better coverage that is NOT always trying to drop me because I'm a "liability" due to my blood clot issue.

CF, that is what she was paying BEFORE the ACA.

Was this the intended effect of Obamacare? I mean, since it's a "win" as you call it. Should the majority of Americans expect a "win" with better coverage and lower premiums?

The majority of  Americans should be better off because of Obamacare.  Better coverage OR lower premiums -- but she got both.   

Better coverage AND lower premiums. Sounds like a good business model. My triple whammy of higher premiums, higher deductible, and lower coverage percentage must just be an anomaly in the matrix. But then again, it seems like most people I know are in the same boat as me. I guess the good plans only go to Obama voters, because the only people I know that obamacare is "helping" are part time employees. And that's only if you consider "helping" as a lower price for the plan. In my opinion, "forcing" someone, isn't "helping" someone.

If you want to provide specifics on your before-ACA and after-ACA plans, feel free.

You wouldn't be the first person to be unaware that they can get cheaper, better coverage now.

You do know that you are free to shop for a cheaper plan, right?

The numbers I was given referred to what she currently has vs what it us under the new Obama plan. Apparently it works out for some like Buddha. I don't know if age, race, and marital status has an effect although I had seen an article about some people contemplating divorce because it made it cheaper.

Clinton has said Obama needs to allow people to keep existing since that's what he said and Obama has people looking into how they can do that. The same article I read yesterday said less than half save money or doesn't rise. That means more peoples are rising than saving. 

Wow, Obama's plan is so heinous that he has good people considering defying the Will of God and breaking the sanctity of marriage? Truly, he is the Great Satan after all!!

 ::)

Oh hell yeah, you can bet your ass that race, income, and age have everything to do with it, in that order. Certain middle and upper class people get to pay more for minorities, the poor, and other unmotivated people. They know that people with existing employer paid insurance(the middle class)that is deemed "affordable" by King Barack is not eligible for Obamacare. This whole program is designed as a wealth redistribution program in the short term. In the long term it is designed to fail and transition into a single payer system. Sure, the health insurance industry had issues that needed to be fixed. They could have passed a law that addressed the pre existing, lifetime caps, and the canceling of policies. They could have addressed buying insurance across state line to increase competition. But that wasn't the agenda. The systematic destruction of the American way of life by the enemy is the agenda. I don't know about you CF, but I'll just nut up and pay the extortion rates that the crook in the white house has created. If I didn't have kids I would just pay the penalty and adjust my w4 allowances so that I owe instead of getting a refund. My attorney informed me that the only way they can legally collect the penalty is if you are due a refund. So in reality, if you are smart enough or can figure out your withholding, there is no penalty. No mechanism for collection = no penalty.

We live in a socialist country .. we have the moment we passed an income tax..

police
fire departments
military
FEMA
emergency response systems
the interstate highway system
CDC
EPA
farm subsidies
dept of education
medicare
social security
medicaid

Are ALL socialist institutions. The government is taking my money by force in order to support societal level programs. I have no say and no recourse in the matter. That's the very definition of socialism.

a single payer system is the american way .. we invented medicare  .. where do you think socialist europe got their idea for universal health care from ?

The people calling for anarchy are the enemies of the american way of life. Our way of life IS a single payer system. Our way of life IS socialism .. welcome to the country pondwater.

If you don't like it .. win an election every once in a while.

That's all you had to say, maybe? the government will take care of you. I wonder why so may Obama supporters deny it when Obama is called a socialist? 

Half the government isn't needed, so therefore half of that shit isn't needed.

Thanks, but I'm not a politician. I don't need fanboys like Obama does.

On an off note for FYI. Although, I claim neither, it seems that Republicans have won the White House more than the Democrats.

I realize you are being funny but apparently there is quite a bit of a difference.

