The Obama administration fixes ACA website - it's fine now

Walter L Newton wrote: But I remember over the years how as soon as voter ID laws were proposed, there were outcry's from the left complaining how difficult it is for the poor to go through the trouble of getting a proper picture ID, no matter how many provisions were in the suggested laws to make that process as easy as possible.

)

I still love this Dennis Miller quote:

Maybe Democrats will eventually turn on Obamacare when they realize you might need a Photo I.D. to participate in the program.

So true.

They don't want to fix the website. More jobs if you have to sign up by phone or in person. See that Michele Obama went to school with one of the execs that got the no bid contract?.

LOL wrote: I nominate PineintheGrass for our "official MMT" Obamacare guinea pig web site tester and reporter. LOL

Thanks for the feedback on your experiences Pine. You must love torture.

I read somewhere that the new browse calculator is based on 27 year olds for "under 50 prices", and 50 year olds for "over 50 pricing" (see Fred for link) LOL, those HHS guys are funny. What a Klooge!

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10 ... obamacare/

The complexity of means testing is a big part of the web site headaches, I said a long time ago they made it too complex. And the real fun comes in April 2015 when your file your taxes with the new Obamacare health insurance compliance forms. A new 1099/Obamacare-long form to justify your subsidy.

That thinkprogress.org article is pretty funny. They accuse CBS news of being wrong when they say Obamacare doesn't want you to really know what the insurance will cost. But then thinkprogress shows how your premiums can actually be much higher than what is quoted at the healthcare.org site. So yes, Obamacare doesn't want you to know what the policy will actually cost unless you go through the lengthy application process.

It's a joke that the healthcare.org browser only asks if you are over or under 50, then gives you the price for a 27 year old if you check under 50 (and they don't tell you this). And if you are 60 they give you the rate for a 50 year old. Yeah, they call the prices quoted "estimates", but I'd expect an estimate to at least be close to the actual cost (maybe plus or minus 5%). But the actual unsubsidized rates can be 50-100% higher than the quoted rates. What good is it?

When you browse for a policy, I counted eight pages where they give you the message that your cost will actually be lower for most people. Never do I see them tell you your cost may actually be higher than what they quote. In fact, your cost will be higher than what they quote for most everyone who doesn't get a subsidy. So yes, they are hiding the true cost of the policies if you use the browser. The Colorado site shows the correct unsubsidized price in their browser, why can't Obama's site do it too?

Now that I think of it, there is a good site to actually shop for policies (though it may not show all companies) in all states and get accurate unsubsidized quotes and detailed policy info without having to fill out an application. And that site has been around for years. It's ehealthinsurance.com. Why wouldn't the government just use them as a model? There is also a pretty good subsidy calculator at their site. But for now, you can only get a subsidy by going through the broken government site. Ehealthinsurance implies they may be able to offer subsidized policies in the future, but I'm assuming they'd need a change in the Obamacare law to be able to do that.

Healthcare.gov built by a Canadian company? LJ & Obama spent all of 2012 berating Mitt Romney for outsourcing jobs. Al least Romney hired competents and saved Americans money.

pineinthegrass wrote: Now that I think of it, there is a good site to actually shop for policies (though it may not show all companies) in all states and get accurate unsubsidized quotes and detailed policy info without having to fill out an application. And that site has been around for years. It's ehealthinsurance.com. Why wouldn't the government just use them as a model? There is also a pretty good subsidy calculator at their site.

Great idea, plus I'll bet they could have bought that model for a small fraction of what they paid for the non-functioning FUBAR.

SNL had great fun skewering Sebilius and healthcare.gov last night.

Every time I think about this website mess, I think of how a house is built. There's a general contractor who is in charge of all the subcontractors... electrician, plumbers, drywallers, excavators, etc. Somebody has to make sure all the pieces are coming together and if not, the blame goes to the general contractor... the buck stops with him.

But who is held reponsible in this situation? Wouldn't Sebelius be the general conntractor, if not, what is her job? She made a ridiculous comment saying there wasn't enough time to fully test the website... what a bunch of crap. Once again, nobody in this administration gets held accountable for anything... and you can't get fired unless you happen to say something that makes this joke of an administration look bad.

And once again Obama knew nothing. He is only the salesman for ACA.?

FredHayek wrote: And once again Obama knew nothing. He is only the salesman for ACA.?

He's the salesman for everything but accountable for nothing.

Jamming and coordinating 5MILLION lines of code and server farms is NOT like building chicken coops......if so we could put all of Detroit to work.