Technically correct, as the article said under 1% but that could mean 49,999 people. I would think if it was significantly under 1% they would've said something else. Also just to add they said they had 5.7 mil hits so that under 1% could be higher than 50,000. Really? Right here on this page someone cites the glitches as part of the failure. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8275957
Keep hoping that folks who don't have health insurance won't be thrilled to get it and remember who shut the government down just to try to prevent it. Hint: many of them don't watch Fox or listen to Rush, but those who do will not be as susceptible to the lies told them once they experience the peace of mind of having insurance. Obama should not blink. Let the 40 or so morons in safe carefully crafted very white mainly southern House districts take the GOP over the cliff. Loving it.
California is doing just fine, thank you. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/fJFuZpYWr-k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Precisely zero people signed up in Kansas. Home state of HHS Secretary Sebelius. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...For-ObamaCare-In-Sebelius-Own-State-of-Kansas
Let me preface the below by stating that I was at one point not above the behavior I am about to redicule. I was shown the error of my ways. To that point... Libtards? Really? I'm not kidding when I say this, but SHAME ON YOU rudan. SHAME! ON! YOU! I don't care how you particularly feel about the ACA, democrats, tea-party supporters, anyone. But why do you feel the need to use the suffix of an outdated and extremely hurtful term to describe any group in a pejorative fashion? You cheapen your argument, hurt your cause, and reflect poorly on those in this thread that agree with your points about the ACA. And to what end? To call someone a dirty name? For shame, rodon... /Soap Box
I apoligize, it must be hurtful for one group to be compared to another group like that I will call them terrorist or jihadist next time
So, how many years down the line until democrats attack aca and republicans defend it? It is inevitable.
sounds like the Onion, but it's real life. Obama's Obamacare posterboy actually didn't enroll. It was a lie to trump up support. Doesn't surprise me at all. http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/04/obamacare-chad-henderson-father UPDATED: Obamacare Poster Boy Chad Henderson and His Dad Didn't Really Buy Insurance An exclusive Reason.com interview with Bill Henderson. Peter Suderman | October 4, 2013 Chad Henderson is the media’s poster boy for Obamacare. Reporters struggled this week to find individuals who said they had been able to enroll in one of the law’s 36 federally run health-insurance exchanges. That changed yesterday, when they found Henderson, a 21-year-old student and part-time child-care worker who lives in Georgia and says that he successfully enrolled himself and his father Bill in insurance plans via the online exchange administered at healthcare.gov. But in an exclusive phone interview this morning with Reason, Chad's father Bill contradicted virtually every major detail of the story the media can't get enough of. What's more, some of the details that Chad has released are also at odds with published rate schedules and how Obamacare officials say the enrollment system works. The coverage of Chad Henderson has been massive. He was featured in The Washington Post Thursday as “the Obamacare enrollee that tons of reporters are calling.” He was also profiled in The Huffington Post as someone who “beat the glitches to sign up for Obamacare.” He was interviewed by Politico, multiple local news organizations, and, according to his Facebook feed, was asked to be part of a conference call hosted by the Department of Health and Human Services. Chad's story was tweeted out by the official Obamacare Twitter feed. It was promoted to the media by Enroll America, a health-care activist group headed by a former White House communications staffer, as a sign of Obamacare’s success. Henderson told reporters at multiple news outlets that after a three-hour wait to sign up online, he enrolled around 3 a.m. Tuesday morning in an unsubsidized private insurance plan that would cost him about $175 a month. He also said that his father enrolled in separate coverage plan that would cost about $250 a month after factoring in the subsidies for which his father qualified on his approximately $24,000 annual income. Chad’s decision to purchase his own, separate plan might surprise some. A monthly premium of $175 would represent about 30 percent of his pre-tax take home pay—about $583 a month on the $7,000 part-time income he claimed. And he could have chosen to be covered by his father’s plan, which, under the Affordable Care Act, would have been required to cover dependents up to the age of 26. Chad said his father encouraged him to be covered under