"What you are doing is saying ... you have to pay a penalty of multiple hundreds of dollars—a substantial portion of your income—to stay married," Rector says. "It's saying society is basically hostile to the institution of marriage."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/09/Married-Couple-May-Divorce-To-Save-Money-on-Obamacare

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/11/06/obamacare-restrictions-lead-brooklyn-couple-to-consider-divorce/

CF, now you know that marriage isn't a religious institution for straight people. It's an institution for homosexuals. Get with the vision for America.

Holy shit, you know there's something wrong when marriage is a penalty to straight people and a benefit to homosexuals. Hope and change, join the movement! You can't make this shit up, what a joke.

If marriage is an institution, who wants to be institutionalized?

One couple who got married specifically to because one of them couldn't get health insurance under the old system, might divorce to save a few dollars. 


Call me unmoved. 

you are speaking to an egg sample couple. You did not address what is obviously a real issue. It costs much more for the uninsured married couple then it does for a single person.

if it costs double for an uninsured married couple than it does for a single person that seems fair

are you saying the cost for a couple is more than twice the amount a single person pays ?

yes

that's silly then ..

does the law mandate the pricing or do the insurance companies set the rates ?

Hey, did you realize that if you are married but your wife doesn't work and has zero income, you are already facing a marriage penalty?  If you weren't married and didn't live together, your wife (and kids) could apply for government assistance that she cannot apply for now!  And she could pay far less in income taxes than she does now!

In other words, read the details:

"But if they applied as unmarried individuals with something like their 2012 income, one of them would get at least $3,964 in subsidies toward the purchase of a plan, or possibly even be eligible for Medicaid, thanks to their uneven individual earnings that year."

So then, two married freelancers made a combined $62k, but if you took the income of the one that made less (unspecified, but I'm going to guess it was a lot less), that person would qualify for big subsidies.  You don't say.

It's articles like these that make me optimistic about Obamacare.  If $50 junk insurance and the income of underemployed spouses is the best ammo the opponents of the ACA have, I like our chances.

No system is perfect.  Old system one of them couldn't get health insurance at all, without a sham marriage. 

Under the new system when you have two people of grossly unequal income it costs more for the two of them to get insurance than it would if they were unmarried. 

But that's not all:  If they were unmarried one of them could get WIC, foodstamps, EIC, fuel assistance, welfare etc.   In married couples in which there is a primary income generator we don't offer subsidies to his/her mate.   

Aren't you at all concerned that two people (and they certainly aren't alone) got married not because of love, but because under the Republican preferred system that was the only way one of them could get health care.  Does the sanctity of marriage mean so little that people who don't want to be get married are forced to do so to get health insurance?

Hoodie, I would make one correction:

Obamneycare is the Republican preferred system.  It just wasn't signed by the Republican preferred president.

YESSSSSS!!!!

Do you think the Republicans would have gone along with Medicare Part D or NAFTA if they were put forth by a Dem???

When Clinton was in office the Republicans hated him and his programs; which were actually republican programs that he put forth and put into law.  You would have thought they would have backed him, but no can't support the other party even if it is for the good of the country.

Here's a question for the conservatives

Many conservatives say they have better plans than Obamacare that retain the good parts of Obamacare (covering people w/pre-existing conditions, letting people stay on their parents insurance until they turn 26, etc)

Why weren't these plans implemented during the Bush administration when the Republican Party controlled congress?

Why should a fully grown adult over the age of 21 be leaching off of his parents insurance policy?

^^^^

Because when you are in school or just out of school and trying to find a job, you need coverage.  My parents, who are about as conservative as you can get, kept me and my brothers on their insurance until we were 26.

I'm lucky to have three jobs, but none of them provide coverage.  However, because I live in a liberal state, I can buy private, unsubsidized insurance for $250 a month that meets all the guidelines and covers me when I am sick  (It has a $5,000 out of pocket maximum).  ANYBODY who earns what I earn (about $25,000 to $30000) and does not receive insurance through their employer can buy this plan.

In a conservative state, I would not be able to buy insurance at all.

The answer is simple, make more money!

Point verified, thanks!

