Obama care website is finaly working.

James O’Keefe exposes Obamacare navigator fraud [video]

Best,

Dave
===============================================

Project Veritas investigators were in Dallas, Texas, to take a closer look at the Obamacare navigator program. As seen on “The O’Reilly Factor” Monday night, what they found was rampant incompetence and fraud:

http://tinyurl.com/mswjaky
 
Dave Siciliano said:
James O’Keefe exposes Obamacare navigator fraud [video]

Best,

Dave
===============================================

Project Veritas investigators were in Dallas, Texas, to take a closer look at the Obamacare navigator program. As seen on “The O’Reilly Factor” Monday night, what they found was rampant incompetence and fraud:

http://tinyurl.com/mswjaky
Click to expand...

It's Obamacare. What could possibly go wrong?
 
bbchien said:
This Is me: From Kaiser Health news:

Q. I don’t qualify for a subsidy, and my premium is going way up for what the insurer tells me is a comparable policy. Why is that?
A. Insurers base premiums on a number of factors, including medical inflation and the cost of implementing insurance rules. A report on the California market done by Cosway at Milliman estimated that medical inflation and changes from the health law could add about 30 percent to the average premium in California. The biggest chunk of the increase was attributed to insurers being required to accept everyone, even those who are ill.That requirement polls well with the public. But it makes insurers nervous because they can no longer reject the costliest patients. While consumers like George Anders of California says he supports the concept, he’s not happy that his current plan is being discontinued. Anders, a contributing writer for Forbes and author of a critique of HMOs called Health Against Wealth, said the premiums for a new policy that covers him, his wife and two children will about double, although his annual deductible may go down. “As a social policy, I’m glad to see everyone get coverage, but if you’re going to add cost to the system, I’d like to see it spread equitably,” perhaps through an across-the-board tax, rather than just hitting policyholders, he said.
*****

My premium went up $150 a month, deductible doubled to 6K, I am personally covered for my own pregnancy, this is just another tax. I already pay for drug dealer's cellphones. Now despite the fat that I have maintained coverage continuously for years and years, I am being made to pay for the person who thinks, Hmm. I'm not feeling so good I better go by healthcare coverage....

I was lied to and I know it. Hope and Change are not destinations.
Click to expand...

+1

I love being forced to buy a crappy overpriced product.
 
Affordable Boat Act_*

The government has just passed a new law called: "The affordable boat act" declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new boat, by April 2014. These "affordable" boats will cost an average of $24,000-$124,000 each. This does not include taxes, trailers, towing fees, insurance, fuel, docking and storage fees, maintenance or repair costs.
This law has been passed, because until now, typically only financially responsible and working people have been able to purchase boats. This new laws ensures that every American can now have a "affordable" boat of their own, because everyone is "entitled" to a boat. In order to make sure everyone purchases an affordable boat, the costs of owning a boat will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, working taxpayers will pay more for something that other people don't want or can't afford to maintain. But to be fair, people who cant afford to maintain their boat will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parents boats to party on until they turn 27; then must purchase their own boat.
If you already have a boat, you can keep yours (just kidding; no you can't). If you don't want or don't need a boat, you are required to buy one anyhow. If you refuse to buy one, you will be fined until you purchase one or face imprisonment. For those that cannot afford one, they will get a free boat with a monthly check for all ownership costs listed above at taxpayer expense.
Failure to use the boat will also result in fines. People living in the desert, inner cities or areas with no access to lakes are not exempt. Age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge nor lack of desire are acceptable excuses for not using your boat.

A government review board will decide everything, including; when, where, how often and for what purposes you can use your boat along with how many people can ride your boat and determine if one is too old or healthy enough to be able to use their boat. They will also decide if your boat has out lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories, or a newer and more expensive boat. (Cash for Clunkers guidelines will be used). Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a boat, they and their families can obtain boats free, at the expense of tax payers. Unions, special interest and major donors are also exempt.


If the government can force Americans to buy health care, they can force you to buy a boat....or ANYTHING else......Yea...it's that stupid...
 
Hydroguy2 said:
Affordable Boat Act_*
If the government can force Americans to buy health care, they can force you to buy a boat....or ANYTHING else......Yea...it's that stupid...
Click to expand...
I believe that we would be taxed for not buying a boat. That makes it ok according to the Supreme Court.
 
Gary F said:
I believe that we would be taxed for not buying a boat. That makes it ok according to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Yup, it's ok under the interstate commerce thing, right?

So, I can buy insurance across state lines, right?
 
Bob Noel said:
Yup, it's ok under the interstate commerce thing, right?

So, I can buy insurance across state lines, right?
Click to expand...

I believe you can. Only problem would be all the providers would be in the state you bought from so all your local providers would be out of network and not covered.
 
jtheune said:
I believe you can. Only problem would be all the providers would be in the state you bought from so all your local providers would be out of network and not covered.
Click to expand...

Nope, insurance is still restricted to within individual states.

The one thing that is clearly within federal jurisdiction to do, they didn't do.
 
jtheune said:
I believe you can. Only problem would be all the providers would be in the state you bought from so all your local providers would be out of network and not covered.
Click to expand...

As an individual, for the most part you can't. As a group insured, you can purchase across state lines if you have a subsidiary in that state.

As for what is in and out of network is for the insurer to decide. United, BCBS, Aetna and Cigna have nationwide networks used by the many different plans they offer, it is uncommon that we see a geographic restriction. All four will happily whore-out their PPO network to independent insurers like the 'Steam Fitters and plumbers retirement fund of West Virginia' and other locals who dont have the resources to build a network of their own.

Contracted rates in different parts of the country are quite variable, so it makes sense for an insurer to restrict how much they cover in different areas. But this would be for a private company to decide on how they want to go about this, e.g. a variable co-insurance portion if the services are provided in an area with higher negotiated rates.
 
FastEddieB said:
Probably too different in scope to bear any comparison, but...

...I've been watching the World Chess Championship live, streaming, from India.

Along with about 999,999,999 others.

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/articles/2013-11/14/magnus-carlsen-games-2013-viswanathan-anand

And, for the most part, it just works.

I forget the pathetic number of users that crashed the ACA site initially, but maybe a trip to India might garner them some talent to make it handle the load!
Click to expand...

Yabbut, Carlsen didn't say "If you like your Bishop, you can keep it, period!":D
 
It's been five days since I submitted scans of my SS card and Passport to verify my identity and I have yet to receive the promised email that will allow me to move forward with healthcare.gov.

It also appears possible that I would not be eligible to participate in the exchange since I am technically eligible for an employer sponsored plan even though I am retired.

The government sure has made this easy to understand and use. :hairraise::yikes::no::rolleyes2::nono:
 
The Obama care website went down while Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius was making a presentation to show how much progress has been made in the last few weeks by her staff! I like the secretary, don't like ACA, but she has seemed to handle things well. Very embarrassing.

Meanwhile, a respected attorney specializing in labor law has come to the forefront and pointed out the dilemma the Presidential delay puts in front of insurers. ACA is the law of the land. If insurers now follow the Presidents guidance and someone is turned down for insurance that doesn't meet the criteria of ACA, and that client then sues, he doesn't see how courts can ignore the law because of a Presidential television spot.

Best,

Dave
 
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, according to yesterday's Investor's Business Daily, a young lady named Jessica Sanford appeared with the President in a Rose Garden photo op to prove how valuable the benefits under ACA are. She signed up and glowed for photos while the President beamed with a smile about how his Act helped her out. Well, it turns out, an err was made on the site in computing her subsidy: the administrator later contacted her and said they computed her premium quote based on her monthly income being her annual income. When that was corrected, she didn't quality for a subsidy! Her cost rose sharply, she couldn't afford it and now she has no insurance. She has a Son in ill health and no has no coverage!

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, according to yesterday's Investor's Business Daily, a young lady named Jessica Sanford appeared with the President in a Rose Garden photo op to prove how valuable the benefits under ACA are. She signed up and glowed for photos while the President beamed with a smile about how his Act helped her out. Well, it turns out, an err was made on the site in computing her subsidy: the administrator later contacted her and said they computed her premium quote based on her monthly income being her annual income. When that was corrected, she didn't quality for a subsidy! Her cost rose sharply, she couldn't afford it and now she has no insurance. She has a Son in ill health and no has no coverage!

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave -

This illustrates (anecdotally, I concede) what I believe to be the big failure of our press corps in reporting on this topic: they are focusing on the mechanics (the website), rather than the more troubling reality: the underlying system cannot, mathematically, work.

Bad deal, the true consequnces of which will only be realized after the can-kicking ceases.
 
SCCutler said:
Dave -

This illustrates (anecdotally, I concede) what I believe to be the big failure of our press corps in reporting on this topic: they are focusing on the mechanics (the website), rather than the more troubling reality: the underlying system cannot, mathematically, work.

Bad deal, the true consequnces of which will only be realized after the can-kicking ceases.
Click to expand...

We cannot expect better from the media. They do not have the analytical skills or the integrity to understand and report on the underlying system or the inherent problems of the POS ACA.
 
Bob Noel said:
We cannot expect better from the media. They do not have the analytical skills or the integrity to understand and report on the underlying system or the inherent problems of the POS ACA.
Click to expand...

They do not have a mandate to analyze anything or even to tell the truth. In our system the only obligation they have is to their advertisers and stock holders. Plenty of advertising for Obamacare going on. Our news media is no different from a sitcom or WWE, it's there to drive ratings and sell advertising.
 
