More ACA mischief

[Econoline]

It is likely that Americans waiting for a new software release or application have experienced delays and even glitches that keep technicians working overtime to satisfy new and existing customers. In fact, it is not unusual for tech companies to update their software for up to a year fixing bugs that only surfaced after customers complained about issues the company’s testers may have missed. Despite technical issues and bugs in software, customers hardly abandon the new software or application simply because they comprehend that consumer-oriented high tech is never perfect right out of the gate whether it is a small internet start-up or a giant government program.

When hundreds-of-thousands of Americans attempted to enroll in a new online government health care program, they expected the government website to be perfect because it was touted as an easy way to study and choose the best option for their situation. However, there were “glitches,” errors, slow response times, and the site crashed that elicited frustration and anger prompting government officials to respond to complaints from prospective customers with promises to quickly assess and fix the problems.

That is precisely what happened [...]

Joe Barton (R-TX): “This is a huge undertaking and there are going to be glitches. My goal is the same as yours: Get rid of the glitches. The committee will work closely to get problems noticed and solved.”[...]

Tim Murphy (R-PA): “Any time something is new, there is going to be some glitches. All of us, when our children were new, well, we knew as parents we didn’t exactly know everything we were doing and we had a foul-up or two, but we persevered and our children turned out well. No matter what one does in life, when it is something new in learning the ropes of it, it is going to take a little adjustment.”[...]

Michael Burgess (R-TX): “We can’t undo the past, but certainly they can make the argument that we are having this hearing a month late and perhaps we are, but the reality is the prescription drug benefit is 40 years late and seniors who signed up for Medicare those first days back in 1965 when they were 65 years of age are now 106 years of age waiting for that prescription drug benefit, so I hope it doesn’t take us that long to get this right and I don’t believe that it will. And I do believe that fundamentally it is a good plan.”[...]

Phil Gingrey (R-GA): “I delivered 5,200 babies, but this may be the best delivery that I have ever been a part of, Mr. Speaker, and that is delivering, as I say, on a promise made by former Congresses and other Presidents over the 45-year history of the Medicare program, which was introduced in 1965 with no prescription drug benefit. And what we have done here is add part D, the ‘D’ for ‘drug’ or, if you want, the ‘delivery’ that we have finally provided to our American seniors.”[...]

Oh, yeah...that was in 2005, during the Bush administration’s implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Read more here.)

[rubato]

http://obamacaresignups.net/

639,000 signups so far in less than one month. (700,000 per one source)

4.2 million accounts created


Hysterical propaganda appears to have no effect on the real world


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

When they offer free cars and TVs the real world will subscribe even faster

[Long Run]

Good point Meade. The vast majority of new "signups" are for the Medicaid expansion, i.e., free healthcare, and not through the Exchanges. At this point, the Exchanges are essentially not functional. Still, more people have coverage, even if some of them were paying for healthcare that they now get free. And as Econo notes and said elsewhere above, at some point the technology will be made to work. Then, there will be the policy dysfunction built into the law, which will be exacerbated by the delay in getting the general, paying, population signed up on the Exchanges.

[Crackpot]

The paying population aren't likely to sign up until late November anyway since coverage doesn't start until the first of the year.

[rubato]

940,000 sign ups in one month.

2.6 persons per household.

Total actual coverage is >940,000 and < 2,444,000.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/0 ... ILL-NEEDED#

[rubato]

http://prairieweather.typepad.com/big_b ... rking.html

For the first time in a decade more small businesses are adding HI than are dropping it thanks to Obamacare.



Yes,
Rubato

[Lord Jim]

940,000 sign ups in one month.

2.6 persons per household.

Total actual coverage is >940,000 and < 2,444,000.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/0 ... ILL-NEEDED#

Those numbers are complete horseshit, but I give the author of the article credit for admitting up front that his figures are complete horseshit:

It's important to understand that sources and methodology for this sort of tracking is going to vary widely, depending on what exactly it is that you're trying to track (as well as the source, of course). In my case, yes, I'm including Medicaid expansion signups, [at his point about 80% of the sign ups; does nothing for the viability of the program] because ultimately, what matters is people actually getting decent medical care at an affordable price.

In addition, I've chosen to include completed applications for healthcare plans, even if they haven't actually been enrolled yet. You could certainly argue that I shouldn't count it, but frankly, so many of the articles/sources I'm using fail to make that distinction either that I grew tired of trying to separate the wheat from the chaff.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/0 ... ILL-NEEDED#

[rubato]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub ... id=0&pli=1

Just in: 1,520,000 total. 411,000 via the exchanges. 1,109,000 via expanded Medicaid.

Horseshit= all the republicans drooling at the prospect of making HC unavailable to 50,000,000 people as a way of gaining political power and further hurting the country by shutting down the government to do it.


