DescentBB

Want to see Obamacare's data laid bare?

https://data.healthcare.gov

Seems this isn't supposed to be available to the public at large.

I wouldn't trust this administration with my info- why should you?

I have to admit this is a really cool idea. I like how the API's are there to help developers integrate with the system.

If someone told you this isn't supposed to be public you are an idiot for believing them. It's clearly designed for non-healthcare.gov agencies and developers. There is nothing useful to the general public anyway so who cares? Oh wait, you do because I'm sure someone told you "OBAMA THE MUSLIM COMMUNIST SCREWED UP" and posted that link somewhere. And since you don't know what you are looking at you naively believed them. But the opposite is true. You just helped draw attention to some really useful tools to make heathcare.gov run better! Hurray TB! You did Obama a favor! I'm sure you are proud of yourself. ;P

Listen- if you dare...

http://traffic.libsyn.com/batchelorshow ... 10_22c.mp3

You are an idiot and that podcast is ridiculously juvenile.

vision wrote:You are an idiot and that podcast is ridiculously juvenile.

As if you actually listened. You didn't because you want your fantasy to continue without being shattered.

ThunderBunny wrote:As if you actually listened. You didn't because you want your fantasy to continue without being shattered.

I listened to the first 10 minutes. I especially like when John Bachelor says "Now Francis and Jeff and I are all very careful reporters, we don't like asking questions that we don't know the answers [of] to..." (3m:28s) Yeah, I bet you don't, hahahaha. What a moron. The super dramatic intro music is a nice because it immediately signals to critical listeners "hey, this is not journalism, you can move on now." I actually thought the podcast was satire at first, but sadly it isn't.

I've looked at data.heathcare.gov. I'm sorry, I only see helpful tools. No incriminating information, no screw-ups, no secrets. Maybe in your infinite wisdom you can show us something on that site worth a eyedropper of outrage?

Good luck.

Now here's something interesting, courtesy of the testimony during the House Committee hearings on CSPAN today. 10 days before the ACA website went live, someone at CMS told the web developer to remove the "shop before you login" option. In other words, one couldn't shop for policy prices BEFORE they created an account. Why? Hiding the sticker shock maybe? Also, the full viability testing of the new ACA website only occurred 2 weeks before it went live, when most web developers want at least 2 months to work out the kinks and bugs.

what does creating an account have to do with actual purchase? That was a dumb thing to do, according to some geeks I know, because a lot of pathways changed. Also, if you wish to shop first, most every state I know has a clearinghouse page with rates.

callmeslick wrote:what does creating an account have to do with actual purchase? That was a dumb thing to do, according to some geeks I know, because a lot of pathways changed.

Agreed. It doesn't really matter is rate information is on data.heathcare.gov because the average user doesn't shop for insurance by digging through a mountain of spreadsheets. I mean, if they want to, more power too them. It's an added bonus to heathcare.gov, but it's probably quicker and easier to just make an account and use the tools provided.

callmeslick wrote:what does creating an account have to do with actual purchase? That was a dumb thing to do, according to some geeks I know, because a lot of pathways changed. Also, if you wish to shop first, most every state I know has a clearinghouse page with rates.

Perhaps because of this, higher than expected costs? I was able to peruse costs on Cover Oregon's site without having to create an account there either. Something smells and it ain't stupidity.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... rue-costs/

really, TC? Because some folks who have been spouting gloom and doom about prices make that goofy assumption? Allowing people to know their subsidy in advance, merely allows them to judge the REAL cost to them, it says NOTHING, at all, about high prices. I've already clearly stated that my overall policy cost is dropping for similar coverage, here in DE, and from ALL reports the same is true everywhere. And, that is without a subsidy. Perhaps, knowing one is getting a subsidy might allow some folks to budget in a BETTER policy for their household. Ever consider that?

Oh, and I manage to get on and set up the account rather quickly today, so clearly some issues are being addressed. Haven't made selection yet, but at least the database is filled in. A bit of a process as I had to declare all the grandkids that live here. At least I'm done.........

Well, here's something along those lines. My father, who is on Medicare, got his printed open enrollment book a couple of weeks back. Nowhere, NOWHERE, in the whole book were any cost numbers for Medicare Part B.........AT ALL. Open enrollment has STARTED already and it appears that they may not get the numbers up before it ends. Every year prior, there was a quote for the next fiscal year. This year, absolutely NADA. Same on their website, NADA. Only 2013, last year's. Some letter writer in our local paper today noted that very thing, which made me call my dad and ask. He's right, only the 2013 costs are shown, both on the Medicare website AND the printed book. What are they hiding?

http://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-c ... costs.html

ThunderBunny wrote:Listen- if you dare...

http://traffic.libsyn.com/batchelorshow ... 10_22c.mp3

lol I figured out a sub domain. I iz an 1337 haxor gg

callmeslick wrote:I've already clearly stated that my overall policy cost is dropping for similar coverage, here in DE, and from ALL reports the same is true everywhere...