EppyGA said:
It's been five days since I submitted scans of my SS card and Passport to verify my identity and I have yet to receive the promised email that will allow me to move forward with healthcare.gov.

It also appears possible that I would not be eligible to participate in the exchange since I am technically eligible for an employer sponsored plan even though I am retired.

The government sure has made this easy to understand and use. :hairraise::yikes::no::rolleyes2::nono:
Click to expand...

Give it time. The hackers are probably just getting around to your ID info. Monitor your credit data.
 
Henning said:
They do not have a mandate to analyze anything or even to tell the truth. In our system the only obligation they have is to their advertisers and stock holders. Plenty of advertising for Obamacare going on. Our news media is no different from a sitcom or WWE, it's there to drive ratings and sell advertising.
Click to expand...

But that's not the history of news-gathering/reporting. What we see today is the crumbling ruins of journalism in America.
 
LDJones said:
But that's not the history of news-gathering/reporting. What we see today is the crumbling ruins of journalism in America.
Click to expand...

Journalism in America is long gone, it died with the end of Gulf War I when all the 24hr CNN clones sprouted and we had to fill hundreds of hours of dialing programming 'news' needs and began the 'infotainment' genre.
 
The 5% con job.

Best,

Dave
============================================


Y'all have heard about how B.O. told us recently that maybe 5% of Americans might lose their healthcare plans. Well, it's just been revealed that back in 2010, and published in the Federal Register, that somewhere between 39 and 69 percent of employer plans would lose their “grandfather” protection by 2013. Do the arithmetic and that works out to somewhere between 40 million and over 100 million people losing their health plans that we were told they could keep if they liked them. Here's a view of the Federal Register section:


    • 580x251xFederalRegister0921-600x260.jpg.pagespeed.ic.r4oKPSZCAb.jpg


Excerpts from a great report from Andrew McCarthy of National Review:


      • During all these years, while Obama was repeatedly assuring Americans, “If you like your health-insurance plan, you can keep your health-insurance plan,” he actually expected as many as seven out of every ten Americans covered by employer plans to lose their coverage.
      • It gets worse. . . . On October 17, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Obama Justice Department, submitted a brief to the federal district court in Washington, opposing Priests for Life’s summary judgment motion. On page 27 of its brief, the Justice Department makes the following remarkable assertion: ". . . it is projected that more group health plans will transition to the requirements under the regulations as time goes on. Defendants have estimated that a majority of group health plans will have lost their grandfather status by the end of 2013."
      • So, while the president has been telling us that, under the vaunted grandfathering provision, all Americans who like their health-insurance plans will be able to keep them, “period,” his administration has been representing in federal court that most health plans would lose their “grandfather status” by the end of this year.
    • http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364176/obamas-5-percent-con-job-andrew-c-mccarthy/page/0/1
 
Since it was passed, I still don't know what's in it: Is there any mention of long-term care policies?
 
Dave Siciliano said:
The 5% con job.

Best,

Dave
============================================


Y'all have heard about how B.O. told us recently that maybe 5% of Americans might lose their healthcare plans. Well, it's just been revealed that back in 2010, and published in the Federal Register, that somewhere between 39 and 69 percent of employer plans would lose their “grandfather” protection by 2013. Do the arithmetic and that works out to somewhere between 40 million and over 100 million people losing their health plans that we were told they could keep if they liked them. Here's a view of the Federal Register section:



Excerpts from a great report from Andrew McCarthy of National Review:


      • During all these years, while Obama was repeatedly assuring Americans, “If you like your health-insurance plan, you can keep your health-insurance plan,” he actually expected as many as seven out of every ten Americans covered by employer plans to lose their coverage.
      • It gets worse. . . . On October 17, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Obama Justice Department, submitted a brief to the federal district court in Washington, opposing Priests for Life’s summary judgment motion. On page 27 of its brief, the Justice Department makes the following remarkable assertion: ". . . it is projected that more group health plans will transition to the requirements under the regulations as time goes on. Defendants have estimated that a majority of group health plans will have lost their grandfather status by the end of 2013."
      • So, while the president has been telling us that, under the vaunted grandfathering provision, all Americans who like their health-insurance plans will be able to keep them, “period,” his administration has been representing in federal court that most health plans would lose their “grandfather status” by the end of this year.
Click to expand...


You might be being a bit dishonest.


Yes, many employer policies will be changing to meet the new requirements. That has been known by all. New policies won't have lifetime caps, will have the wellness check ups, birth control, etc.

Everybody knew this, and that was the whole right-wing, panty-wadded hysteria about "delaying for big business" so that large group policies were brought into compliance with the law of the land.

They ain't losing coverage, they are going to get policies that meet the law.

Don't be dishonest.
 
If you notice, I quoted the title of the article and signed; below was comment of posting by another with excerpts of the article, I didn't render any opinion. Was the into dishonest? Was the article? Those weren't mine.

Best,

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top