• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heritage is claiming premiums for young people who are healthy will rise in 45 states.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/premi...-in-45-states-under-obamacare/article/2537431

They claim +252% in Virginia

At first I was like whoa, but then I realized it was from Heritage.

HTNmXdW.jpg

I'm rather curious about how they got there numbers. For instance the cheapest plan I've seen in Michigan was about $148/mo. for a healthy 27yo. It also greatly depends on income. I wonder what they're using to average the numbers.

edit: pre-subsidy prices? lol
 

Diablos

Member
Makes for a good headline. and btw, you won't believe where I discovered this: The Washington Examiner.

They are clearly taking advantage of the inability of healthcare.gov's marketplace results showing people how much it will really cost.

FIX DAT SHIT OBAMA

I did just read the site is going down this weekend thanks to haters from the GOP posting CNN vids: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk8AC1iZSKI
 
I don't get why republicans want Sebelius to resign. They should want her to stay. Democrats and liberals should be demanding scalps, not republicans...
 

Diablos

Member
I don't get why republicans want Sebelius to resign. They should want her to stay. Democrats and liberals should be demanding scalps, not republicans...
Because they tried to pin PPACA being a "failure" on Obama and it failed miserably (see: shutdown drama). Time to go after a more vulnerable target in the witch hunt to destroy anything and everything Obama related.
 
I tried to sign up on healthcare.gov today and they could not verify my identity for the life of them. One of the questions was like "we know that you've bought pet insurance in the last two years, what is the name of the pet you insured?" They listed a bunch of terrible names, which was hilarious, but more importantly, I didn't even know pet insurance existed. Either healthcare.gov is absurd or someone out there stole my identity to by pet insurance.
 

gcubed

Member
the biggest fuckup the website is causing is that no one can build a narrative properly about medicaid expansion.

There needs to be a "look! if you had a state exchange you would be free, now your getting fucked because of your legislature"

There is so much focus on how the federal site is failing that no one is talking about how people below the expanded medicaid line are paying more for insurance then people making more
 
I tried to sign up on healthcare.gov today and they could not verify my identity for the life of them. One of the questions was like "we know that you've bought pet insurance in the last two years, what is the name of the pet you insured?" They listed a bunch of terrible names, which was hilarious, but more importantly, I didn't even know pet insurance existed. Either healthcare.gov is absurd or someone out there stole my identity to by pet insurance.

I had the same question, and I selected "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as I'd never bought insurance for a pet.

Verified me just fine.
 

FyreWulff

Member
I'm still waiting for my identity to be confirmed. I sent in documents on about the 12th and they won't let me ID over the phone now, because the document send is still considered pending.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
I gave up--the site wouldn't let me log in so I stayed with my current workplace provider. Guess I'll check in on the exchanges later on (there should be a button on the .gov site that says 'I'm young, healthy, and pretty much your only chance of this thing working, so let me sign in'.)
 

Sibylus

Banned
Joel Brenner (former NSA lawyer in various legal capacities) is claiming that the FISA Court Is Tougher Than the Media Says, and in his own words, "bounces a quarter of the government’s applications for surveillance orders." Sounded great until I was pointed to Steve Vladeck responding that in the FISA court's own words, "we have observed that 24.4 percent of matters submitted ultimately involved substantive changes to the information provided by the government or the authorities granted as a result of Court inquiry or action." That isn't rejection by any stretch of the imagination. Anyhow, Vladeck's posting in full: Two FISA Data Questions for Joel Brenner
  • How many of the “ordinary” warrants issued by federal district courts ex parte and in camera are subsequently subjected to vigorous judicial review (and invalidated) in the context of motions to suppress in criminal cases and/or civil suits for damages for unlawful surveillance? In the FISA context, we know the answer: 0.
  • In any event, in assessing the significance of the 24.4% figure, shouldn’t the nature of the substantive changes to “the information provided by the government or the authorities granted” be relevant to any conclusions about what this data tells us re: the meaningfulness of the FISA Court’s review? Asking for more information about minimization procedures, for example, strikes me as a far cry from substantively reducing the scope of the actual surveillance authority. But there’s no way to tell from the data how much of the 24.4% looks more like the former than the latter.