Thats a bald faced lie. There have been relatively few reports of prices dropping. In fact quite the opposite. Nationwide costs are going up exponentially and you know it.

what was that .yuk link will posted again?

are you suggesting that prices for most people are higher for the same coverage, CUDA? Links please, and take subsidies out of the price, too.

NOT.... you said ALL reports...that is a lie.

Dont change the subject trying to deflect from your statement.

callmeslick wrote:are you suggesting that prices for most people are higher for the same coverage, CUDA? Links please, and take subsidies out of the price, too.

Well it appears you are still using the .yuk information portal (get it....portal )

Just got of the phone with Blue Cross and here is a clearer view. All plans are equal except for:
Deductibles
Co-pays
Out of pocket max

So for Bronze you pay around 544.00 per month for:
Deductible 4400.00. Then Co-pay starts 20/80 until you pay another1950.00 for total out of pocket of 6350.00

For silver monthly is 730.00 for:
Deductible 1400.00. Then Co-pay 20/80 until you pay another 4600.00 for total of 6000.00

For Gold monthly is 882.00 for:
Deductible 150.00. Then Co-pay 20/80 until you pay another 4950.00 for total of 5100.00

Now my existing plan I pay 270.00 a month and have:
Deductible 2500.00. Then 20/80 until I pay another 2500.00 for total of 5000.00 out of pocket.

Now if I had no subsidies my monthly fee goes from 270.00 to 882.00 based on total out of pocket expenses. Now slickster where would I be saving any money with no subsidies? Want to argue call up Blue Cross.

I'd have to know what your current plan covers or doesn't cover, by way of certain pharmacy bennies, routine preventive care, mental health coverage(not implying anything, but when someone needs it, they really need it), etc. I suspect your current plan is not available, as is, because it falls short of the ACA plans in a lot of areas that are now mandatory.

callmeslick wrote:I'd have to know what your current plan covers or doesn't cover, by way of certain pharmacy bennies, routine preventive care, mental health coverage(not implying anything, but when someone needs it, they really need it), etc. I suspect your current plan is not available, as is, because it falls short of the ACA plans in a lot of areas that are now mandatory.

Is it wrong to change the rules about what must be covered and then tell people they get to keep their coverage... and it will cost less...but "their coverage" is then outlawed....and the cost of the new plan that satisfies the law isn't a lower priced premium payment but it is more 'valuable' by way of additional coverage that the buyer didn't choose in his original plan so you can technically call it 'less expensive'?

I know used car salesmen who use those kind of tricks. I didn't know my President was going to. And I had no idea the media was going to help him do it.

Will Robinson wrote:I didn't know my President was going to. And I had no idea the media was going to help him do it.

I just don't understand all this anger toward the President and the media. Why isn't more of it directed toward the greed in the insurance and the medical industries? That's how we got here in the first place. The president wouldn't have to do anything if it were not for out of control healthcare costs. This has been going on long before Obama was even a politician. Ridiculous.

Yeah, we are here because a single extra strength dose of acetaminophen (2 tablets) at a clinic costs you $40 when you can buy 1000 tablets of it at your local Walgreens for $10 or less regular price. We are here because a 200000% markup is completely insane, even though it is an everyday industry wide occurrence in the American healthcare system. Everything you get from a clinic or hospital from a simple stick on bandage to a pacemaker is marked up thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of percent over what it really costs and that is just so the clinic can break even. And all of that was happening long before ACA existed.

That's what I don't get about the outrageous prices charged people in our health care system. That's why I abhor going to the doctor, even though I should. I know if I go, I'm going to leave with a major wallet biopsy and not much to show for my money. Why aren't Americans fuming mad and starting a violent revolution over this practice? Any other industry would be thrown in jail for grand larceny, except for military and government contractors that is.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I didn't know my President was going to. And I had no idea the media was going to help him do it.

I just don't understand all this anger toward the President and the media. Why isn't more of it directed toward the greed in the insurance and the medical industries? That's how we got here in the first place. The president wouldn't have to do anything if it were not for out of control healthcare costs. This has been going on long before Obama was even a politician. Ridiculous.

The ACA is NOT what he said it was going to be.
It is NOT costing anywhere close to as little as he said it would.
It is NOT just some little tweak to some policy that can be reversed after he is gone if it turns out to be a bad deal. We broke the eggs now we get omelet...or not... but we don't get to put the eggs back in the shell.

The insurance companies are expected to look out for their own interests. We expect that behavior from all private for profit entities.
We expect our government to look out for our best interests and protect us from those profit whores. We aren't getting that and the media isn't doing it's job calling the politicians out on it.

What we got was a promise that ACA would reduce costs and cover the 20 million that have no coverage. That isn't happening and isn't going to happen.
What we will get instead is an epic shift from individuals in control to government in control. A major portion of the economy is being jacked around.
The healthcare 'responsibility' the government has taken on in our name is a blank check to have government dictate all sorts of behavior under the guise of they pay the bill therefore we follow their direction.

For the amount of money they are spending, if their goal was true, they could have simply underwritten a catastrophic care policy and some minimal level of preventative care as a part of the Medicare system for anyone who could prove a certain lower level of income. Everyone would be covered with minimal loss of freedom and no giant increase in government control over behavior.
Healthcare coverage for all is NOT the goal of the ACA, at least it isn't the sole primary goal of it, there is another whole side to the plan. If it is only about healthcare coverage it is the single most outrageously ill-designed attempt by government to do anything ever put into law! It is packed full of more stuff that isn't beneficial to delivering a sustainable coverage system than is beneficial to that end goal.

And keep in mind, I'm NOT in favor of anything the Repubs have offered....which is really nothing other than lip service to try and put it all back like it was.
I was one of the ones who dropped his insurance coverage due to costs 3 years ago and have been hoping the ACA could be morphed into a streamlined feasible solution to outrageously high costs that put my family at risk.
But I've watched the politicians screw the pooch on this issue with complete contempt for us all. Both parties have seized this as political opportunity with no desire to really solve anything for the average man/woman.

The right wants it to be a failure for Obama and the left. And that's as far as they have thought it through or care about it.
The left is doing as they always do, Let no crisis go to waste in pursuit of empowering their big government-without-a-clue agenda. So they have turned the Affordable Care Act into the ★■◆● Yea We Get It All Now Act.

Will Robinson wrote:Long list of things...

The ACA isn't even fully implemented. It's going to take years before we see the actual results of the law. All this panic-mongering (slick's word) is premature. In fact, absolutely no one here including myself can make any factual statements about how successful or unsuccessful the law will be. It's much to early to tell.

And why didn't you run for president with your awesome idea? You could have fixed everything Will!

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Long list of things...

The ACA isn't even fully implemented. It's going to take years before we see the actual results of the law. All this panic-mongering (slick's word) is premature. In fact, absolutely no one here including myself can make any factual statements about how successful or unsuccessful the law will be. It's much to early to tell.

not according to slick, he spouts off his information implying it to be fact

CUDA wrote:not according to slick, he spouts off his information implying it to be fact

Right, they are just projections. However, it's not like the plan was made willy-nilly. Some brilliant people have run the numbers and it looks like it has a fair shot at working. Remember, this is modeled after the successful Romneycare. But it's also important to keep a couple things in perspective:

1. We can't completely dismantle the current system in place of another. What's happened is, believe it or not, relatively small adjustments to try and fix some of the problems. Progress in a system this big is necessarily incremental. The current system still exists but with new rules in place to try and make everything fair. Insurance companies get more business but can't be such dicks. Some people get better coverage/rates and other won't. The government picks up some of the slack. Yes there are better alternatives (I'm not a fan of the ACA either), but this probably provides the least amount of economic shock while still addressing the problem (It's a HUGE problem).

2. This is an enormous endeavor. Results won't be seen in days or weeks. Not even months but literally years. It will take a long time for the dust to settle. People need to be enrolled, premiums have to be paid, and taxes/fines need to be collected before we can see it the ACA is having the desired effect. But in the meantime very little will appear to have changed and anything said about the ACA will be mostly speculative.

The economy will not collapse because of the ACA (the market, our country's health barometer, is already showing us that). We will have lots of time to look at this again in the 2016 election cycle.

CUDA wrote:

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Long list of things...

The ACA isn't even fully implemented. It's going to take years before we see the actual results of the law. All this panic-mongering (slick's word) is premature. In fact, absolutely no one here including myself can make any factual statements about how successful or unsuccessful the law will be. It's much to early to tell.

not according to slick, he spouts off his information implying it to be fact

pure BS, I have merely indicated that common sense dictates certain likely outcomes.