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m09ovkV8901r3jsrko1_400.jpg)

^^^ Awesome

haahaha love voice texting! "Example" = egg sample

^^^ I was wondering what that meant.

I thought it was some new slang I had never heard.

I recognized "egg sample" as example but I thought he was making a joke.

If the website was working properly, would there be such a problem?

Why are people objecting to having to buy coverage that actually works?

I would say the objections to the law so far break down roughly as such:

- 60% pure political posturing (i.e. people who complain about it Because Obama)
- 25% are unaware that the "replacement" plan suggested by their insurance company is a ripoff (i.e. they can get a much better deal through the exchanges)
- 10% are only concerned with the monthly payment and not the coverage (i.e. former future cautionary tales under the old system)
- 5% thought that everything would be paid for by The Rich

I disagree. Many Democrats are distancing themselves especially if they are up for re-election. 39 Democrats in the House voted for a Bill that Obama told them NOT to.

The 'Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013,' proposed by GOP Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, passed by a  261-157 margin, and with 39 Democratic 'yea' votes.
The measure, if the Senate were to pass it and the president were to sign it, would allow insurers to continue offering individual health plans that consumers enlisted in before January 1, 2013.
It would consider those insurance policies 'grandfathered,' meaning they won't be subject to Obamacare's otherwise uncompromising minimum requirements.
President Obama proposed his own fix on Thursday, and threatened to veto the Republicans' version.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507999/House-Republicans-pressure-Obama-insurance-passing-Keep-Your-Health-Plan-


I realize nothing with Obama is unpopular on this website but in general ... people are either not happy with Obamacare or the way it was rolled out.

I was talking about the people who are voicing problems with it, not the politicians who are taking meaningless votes on legislation they know will not go anywhere.

Just for the record, i was never for obamacare  it's a poor system that's only marginally better than what we had before.

I'm FOR a single payer system in which health insurance companies go out of business completely. They exist for no purpose other than to mark up health care at a minimum of 20%

I don't deny that objectors like Fau exist; I am one of them.  I think Obamacare should have had a public option at a very minimum.

That being said, the people who are voicing opposition to the ACA right now are not the proponents of single-payer.

^^^ Correct, but they are not as vocal (I support a single payer system).

Fancy that, a private company marking up a product in order to make a profit. Maybe soon the government can run every industry in the country since profits are so bad. I wonder what type of fantasy world some of you people live in?

Who would handle the health insurance if the companies went out of business?

The government. They do so well running things we need to give them more responsibility.

We seem to have no problem giving gov't the most serious responsibility of all: the right to kill people.  But I suppose the buck stops at saving lives?

And just to get this out of the way: it is not necessary that law enforcement be run by a socialist, re-distributional arm of our government.  We could have private, free-market-based, for-profit law enforcement.  But that would resemble something like, say, the mafia a little more than most people are comfortable with.

The same entity that handles health insurance in most other developed countries: the government.

In fact, this kind of system already exists in America for people over 65: Medicare, which is one of the most popular and well-liked government programs in the history of this nation.

facts bad ! .. must repeat what conservative entertainment shows told me to think !!! ..

socialism bad .. pinko !

The government if full of waste and overspending and is accountable to no one. A private company has to balance spending with profits and income and is accountable to its stockholders. A private company has to compete on prices and can't steal money from the left pocket to fund the right pocket like the government does. There are not many government run enterprises that are financially successful. Medicare, medicaid, social security, entitlement programs, and the US postal service are all examples of government programs that are either full of fraud or that have funding problems and will face bankruptcy. Some of these programs may be bankrupt in our lifetime regardless of what the blind Obama homers tell you.


http://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/medicare-remains-on-fast-track-to-bankruptcy- (http://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/medicare-remains-on-fast-track-to-bankruptcy-)

And we have to get out of both Social Security and Medicare or we will be bankrupt. Both my parents are on them but they are very limited and don't do very much for them. If they didn't have relatives they would be screwed.

These social services are the biggest lie sold to us. Man people think they can by on it and thus never save. The don't realize how screwed they are until it's too late.

the government is accountable to the voters,

a private company has no business in the distribution of health care. it's a basic human right and not a privilege. the rest of the world has figured this out, we haven't yet.

private companies can and do steal money .. Enron, MCI, AIG, Lehman.

All of this nonsense about how "Medicare will go bankrupt!" is just that: nonsense.

Polls consistently show that Medicare and Social Security are the highest priority of the voting public.  That means that they don't care what else you have to do... you WILL NOT end Medicare or SS.  Period.

So when the time comes, taxes will be raised to pay for Medicare.  It is literally just that simple.  And any politician who thinks the electorate would rather end Medicare than raise taxes won't be a politician for long.

I think this article (and graphic) pretty clearly demonstrates the result of Obamacare (once the website is working properly):

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1440645/original.jpg) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/02/obamacare-media-war_n_4195734.html)

Article: Obamacare’s Three Per Cent (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/10/obamacares-three-per-cent.html?mobify=0)

The money quote from the article, from MIT economist Jonathan Gruber (an architect of both Romneycare and Obamacare):

Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Disapproval of Obamacare spikes in new poll conducted from Nov.14 through17. Might be bad for the democrats in the next election.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57612963/disapproval-of-obamacare-spikes-in-new-poll/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57612963/disapproval-of-obamacare-spikes-in-new-poll/)

Interesting interpretation (I know you're quoting an article).  Another view:

No huge drop in Obamacare support despite rocky rollout: Reuters/Ipsos poll (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/18/us-usa-healthcare-poll-idUSBRE9AH18U20131118)

Forty-one percent of Americans expressed support for the 2010 law popularly known as Obamacare in a survey conducted from Thursday to Monday. That was down 3 percentage points from a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken from September 27 to October 1.

Opposition to the healthcare law stood at 59 percent in the latest poll, versus 56 percent in the earlier survey.

There has been some shift ... but the shift has been small," said Ipsos pollster Chris Jackson.

Jackson said the relatively small change in the poll numbers was consistent with a pattern in place since the passage of the law three years ago in which opinions about it have fluctuated very little.

"Overall, these opinions are already pretty fixed," Jackson said.

And just to head off the "Look how many people oppose it!" objection: a significant portion of those objecting believe it is not liberal enough (some of whom have posted in this thread).  Looking at polling for the last 3.5 years (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/05/28/healthcarepoll.pdf), if you combine those who are in favor of it with those who oppose it from the left, you get a clear majority who are against the GOP's attempts to repeal Obamacare and return to the old system.

I disagree with Reuters. I think their polling is behind because it seems like everyone else is reporting it differently.

Could this undo Obamacare? Hopefully, but we shall see.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/will-this-court-case-destroy-obamacare/ (http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/will-this-court-case-destroy-obamacare/)

Not sure why you'd disagree, as Reuters has it at 59% opposed vs. CBS's 57%.

The difference is that CBS terms this a "spike" in the opposition (with no citation of a previous percentage opposed), while Reuters categorizes it as normal fluctuation.

^^^
I fixed my post to reflect current. Thanks for the heads up ;)

Again, Reuters has their opposition number higher than the poll cited by CBS (WaPo/ABC), so I'm not sure what the point is.  CBS claims it's a "spike" but provides no evidence to back that assertion.

I saw this earlier in reference to price changes. It's an article in reference to a lady who Obama used as a success story. Obvioulsy it's turned into a nightmare or I wouldn't be posting it but it shows how much prices can fluctuate. In my experience for every Buddha story I hear or see there are many more of these from people who actually supported Obama.


7 hours ago
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/19/woman-cited-by-president-as-obamacare-success-story-frustrated-by-sign-up-process/?hpt=hp_t2

Woman cited by President as Obamacare success story frustrated by sign up process
Posted by
CNN Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta
Updated 1:20 a.m. ET, 11/19/2013 – This is updated from an earlier version, adding more details.