I was so enthused to post what seemed like good news too, and then enter reality with the backhand. I'll at least excerpt this as a positive, "things turned out better than expected" note to end on:

Steve Vladeck said:
To be clear, I share Joel’s view that the FISA Court is not a rubber stamp, and these two questions are not meant to suggest to the contrary. But the fact that the FISA Court’s actions are subject to no adversarial process, post-hoc review, or appellate scrutiny suggests to me that, whatever conclusions we might derive from such un-differentiated data, there’s still a need (and room) to introduce greater accountability and oversight into the FISA process. Simply put, there’s a whole lot of real estate between “rubber stamp” and vigorous judicial oversight.
 
Managed to finally get through on healthcare.gov, using Chrome instead of Firefox. I don't plan on signing up so I didn't put any tax info on there, which means I can't see any specific prices. Seems pretty damn regressive that you have to sign up and give all your info just to see prices in your area, at your age. I know they added a window shopping option but I'd love to be able to get more specific info without signing up.

Michigan's window shopping prices (just the first few):

Blue Cross « Select Value

Blue Care Network of Michigan

HMO | Catastrophic
Estimated monthly premium for Only you
$128.99
Blue Cross« Premier Value

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

PPO | Catastrophic
Estimated monthly premium for Only you
$147.87
Blue Cross « Select Bronze

Blue Care Network of Michigan

HMO | Bronze
Estimated monthly premium for Only you
$153.40
Personal Alliance 6350

HAP

PPO | Catastrophic
Estimated monthly premium for Only you
$165.41
Blue Cross « Preferred Bronze

Blue Care Network of Michigan

HMO | Bronze
Estimated monthly premium for Only you
$167.97
Blue Cross« Premier Bronze

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

PPO | Bronze
Estimated monthly premium for Only you
$194.10
Blue Cross « Select Silver

Blue Care Network of Michigan

HMO | Silver
Estimated monthly premium for Only you
$198.76
MyPriority HSA Bronze 6000

Priority Health

HMO | Bronze
Estimated monthly premium for Only you
$213.75
MyPriority MyHealth Bronze 5000

Priority Health

HMO | Bronze
Estimated monthly premium for Only you
$215.46
Blue Cross « Preferred Silver

Blue Care Network of Michigan

HMO | Silver
Estimated monthly premium for Only you
$217.66
 
Nearly two decades after its controversial passage, Gov. Pete Wilson's Proposition 187 continues to haunt the Republican Party in California and across the U.S.

A new report from Latino Decisions, a firm that analyzes demographics and voting trends, argues California could have remained a presidential battleground state -- with Democrats and Republicans vying for more congressional and legislative seats here -- were it not for Proposition 187 and later measures that mobilized Latino voters.

Proposition 187, most of which has been invalidated, would have denied various public services to undocumented immigrants. Latino partisanship has grown to more than 70 percent Democratic since the group first comprised more than 10 percent of the state electorate in 1996.

The massive shifts could have broad impacts on the nation, with Latinos nationally poised to swing 24 GOP-held congressional seats in 2014 and 2016 in states such as Nevada, Florida, Colorado and North Carolina, said Gary M. Segura, a politics professor at Stanford University who worked on the study.

Within the 24 districts, the firm identified 14 that are the most likely to flip into the Democratic column because of the sizable Latino electorate and close election results.

The dynamics are even more acute in the state Legislature, where Democrats already control near-supermajorities in both houses, Segura said. Five seats -- Assembly districts 40, 42, 44 and 60 and Senate District 4 -- remain competitive due mostly to the Latino vote, Segura said.

In response to the report, Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, said despite the registration advantages, turnout among Latinos remains comparatively low. "We are trying to as a Democratic Party and Senate leadership see what strategies we could use to increase the Latino turnout," he said.

Republicans in California and several other states recently mounted a multimillion-dollar effort to improve the party's standing among Latinos. Another partner on the study suggested that the GOP tone down some of the rhetoric from within the party and take an active role in national immigration reform to begin making inroads with Latinos.