Will Robinson wrote: The right wants it to be a failure for Obama and the left. And that's as far as they have thought it through or care about it.

at least you're honest. Now, look at the above quote and tell me how that serves the national interest WHATSOEVER.

Same thing the left did to Reagan, when they only gave him 2 parts of his 3 part program.

Of course it was then doomed to drive up the deficit, and could then be called names like Voodoo economics.

My point here isn’t the same old “they do it too” but more like…they both need to knock it the ★■◆● off.

Now, the left(the serious left) NEVER supported the ACA either. All along, they've been calling for Single-Payer. As I've stated before, I think the nation as a whole will reach the same conclusion, but we are 6 or 7 years away from that being a reality, IMHO.

Now, the left(the serious left) NEVER supported the ACA either. All along, they've been calling for Single-Payer. As I've stated before, I think the nation as a whole will reach the same conclusion, but we are 6 or 7 years away from that being a reality, IMHO.

Now, the left(the serious left) NEVER supported the ACA either. All along, they've been calling for Single-Payer. As I've stated before, I think the nation as a whole will reach the same conclusion, but we are 6 or 7 years away from that being a reality, IMHO.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: The right wants it to be a failure for Obama and the left. And that's as far as they have thought it through or care about it.

at least you're honest. Now, look at the above quote and tell me how that serves the national interest WHATSOEVER.

It doesn't
Now look at the whole statement that characterizes the equally self serving and destructive nature of the Dems role in the clusterfuck and tell me how supporting the tactics and methods of EITHER party serves the national interest!

You know as well as I do that the beauracracy and system was already in place to extend coverage to any qualified citizen. All they had to do is tweak the scope of coverage, tweak the requirements for qualifying and budget to cover the cost and the stated goals of ACA would be met. 20+ million uninsured suddenly covered. That coverage wasn't what they were after.

The ACA is placeholder/blank check embedded into our law for BIG government control of all aspects of our lives.
If you think the old line 'for the general welfare' has been used to stretch government authority just wait to see what kind of social and economic engineering comes under the umbrella of the ACA!!!

The Repubs implode, the Dems take over and after a few decades of their un impeded Libs-gone-wild rule the US is done for! Toast!

Stop being part of the big problem.

why should the nation implode? I see no other nation doing so because of healthcare policy and a social safety net. Problems can be found? Sure, but 'the nation implodes' is alarmist nonsense, and Lord knows we've heard enough of THAT in the past 5 years or so.

callmeslick wrote:why should the nation implode? I see no other nation doing so because of healthcare policy and a social safety net. Problems can be found? Sure, but 'the nation implodes' is alarmist nonsense, and Lord knows we've heard enough of THAT in the past 5 years or so.

I think I said the Repubs implode...

I think if they do and the Dems are allowed to rule with impunity the way Obama has been able to operate then the whole government will soon operate with the same level of effectiveness, corruption and shortsighted goals as his administration has. That is, in my view, the U.S. going to hell rather quickly.

Oopsie. A sneaky, perhaps intentional, probably inspired by Republicans time bomb is going to go off in all those Republican States that opted out of the exchanges. So that's why they opted out.

 

“But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what's in it....” 

Hrm

Apparently no one noticed this when the long and complicated bill worked its way through the House and Senate. 

I guess we're finding out huh Nancy. We are finding out that those subsidies that were promised wont be going out to a couple million people

I think slicks "simple math" aint so simple

callmeslick wrote:why should the nation implode? I see no other nation doing so because of healthcare policy and a social safety net. Problems can be found? Sure, but 'the nation implodes' is alarmist nonsense, and Lord knows we've heard enough of THAT in the past 5 years or so.

You want to see a harbinger of what is to come with the Dems in charge? Just look at the mess Detroit is in. Only when it happens to America, there will be no one to bail us out.

I guess when we'll "implode" will depend on how many people lose access to any type of health care, and I'm not talking about insurance either. You get enough people in need that so get resentful of all those rich people that are the only ones that have access to cushy health care, they're going to get really pissed off about it...and do something about it.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:why should the nation implode? I see no other nation doing so because of healthcare policy and a social safety net. Problems can be found? Sure, but 'the nation implodes' is alarmist nonsense, and Lord knows we've heard enough of THAT in the past 5 years or so.

You want to see a harbinger of what is to come with the Dems in charge? Just look at the mess Detroit is in. Only when it happens to America, there will be no one to bail us out.

or, you can look at California, as I noted before. A nice comeback after a series of Republicans fecked things up.