his own plan, even though the cost was higher. "He's old school, so he wants me to take responsibility," Chad told The Huffington Post. Henderson’s story was promoted as proof that the new health law can work for individuals. That was exactly how Chad intended it. He was a volunteer with President Obama’s campaign last year, and his LinkedIn page still lists him as an active volunteer with Organizing for Action, the former campaign organization which now advocates for the president’s legislative agenda. He told The Washington Post that he was sharing his story because he wanted the new health law to succeed. "I've read a few articles about how young people are very critical to the law's success," he said to The Post. "I really just wanted to do my part to help out with the entire process." But details of Chad's story proved difficult to verify. And in a phone interview conducted this morning, Chad’s father Bill contradicted major details of Chad’s story. I reached Bill Henderson by following a series of links at Chad's Facebook page, through which I was able to speak directly to the father. Bill Henderson told me that both he and his son were interested in getting coverage, but that he had not enrolled in any plan yet, and to his knowledge, neither had his son. He also said that when they do enroll, getting the most coverage for the least money would be the goal, and that he expects that he and his son will get coverage under the same plan. Bill told me that Chad had been looking into plans online. “He told me that there’s different plans. And we haven’t decided which plans to enroll in yet.” I asked him whether he and his son had talked about going on separate plans, and he told me that, “We’ll probably go on the same plan, more than likely.”
It took 6 days to work, but I finally was able to get into the website to see available plans. It's fairly poorly designed, making you put in a lot of info just to see available plans and probably is more complicated than necessary. That said, it took about 10-15 minutes to see them and here's what I found. My current individual insurance is around $200, with a $3500 deductible and max out of pocket of something like $6000. There are dozens of plans on the website. There is only 1 platinum plan (Humana), for $275 with *no deductible* and a max out-of-pocket of $1500. Co-pays and co-insurance are pretty similar to what I have now, but there's a lot of details I have yet to compare. There are 20 gold plans, ranging from $200ish to $400ish - I have to see the details to see why the range varies so much, and why it would be more expensive than the platinum one. Haven't looked at the silver or bronze options yet.
That's pretty good. My work insurance is like $130 with a $250 ded and $1250 max out of pocket. You're in Texas? Under 40?
Yes and yes. Yeah, for an extra $900 or so per year, I would eliminate my $3500 deductible entirely and reduce my max out-of-pocket by about $5000. Seems like a reasonable tradeoff - even moreso if you're not very healthy. I'll have to look how much of my deductible I've used each of the last few years. Only negative is that I love my BCBS and have had some negative experiences with Humana before.
lol yeah this thing is off to a great start. I'm sure government efficiency will turn this into a smashing success.
Its unfortunate that the experience with the federal exchange is so poor. Too bad Texas opted to not design its own exchange. The exchange here in Minnesota has been pretty easy to use thus far in my experience and the prices have been damn good. The states that opted to create their own exchange have had far more competitiveness and in Minnesota's case, the insurance regulators have done a far better job than Texas at ensuring that there is a healthy balance of plans. On the exchange here, I saw 5 platinum options that were between $170-$250 which is the price of a bronze plan in a lot of states. Obviously states (and even regions within states) have different dynamics but the regulators in Texas have made little to no effort in trying to ensure the best possible outcome for consumers. The federal exchange was supposed to be a stopgap in case a few states opted out of creating an exchange. No one predicted that states would deliberately opt out just to stick it to the President. And sadly consumers paid the price. Meanwhile, the states that actually tried to make this work have seen far better results.
Absolutely - there's a huge difference between the states that try to implement it properly and those that don't. Its unfortunate that red states are screwing over their populations in their little Obamacare hissy fit - even more amusing that these "states rights" states gave their exchanges to the Feds. That said, even with everything working against them, the prices here in Texas aren't bad - and may be cheaper while addressing a host of issues like pre-existing conditions - compared to what already existed.