"The very least the GOP can do is to say 'We want to start fresh,'" said Stephen Nuño, a professor of politics and international affairs at Northern Arizona University.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolaler...ant-measures-in-california.html#storylink=cpy

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolaler...om-anti-immigrant-measures-in-california.html
 

gcubed

Member
Managed to finally get through on healthcare.gov, using Chrome instead of Firefox. I don't plan on signing up so I didn't put any tax info on there, which means I can't see any specific prices. Seems pretty damn regressive that you have to sign up and give all your info just to see prices in your area, at your age. I know they added a window shopping option but I'd love to be able to get more specific info without signing up.

Michigan's window shopping prices (just the first few):

so... where did heritage get their information from? It seems like their average is quite a bit off
 
If Republicans want access to medical care to be a fundamental right on the same level as voting, I'd be cool with that.

Yeah, that is what I was going to say. If they want to equate the two and call healthcare a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution then we should drop photo ID requirement. I don't think that is a great idea but if that is what they want I guess we could compromise on that.


Of course they really don't mean that . . . their own 'victory' on changing the ACA was to strengthen income reporting checking.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
Republicans in California and several other states recently mounted a multimillion-dollar effort to improve the party's standing among Latinos. Another partner on the study suggested that the GOP tone down some of the rhetoric from within the party and take an active role in national immigration reform to begin making inroads with Latinos.
I'm sure the Tea Party will happily go along with that. You fucked yourself, GOP. Enjoy.
 
Heritage is claiming premiums for young people who are healthy will rise in 45 states.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/premi...-in-45-states-under-obamacare/article/2537431

They claim +252% in Virginia

At first I was like whoa, but then I realized it was from Heritage.

http://i.imgur.com/HTNmXdW.jpg

It also probably doesn't take into account that you get more . . . birth control covered, no denying on pre-existing conditions, no lifetime spending caps, your kids can stay on your policy until 26, etc.
 
I'm sure the Tea Party will happily go along with that. You fucked yourself, GOP. Enjoy.

Well, Marco Rubio came out and pushed for some common sense immigration reform and they've continued to support him .. . BWAHAHAHAha . . . no, they immediately dropped him like a Hot Tamale. They hate him now.
 
Managed to finally get through on healthcare.gov, using Chrome instead of Firefox. I don't plan on signing up so I didn't put any tax info on there, which means I can't see any specific prices. Seems pretty damn regressive that you have to sign up and give all your info just to see prices in your area, at your age. I know they added a window shopping option but I'd love to be able to get more specific info without signing up.

Michigan's window shopping prices (just the first few):

I just went to the window shopping page and apparently there's two HMO-based Gold plans available in Ohio for under $300/month.
 
Most likely? Same place as Hannity. Their ass.

Hannity cited Heritage, fwiw.

Like I said, those numbers are probably accurate, they're just pre-subsidy.

Remember, most people who get health insurance on the exchanges will

A. see prices much lower than previously because of subsidies

B. see prices much lower than previously because they have a pre-existing condition that made rates really high

C. More stuff is covered

The pre-subsidy cost doesn't matter. What matters is the average post-subsidies (including those that don't get any, of course).
 
i window shopped and found a platinum (!) plan in my county for $233 a month. i'm in san antonio, texas, fwiw. was pretty startled to see that price, especially pre-subsidy.
 
That looks terrible for a catastrophic. 28 year old can get a gold plan with no deductible out here in Cali for like $225 unsubsidized.

To be fair, it's Ohio - no Medicaid expansion and no state-level exchange is gonna give you that kind of cost.

(Though it's worth noting - looking at that same window shopping page, I'd be able to get a gold plan [with unknown deductible status] from CareSource for $245 without subsidies.)
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Well, between 1999 and 2009 health insurance premiums have climbed an average of 13.1%. If they climbed 13.1% again before subsidies and after the risen standards, that would be a success.

Personally my rates dropped pretty significantly without subsidies, but then again I live in Colorado, a state that even that heritage study said is dropping premiums significantly.
 
Sorry, I meant $235

D7iursA.png

wHez9Lg.png


$235, $0 deductibles, $6350 out of pocket max.

I know right now that a similar plan before Obamacare for the same age area is around $175 but with a deductible.