(CNN)– Washington state resident Jessica Sanford was bursting with pride when President Obama mentioned her story during a Rose Garden event on health care reform last month at the White House.

"Who wouldn't?" Sanford asks. "I'm a nobody really to have him mention my story."

Back in October, Sanford had written a letter to the White House to share her good news. The 48-year-old single mother of a teenage son diagnosed with ADHD had just purchased what she considered to be affordable insurance on the Washington state exchange.

"I was ecstatic. I couldn't wait to call the doctor for an appointment on January 2nd," Sanford told CNN about the feeling she had when she first enrolled.

Her heartfelt letter made it to the President's hands and then into his October 21 speech.

"'I was crying the other day when I signed up. So much stress lifted.'" Obama said, reading from Sanford's letter.

The president said Sanford's story was proof, despite the technical problems with the healthcare.gov website, that the Affordable Care Act was working.

"That's what the Affordable Care Act is all about. The point is, the essence of the law - the health insurance that's available to people - is working just fine," Obama said.

But then, after Obama mentioned her story, Sanford started having problems. Sanford said she received another letter informing her the Washington state health exchange had miscalculated her eligibility for a tax credit.

In other words, her monthly insurance bill had shot up from $198 a month (she had initially said $169 a month to the White House but she switched plans) to $280 a month for the same "gold" plan offered by the state exchange.

Sanford said she was frustrated with the state's error. But she decided to purchase the new plan and thought everything was fine.

It wasn't fine. Last week, Sanford received another letter from the Washington state exchange, stating there had been another problem, a "system error" that resulted in some "applicants to qualify for higher than allowed health insurance premium tax credits."

The letter said the state exchange was "disappointed to have discovered this issue" and apologized.

The result was a higher quote, which Sanford said was for $390 per month for a "silver" plan with a higher deductible. Still too expensive

A cheaper "bronze" plan, Sanford said, came in at $324 per month, but also with a high deductible - also not in her budget.

Then another letter from the state exchange with even worse news.

"Your household has been determined eligible for a Federal Tax Credit of $0.00 to help cover the cost of your monthly health insurance premium payments," the latest letter said.

"I had a good cry," Sanford said about her reaction to the latest news from the state.

As a self-employed court reporter, the new quote was simply out of her range.

"This is it. I'm not getting insurance," Sanford told CNN. "That's where it stands right now unless they fix it."

Sanford, an Obama supporter who voted for the president twice, is careful to say she blames the state of Washington's online marketplace for the mixed signals and not the White House.

She is sorry Obama mentioned her during the October 21 speech.

"I feel awful about it. I support (the Affordable Care Act)," Sanford said.

But the messy rollout in the other Washington, the nation's capital, was not far from her mind.

"What the hell? Why is it the same story as the federal government?" Sanford says in disgust with the Washington state exchange. "They didn't have it ready."

"They screwed up," she added.

Sanford reiterated her frustration in a post to the Washington HealthPlanFinder's Facebook page last Friday.

"Wow. You guys really screwed me over," Sanford wrote. "Now I have been priced out and will not be able to afford the plans you offer. But, I get to pay $95 and up for not having health insurance. I am so incredibly disappointed and saddened. You majorly screwed up."

In response, a HealthplanFinder posting tried to direct Sanford to a broker for help.

"Jessica, we are very sad and disappointed that the tax credit miscalculation affected you so heavily," the comment read, suggesting she try to find a new plan on the site. Sanford responded on Facebook the issue was affordability.

Bethany Frey, a spokeswoman for Washington HealthPlanFinder told CNN on Monday night, "I'm already looking into this with our client specialist team. I'll let you know what I hear."

I just hope that both sides will work to honestly improve this, slowly and gradually.  I think that any attempt to throw it out and start over will be a huge step backward and likely set healthcare reform back 30 years.

Remember that chart I just posted?

