scrubbedexpat091

After much slowness and reloading, the California website finally worked, buts looks weird, not loading correctly.

I got 34 choices too choose from, mind boggling to try and figure which one would be best.

None seemed to have what I would call good mental health coverage.

Giantaxe

People of a certain ilk would prefer to snipe. After all, they've been sniping about the ACA since it was passed so each and every glitch will be pounced upon with glee. They must be dreading the possibility that the thing might actually work.

g1ant

It's comforting to know that its not just the NHS who can **** up a multi million pound/dollar website contract.

scrubbedexpat099

NHS IT system one of 'worst fiascos ever', say MPs
Patient records in a GP surgery
Ministers want to make the NHS paperless
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
The NHS's troubled relationship with technology
'Paperless NHS' would save billions
Tories unveil NHS database plans
Taxpayers face a rising, multi-billion pound bill for a failed government IT project, MPs have said.

A report by the influential Public Accounts Committee (PAC) concluded an attempt to upgrade NHS computer systems in England ended up becoming one of the "worst and most expensive contracting fiascos" in public sector history.

The final bill for abandoning the plan is still uncertain, the committee said.

Ministers initially put the costs of the NHS scheme's failure at £6.4bn.

Officials later revised the total to £9.8bn, but the PAC said this latest estimate failed to include a price for terminating a contract with Fujitsu to provide care records systems and other future costs.

BBC - September

PS Colorado still down.

RoadWarriorFromLP

Judging from this video, many of them have no idea what they're sniping about.



Yes, they support the Affordable Care Act but oppose Obamacare, which is a bit like supporting NASA while opposing the space program.

Undoubtedly, some of them own computers.

scrubbedexpat099

The Denver Post has a number of articles on it, one person mentioned that even though the Gov site keeps crashing ehealthinsurance has the rates.

So I went on that, has a box to tick if you want 2014 which is presumably the Obama rates.

Cheapest for me solo was $517 and change with a $5,000 deductible and a $50 co pay...

So $12,000 a year!

Affordable?

scrubbedexpat099

Never ever underestimate the stupidity of the general public, I have a few times!

I like it when they go to my web site, get my telephone number and call me to ask questions the answers to which are on the web site page next to my number!

scrubbedexpat099

This was a comment on the Denver Post - think Gurdian in UK terms:

StillUndecided wrote:
NQ1042 wrote:
What?! How could this happen? Fox News tells me that nobody wants Affordable Health Care, so who on earth could possibly be applying for it? And Fox News would NEVER mislead the American Public, would they?

Not everyone accessing the site is looking to sign up. Many people that I work with went there just to check it out and see what the rates might be. More telling is that only 1450 out of the 57500 created accounts.


That's exactly the reason I was on the site yesterday. After all of the conflicting reports about whether or not premiums would rise, I wanted to see if my cost would go down, up, or stay about the same for the same level of coverage I have today. I know other people who went to the site for that reason as well.

Full disclosure: I'm 33, fairly healthy, not a tobacco user. I am currently employed with health benefits (there are only 8 people in the group, so it's not a large group policy). My employer pays 75% of the $257 monthly premium for my coverage. My coverage is pretty good: $30/$55 specialist copays for office visits, all tests and x-rays covered at 100%, excellent rx coverage ($50 max copay for 90 day brand-name rxs, but usually less than $10 for anything else that's generic), a $1000 deductible for hospital/surgical center services only with 80% coverage after it's met, and a max $2500 out of pocket every year. I do not qualify for subsidies (I make a bit less than the median household income though, so it's not like I'm pulling in $75K+/year).

If I were to lose my current coverage, a policy with the same insurer I have now (Humana) would cost me $379/mo, but would come with a $4,600 deductible (for everything including rx, not just hospital/surgical center charges), and the plan would pay only 70% of charges after the deductible is met. The out of pocket max per year was over $9,000/year. There is no way I could afford coverage like this. I've had a "catastrophic" policy with a previous employer before (it was a $5000 deductible with 70% coverage after it's met), and it broke me. I had to borrow money from a family member to cover the deductible so I could have necessary (not elective) surgery. Did it cost me less than being uninsured? Maybe, maybe not. Many physicians and hospitals have special rates for cash patients (I also know this from personal experience, as I've been uninsured before, and also worked in a physician's office that was in a local hospital), and sometimes the actual costs a patient pays can end up being less. I'd be better off trying to negotiate cash payments with offices than paying over $4,500/year for the premium alone on a policy that would likely cost me an additional few thousand for treatments.

The "Affordable" Care Act is affordable only for those who receive subsidies (subsidies that the rest of us pay for).

RoadWarriorFromLP

You're comparing apples to oranges. ACA wasn't intended for you.

It appears to help me tremendously. A Silver plan is fairly similar to my current plan (and is superior in some respects), and costs about 30% less. A Gold plan would provide far better coverage, and would save me about 20%.

Better yet, I have the option of buying a new policy. Now that I'm fortunate enough to have a pre-existing condition, there is no way that I could buy another insurance policy at any price, but for the new law. Insurance companies aren't fond of pre-existing conditions, and if you're lucky like me, then you'll end up with one eventually.

I've been subsidizing plans like yours with my higher individual premiums. Feel free to send me a refund.

Giantaxe

How weird that he is comparing the cost of his current group plan with what he can get from the exchange rather than using the cost of what a current individual policy would cost him as his baseline. And of course he conveniently overlooks the fact that he might not always be even "fairly healthy", thus in the current system rendering him either uninsurable or insurable at a much higher rate, or that that "fairly healthy" status might already imply higher current individual rates.

RoadWarriorFromLP

I've developed a plan to reduce my healthcare costs:

-Don't get any older
-Don't get sick

Damn, too late. Maybe next time.

Bob

Hedging a lot on reincarnation then

scrubbedexpat099

I do not have Insurance. I am hoping due having my own business etc I would likely qualify for a maximum rebate from everybody else.

PS Thanks.

PPS Site still down so I still can not find what the deal is.

PPS I was hoping to get the Gold assuming that the kick back was proportionate.

PPPS Yes it is wrong.

scrubbedexpat099

Colorado still not up and running so I called them.

Having looked at the practicalities it pays me to hold off certain investments I was going to make this year until next year. My premiums will depend on my 2014 actuals, I need to guess what that might be initially.

My business is seasonal and I have decided to keep going this winter, next year I may get to this point and decided the extra income would just go in insurance premiums so it would be not worth it.

Also I need to focus on capital not income a bit more. Capital is irrelevant to the exchanges.

They hope to get the site up by day end, so anybody else in CO, try tomorrow, no promises.

RoadWarriorFromLP

It works for Shirley Maclaine, so who am I to argue?