Yrs,
Rubato

[Andrew D]

The ACA had already done a great deal of good. It will do even more good. Were it not for right-wing sabotage, it would do even more good even faster.

The right wing opposed Social Security. Now, almost no right-winger dares to oppose it. The right wing opposed Medicare. Now, almost no right-winger dares to oppose it.

(There is the shadow opposition: privatization. But in order to assert that policy, the right-wingers have to lie: claiming that privatization is a way to save Medicare, when everyone knows -- and the right-wingers know most of all -- that privatization is a way to kill Medicare, not to save it. Still, the fact that the right-wingers need to lie about their plan for Medicare shows just how out of touch with America they are. And they know it.)

I have faith: Painful as the process may be, America will drag the right wing, kicking and screaming, into adulthood.

[Big RR]

If the right wingers were truly for privatization, they'd embrace the ACA and its use of the private insurance marketplace. I wonder why they don't?

[Jarlaxle]

Anyone who actually calls the ACA "free-market" is too brainwashed to be worth bothering with!

[Big RR]

Free market? No. Privatized? Certainly.

I would have much preferred a public single payer plan along the lines of medicare or social security; you know, the plans that some "conservative" politicians want to privatize along the same lines as the ACA.

[Rick]

Folks that did not carry maternity are being dropped so they can have a plan that has maternity, my wife has been spayed lotta good that'll do us...

[Big RR]

True, but that's a consequence of insurance generally, you spread the risk across a large population; clearly not every one of us will be able to collect more than we pay in, and many of us will not be able to even use some of the benefits provided (my kids are too big for pediatric dentistry as well). My father had a leg amputated; should he have been able to only pay half the premium for podiatric care? Should a man who had his prostate removed be able to reduce his premium for any prostate coverage? insurance doesn't work that way.

[Long Run]

The policy question is twofold: 1) what items must people insure themselves for which they may need insurance; and 2) should everyone have to buy insurance even for things they clearly don't need (e.g., maternity care for men or women who cannot have children). While making everyone buy maternity care, for example, makes such coverage more affordable for those in the population who need such coverage, it also raises the cost for all those who do not. This is one example, where we can say the ACA has done good for some -- but it also has imposed a cost on others. That is, any good under the law comes at a cost to someone else. Overall, the design of imposing those costs -- mainly on paying insureds in a Rube Goldberg model of revenue generation -- is not a very fair or efficient method of gaining the resources needed to provide the good. And like many non-market imposed costs, these added costs create unintended side effects that end up hurting those that were intended to help (e.g., employers of lower income workers who cap weekly work hours at 30 to avoid having to pay the "fair share" tax).

[Big RR]

My mother died at age 65 and collected reduced social security benefits for 3 years, and medicare for a few months; my mother in law has been the beneficiary of both for nearly 30 years. Does that make it unfair or part of a "Rube Goldberg" model? I don't see it that way; under insurance some get more than others, some much less. The only way thios can work is by spreading the cost across a large population.

As for unintended side effects; sure, you'll see them for a while; but eventually the needs of employers for a dedicated work force will trump the desire to save a few bucks.

[Rick]

Social Security is a tax, so yer saying we're being taxed back door style?

[Long Run]

I don't see it that way; under insurance some get more than others, some much less. The only way thios can work is by spreading the cost across a large population.

There are smart ways to design insurance and not-so-smart ways. With Social Security, everyone pays in and everyone has the possibility of receiving the described benefits. It has a fairly efficient tax system to collect the "premiums". Overall, it is a system that works as planned. Medicare works the same way. They're not perfect (and there are other reasons to criticize those programs), but those two systems work reasonably well. The ACA, in contrast, has created a convoluted and complex system, to raise funds and provide coverage, to a class of people who are fairly easy to identify. The intent of the program is not the real problem (provide coverage to more people), it is the manner of trying to achieve that where the legislation has gone astray.

[Big RR]

Back door style? Exactly how? We are required by law to acquire insurance, or to pay a tax if we do not. At least that's the way I recall the Supreme Court viewed it.

Yes social security is a "tax' in that it is collected by the federal government, but it is dedicated to a benefit (whether that benefit is properly funded is another story) in which we have certain rights.

As for the SS and medicare programs, the possibility of receiving benefits are exactly the same as the possibility of receiving benefits under the ACA. If you die before 62, you'll get no social security payments (survivor benefits might apply if you have young children) and the state of your health and body dictate what medicare benefits you might or might not ever have a chance to receive. Just as you or I (or any many) cannot receive pregnancy benefits under ACA, the man with no feet will not receive podiatric benefits under medicare, nor will a person whose heart will not withstand surgery receive surgical benefits.

As for the ACA being convoluted, that's what congress passed; a single payer system would have been preferable IMHO, but the republicans and some democrats sought to block that. So we have what we have. And as for providing coverage to a class of people, exactly who is that---the uninsured?