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1440645/original.jpg)
By design, there's going to be ~9 million people who are paying more under the new system.  That's 9 million potential examples of outrage and disappointment, so these news stories will be around for as long as the media feels like reporting them.

But there's also going to be about 9 million people who get better coverage for a similar price, and about 42 million people who were uninsured (and/or uninsurable) who will now gain access to affordable healthcare.

As was said earlier, there's no law in the history of America that made everyone better off.  But making things better for 97% of Americans is a pretty good shot.

Working honestly would be it the upcoming supreme court case ruling that the ACA is unconstitutional over the issue of origination of a tax in the senate instead of the house. The whole reason why Obama and the democrats fought so hard to define it a penalty instead of a tax. Justice Roberts left the barn door wide open on the origination clause.

The bill did not originate in the Senate.  It originated in the House: H.R. 3590.

Furthermore, Field vs. Clark (1892) provides that if Congress says that a bill originates in a specific house of Congress (which is indicated, in this case, by H.R. 3590; i.e. the House of Representatives), the Court will not challenge that statement.  It is worth mentioning that many other bills have been created and passed the same way; of recent note is the 2008 TARP bill.

It is also worth mentioning that this line of argument (origination) was on the table when the SCOTUS originally ruled on Obamacare, and was rejected.  Not sure why Roberts is going to change his mind from last year to now, particularly since he's the one that made the tax argument.  Did he simply forget about the origination clause when he ruled it a tax?

Obamacare may need a taxpayer bailout? DO WHAT? Why does this not surprise me.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101210207 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101210207)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/20/senators-push-bill-to-prevent-insurance-industry-bailout-over-obamacare/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/20/senators-push-bill-to-prevent-insurance-industry-bailout-over-obamacare/)

^^^^^

2008 all over again? 

If insurance company costs come in over a certain threshold, the gov't will cut them a check.
If they come in under a certain threshold, they are required to cut the gov't a check.

So basically, the GOP can already start printing up two sets of flyers:  one that says "Obamacare is a government bailout of the insurance companies!" and another that says "Obamacare forces private companies to hand over money to the government if they make Too Much profit!"  Either way, you have your talking points ready to go.

For the record, I see no problem in bailouts if potential profits are also socialized (see: USPS).  The moral hazard of bailouts is privatized profit+socialized losses.  Socialized profits+socialized losses (or privatized profits+privatized losses) is 100% fine.

The Federal Government's rollout of the website, etc has been horrendous, and probably will continue to be for months to come.  However, I think a lot of blame has to go to the individual states that refused to setup their own exchanges, they have failed the residents of their states.  The states that embraced the law from the beginning and setup their own exchanges are doing fairly well.  I'm from NY and I don't hear any of the complaints that you have been hearing from around the country.  From what I hear rates have fallen or stabilized this year, and some lower income individuals are seeing greatly reduced premiums when taking into account the tax credit.

Funny how all of the adminstrations and legislatures that DIDN'T set up exchanges are also the same ones that espouse the importance of the 10th amendment, how states are better at making solutions targeted to their own particular needs, etc.

I wonder why they decided to let the federal government do this for them?

DC insurance commissioner fired a day after criticizing Obamacare steps
By Kristen Welker and Ali Weinberg, NBC News

Washington, D.C.'s insurance commissioner confirmed Sunday that he was fired after questioning President Barack Obama's proposed fixes to his troubled health-care law.

William White told NBC News that Mayor Vincent Gray's office didn't explicitly link his dismissal to his comments. But he strongly suggested it wasn't a coincidence.

"Anyone who looks at this can draw their own conclusions. My statement came out on Thursday, and by Friday at 4:15 I was out," he said.

Obamacare

- written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it.
- passed by a Senate that hasn't read it, but exempts themselves from it.
- signed by a President who also hasn't read it, and smokes.
- administered by a Treasury Chief who didn't pay his taxes.
- overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese.
- and financed by a country that's broke.

All facts.

What could possibly go wrong?