Looking at these, I don't know why anyone would pick a silver plan for $10 less but comes with a deductible and higher co-pays.

Subsidized plans are different though. If you make under $20k single in that age group, your co-pays are like $3 and $5!
 
California could single handily make Obamacare a success in the short term, at least with respect to sign ups. The prices look amazing.

God I wish the government refused to set anything up in Texas and other states that are completely obstructing the law/hurting it.
 
28yo single male making $17k

$40 month. $0 deductible. $2250 out of pocket max. $3/5 co-pay (see above), $25 ER, $6 urgent care, 10% coinsurance outpatient surgery or hospital care.

The young working poor are getting such an amazing deal. It's sad that the GOP is trying to persuade them not to sign up.
 
28yo single male making $17k

$40 month. $0 deductible. $2250 out of pocket max. $3/5 co-pay (see above), $25 ER, $6 urgent care, 10% coinsurance outpatient surgery or hospital care.

The young working poor are getting such an amazing deal. It's sad that the GOP is trying to persuade them not to sign up.
This is damn good.
 

Cloudy

Banned
I don't get why republicans want Sebelius to resign. They should want her to stay. Democrats and liberals should be demanding scalps, not republicans...

Don't be silly. Firing Sebelius just feeds into the "Obamacare is a disaster" narrative and emblodens the GOP. You cannot show weakness to these idiots and good luck getting a new HHS secretary nominated after that. It'd be a horrific idea to fire her or anyone at HHS over technological issues. Blame the contractor and fire them after the fix the issues...

Dems can't fall into the trap that Healthcare.gov = Obamacare. It doesn't. I'm not sure why they are letting the GOP and media get away with this. State exchanges are having few issues and people can still apply over the phone.

Also, the disingenuousness of people who want to scrap the law complaining about it's shaky initial implementation is laughable and they are not to be taken seriously..
 
Also, the disingenuousness of people who want to scrap the law complaining about it's shaky initial implementation is laughable and they are not to be taken seriously..

On this note, I just saw Fred Upton (R-MI) on NBC saying something along the lines of "if they can't get healthcare.gov's implementation right, how can we trust them to pay providers blah blah blah blah blah" and I think my resulting eyeroll broke my face.
 
California could single handily make Obamacare a success in the short term, at least with respect to sign ups. The prices look amazing.

God I wish the government refused to set anything up in Texas and other states that are completely obstructing the law/hurting it.

I've had long discussions with my fiance (both of us have pre-existing conditions) about seriously moving to California because of the state exchanges. However, we hit a snag with the cost of living since it seems to offset any savings found in the state exchange.. :-/
 

Cloudy

Banned
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/obamacare-applications-98561.html?hp=bn

Administration officials say about 476,000 health insurance applications have been filed through federal and state exchanges, the most detailed measure yet of the problem-plagued rollout of President Barack Obama's signature legislation.

However, the officials continue to refuse to say how many people have actually enrolled in the insurance markets. Without enrollment figures, it's unclear whether the program is on track to reach the 7 million people projecting by the Congressional Budget Office to gain coverage during the six-month sign-up period.

Interest in the insurance markets appears to continue to be high. Officials said about 19 million people had visited HealthCare.gov as of Friday night.

Of the 476,000 applications that have been started, just over half have been from the 36 states where the federal government is taking the lead in running the markets. The rest of the applications have come from the 14 states running their own markets, along with Washington, D.C.

The White House says it plans to release the first enrollment totals from both the federal and state-run markets in mid-November.

An internal memo obtained by The Associated Press showed that the administration projected nearly a half-million people would enroll for the insurance markets during the first month.

Officials say they expect enrollments to be heavier toward the end of the six-month sign-up window.

That's in under 3 weeks with website issues...
 

Piecake

Member
I've had long discussions with my fiance (both of us have pre-existing conditions) about seriously moving to California because of the state exchanges. However, we hit a snag with the cost of living since it seems to offset any savings found in the state exchange.. :-/

Come to Minnesota. Our healthcare prices are the cheapest in the nation and living standards are pretty cheap! Its only cold about 7 months of the year. thats not too bad (I think its only cold for about 2 months, but I live here)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom