ACA sign ups well ahead of Medicare part D.

[rubato]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen ... t-signups/

The truth.

Yrs,
Rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Apples and oranges.
One plan gave people 3 years to sign up, the other gives people 6 months to sign up.
One targetted the elderly who are more likely to not use computers, the other targets everyone.
One was voluntary (there were other options), one is mandatory (or you get fined/taxed/whatever)

If the best they can do is compare Obamacare to Bush plans, then........ (you fill in the blank)

[Joe Guy]

Apples and oranges.
One plan gave people 3 years to sign up, the other gives people 6 months to sign up.....

I guess rubato agrees with you since the article he linked says exactly that -

“The fact that exchange applications are coming in more rapidly than Part D, despite technical glitches, might be explained by differences in the two programs,” Matt Eyles, Avalere’s executive vice president said in a statement. “Many people excluded from the market historically, and those who are being heavily subsidized, have every incentive to sign up early for exchange plans. Medicare beneficiaries already had health insurance and were only looking to add drug coverage.”

[Lord Jim]

I guess rubato agrees with you since the article he linked says exactly that -

Or maybe rube didn't bother to read the article before he linked to it...

Naa, that can't be it; he's never shot himself in the foot that way before...

[Long Run]

That was kind of a typical dumb media article: it proposes a thesis and then to give "equal time" throws in an analysis at the end that completely debunks the thesis.

Reuters had a more telling article this morning:

Nov 11 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's healthcare reform has reached only about 3 percent of its enrollment target for 2014 in 12 U.S. states where new online health insurance marketplaces are mostly working smoothly, a report released on Monday said.

States with functioning exchanges have signed up 49,100 people compared with the 1.4 million people expected to be enrolled for 2014, according to the report by healthcare research and consultancy firm Avalere Health. * * * The 49,100 enrollments also include Medicaid sign-ups in Hawaii and Rhode Island, which did not provide a break-out, Avalere said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/ ... ews&rpc=22

Thus, even in states with functioning exchanges, there have been very low and slow-in-coming enrollments. This indicates a less than enthusiastic market response. But, maybe there will be a late surge as the federal-run exchanges and other state exchanges get going.

Bottom line: This is an incredibly slow start and there is a long way to go yet before we can tell how well the new law is going to work.

[Guinevere]

Isn't that the point -- its too soon to tell.

But hey, no political capital gained by letting the system run, and see what happens. No no no, lets just jump up and down and point fingers and waste all sorts of time declaring a failure before the policies are even effective.

[Long Run]

Actually, it is completely fair game to criticize the Administration for its incompetent roll-out of its number one priority, as well as being caught in a big fat "mis-speak" that everyone could keep their existing policies -- period. When politicians screw up to this extent, you expect the opposition to jump on them, and finally most of the media is finally treating an Obama screw-up as big news and deservedly highlighting the many ways in which this has to come to pass.

So yes, there is no political capital in letting your opponent get a free pass for doing a lousy job (I've never seen any politician of any stripe not take advantage of such a situation). As to whether the law ends up being lousy policy as well will have to wait until the implementation, which should be well under way already, is finally further along.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Isn't that the point -- its too soon to tell.

But hey, no political capital gained by letting the system run, and see what happens. No no no, lets just jump up and down and point fingers and waste all sorts of time declaring a failure before the policies are even effective.

Just addressing the website debacle:

They had three years and hundreds of millions of dollars (I've heard over $500 million but can find no definitive sum) to do this.

It should have taken no more than a year to get the essential underlying components and database running, another year to put on the front end and attach all the various agencies/companies parts to the underlying database and another 6months to a year of testing. Test with small loads and ramp up. Expand as needed. There are many companies who do this and do this competently for less than the hundreds of millions spent. This is not cutting edge stuff here and similar sites already exist.

[Crackpot]

Nothing over a year to get a website that securely checks your last 5 years* of income? Not to mention all the other batshit checks and counterchecks (got to prevent that waste you're always complaining about) added in this law?

(not entirely sure how many years income records for the various income requirements go back but IIRC it's somewhere between 5-10)

[Andrew D]

And, of course, the Republican alternative would be far better.

You know, the alternative which means that tens of millions of Americans will have no affordable health care.

That is, after all, what the Republicans want.

[rubato]

Obamacare is still doing better than all of the Republican states who have blocked 5,000,000 of their own citizens from getting Medicare. Or Chief Injustice John Roberts who let them do it.


yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

Medicaid, not Medicare.

[rubato]

Medicaid.

Sorry


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Wishing for the failure of Obamacare is wishing for the failure of the United States as a country.

Despite a Botched Rollout, the Health-Care Law Is Worth It

Alan Blinder defends Obamacare:

Despite a Botched Rollout, the Health-Care Law Is Worth It, by Alan S. Blinder, Commentary, WSJ: The botched rollout of ... "ObamaCare") has been an unmitigated disaster. Choose your favorite adjective: horrible, embarrassing, inexcusable. They all fit.

But a badly designed website doesn't signify a badly designed policy. The goals, principles and major design features of the ACA are barely affected by the government's health-exchange website catastrophe. If you liked the basic ideas before, you still should. ...

Unfortunately, that simple message may not penetrate the public consciousness. ... Remember, in politics, spin is often more important than reality. ... If we could get people to turn their attention from PR to policy—a big if—they would see that little has changed. The three central elements of ObamaCare are insurance reform, getting (most of) the uninsured covered, and containing the upward spiral in medical-care costs. Each remains in place. ...

Considering all these problems, is the game worth the candle? Absolutely—because the status quo ante was so unacceptable. America cannot be a humane society if we leave 15% of our population uninsured. America cannot be an efficient society if we spend 50% to 100% more of our incomes on health care than other countries, and yet don't get better health outcomes. We can't let a botched website get in the way of goals that big.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0529141926

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Wishing for the failure of Obamacare is wishing for the failure of the United States as a country.

We live in hope!!

[Lord Jim]

Wishing for the failure of Obamacare is wishing for the failure of the United States as a country.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.”
― Bertrand Russell

I've come across a real treasure trove of Russell quotes rube, and you can expect to see them dropped in from time to time where appropriate...

You being such a fan, I'm sure you'll appreciate it...

[oldr_n_wsr]

Nothing over a year to get a website that securely checks your last 5 years* of income?

IRS already has that in a database. Searching a database is childsplay for any competent programmer/database manager.

Not to mention all the other batshit checks and counterchecks (got to prevent that waste you're always complaining about) added in this law?

As I said, the IRS database contains most info they need to check. And they had three years to do it. Two years to design/link/implement would leave a year to test. In fact I think two years to design and implement is a lot of time, but the year to test is probably too short.
Then there's $500million (or there-abouts) price tag. And what do the "best and brightest" they now hired to fix the problems add to the cost? And why weren't they designing it in the first place?

Now I heard that some of the "navigators" the gov hired have recommended those who call up to lie about their income to get better rates/subsidies. Haven't been able to confirm that yet.

ETA
And they put a waver on some of the mandated "higher" security features to get it done on time.

[Crackpot]

Searching is easy searching securely is something else entirely. What you have here is a website opening a huge door to all that sensitive IRS data. A door that requires secure quick access. Is it really so hard to see the picture I'm painting here?

I tire of the argument about websites that amount to "they're simple enough Gob can do it." Which completely ignore the scale and scope of the project. It's the equivalent do saying I once made my own FM radio (with supplies and instructions) I don't see what you do as being all that difficult.

[oldr_n_wsr]

And they waved some of the security requirements in order to get the site up.
As I said, the IRS has the database and the security. These are not new concepts. They have been in use and are in use already. The structure is "off the shelf" and there are people with the knowledge and expertise where given three years could, have and should have had this thing launchingreasonably well (and for far less then the $600million estimates have it at). Sure there would be glitches as with any rollout, but the flaws are fundamental and the solutions I fear are mere bandaids.

[Gob]

I tire of the argument about websites that amount to "they're simple enough Gob can do it."

I'm available to them for a fee....