Healthcare.gov Still Isn't Working. 30% Error Rate for Consumer Information.

[JakeStarkey]

​

The site is working insofar as a bit less than 1/3 of the people who try to sign up get to sign up. But, over 3/4ths of the people who have signed up actually have. The information was put in, but not received.

Nancy Pelosi said we have to pass the bill to see what's in it. Well, you have to actually try to get medical care to find out you don't have any insurance.

As many people signed up in one day this month as all of October, more than 29,000.

It will keep getting better and easily meet its goal.

Jake, truly, you are always wrong. The Obama Administration has not released enrollment numbers since October, so how would you know? Are you psychic, or does Barry have you on speed dial?

And that is why I had to look elsewhere. You saying "nay" is not going to work.

The program is working, the site is getting better, folks are getting enrolled, and you are simply left at the station.

 

[Oldstyle]

From what I've seen/heard today, I understand the website is vastly improved and that there is a surge in usage.

I also heard that Walmart.com failed over the cyber Monday shopping event. Are we going to repeal WalMart now? Because that proves WalMart is a bad idea.

LOL

So garbage is going into the website better. That's nice. Is garbage going out? And if it is going out...is it going out correctly?

Since Obama and his people will not answer that question maybe you can?

You fuckers have blown this way, way out of proportion from Day One. In the first place, only a relatively small proportion of Americans are even applicable. Most Americans are already insured, so this applies to the uninsured. Also, the complexity of this website is extreme; although talk radio shows regularly parade website "experts" that talk about how easily this should have been done, it is a lie. These so-called "experts" are good at blogging about their Halo gaming skills, and that's about it.

Final legislation and site rules relating to the web site operation weren't even available until about just 6 months ago--the whole project was underfunded by Congress and needlessly delayed.

It will work, and Republicans will hate that. Republicans are literally supporting failure.

Underfunded? At 600 million? Now THAT is some funny shit!

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is funning to watch the far right reactionaries with their radical agendas pissing on themselves.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It is funning to watch the far right reactionaries with their radical agendas pissing on themselves.

I'll bet it is funning, Fake. I'll bet it is.

 

[WelfareQueen]

It is funning to watch the far right reactionaries with their radical agendas pissing on themselves.

Jake...this is good stuff. You got in "far right," the always classic "reactionary," and "radical."


I think you forgot "TPM," or "teabaggers."


Since you got 3 out of 4 you still get a passing grade, but it needs work.

 

[Antares]

Jake has never even been on the website, he hasn't looked at a single Plan, he simply loves Bammy's dick in his mouth....which is why he voted for him.

Jake you are no more than a Lefty shill who has no idea as to what is about to run over your ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is funning to watch the far right reactionaries with their radical agendas pissing on themselves.

Jake...this is good stuff. You got in "far right," the always classic "reactionary," and "radical." I think you forgot "TPM," or "teabaggers." Since you got 3 out of 4 you still get a passing grade, but it needs work.

An sour lemon is still a sour lemon. The far right reactionaries are the equivalent of the far left liberals. Neither end means any good for America.

Tis what tis.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake has never even been on the website, he hasn't looked at a single Plan, he simply loves Bammy's dick in his mouth....which is why he voted for him.

Jake you are no more than a Lefty shill who has no idea as to what is about to run over your ass.

You are a reactionary who happens to love ACA. An amazing contradiction, you. That you ad hom rather than deal with the subject is that you have nothing of worth to offer than proof of your irrelevance.

 

[Rozman]

From what I've seen/heard today, I understand the website is vastly improved and that there is a surge in usage.

I also heard that Walmart.com failed over the cyber Monday shopping event. Are we going to repeal WalMart now? Because that proves WalMart is a bad idea.

LOL

So garbage is going into the website better. That's nice. Is garbage going out? And if it is going out...is it going out correctly?

Since Obama and his people will not answer that question maybe you can?

You fuckers have blown this way, way out of proportion from Day One. In the first place, only a relatively small proportion of Americans are even applicable. Most Americans are already insured, so this applies to the uninsured. Also, the complexity of this website is extreme; although talk radio shows regularly parade website "experts" that talk about how easily this should have been done, it is a lie. These so-called "experts" are good at blogging about their Halo gaming skills, and that's about it.

Final legislation and site rules relating to the web site operation weren't even available until about just 6 months ago--the whole project was underfunded by Congress and needlessly delayed.

It will work, and Republicans will hate that. Republicans are literally supporting failure.

Most Americans are already insured, so this applies to the uninsured.

I have a meeting on Monday to discuss our next move because my employer provided
health care plan was cancelled.

The rumors are that we as individuals might have to get our own plans.
So if true excuse me if I say here and now.

Obama Care SUCKS.....

 

[Antares]

Jake has never even been on the website, he hasn't looked at a single Plan, he simply loves Bammy's dick in his mouth....which is why he voted for him.

Jake you are no more than a Lefty shill who has no idea as to what is about to run over your ass.

You are a reactionary who happens to love ACA. An amazing contradiction, you. That you ad hom rather than deal with the subject is that you have nothing of worth to offer than proof of your irrelevance.

(smile) Poor Jake

You have NEVER been on the website, you have NEVER even looked at a plan.

Yup, there is some good stuff...but it's going to fail...it cannot work as is.

 

[Antares]

Jake?

Aren't you happy that Repubs are going to get the Senate back?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

It is funning to watch the far right reactionaries with their radical agendas pissing on themselves.

Jake...this is good stuff. You got in "far right," the always classic "reactionary," and "radical."


I think you forgot "TPM," or "teabaggers."


Since you got 3 out of 4 you still get a passing grade, but it needs work.

I thought this thread was about the government run website?

Part of the problem with the software is the fact that the legislation for the ACA is constantly being re-tooled. I would imagine that this would have a profound effect on the consistency that IT guys love to have as a solid base with which to start from.

Another scenario for which to take note, is that the site will never have more traffic than its early days of its inception (now). The hits this site will need to take will wane dramatically by early next year.

As for how the contract for building the site goes, this is not any different than any other government contract was handled. Would everyone feel better if the contract was no-bid?

 

[The Rabbi]

It is funning to watch the far right reactionaries with their radical agendas pissing on themselves.

Jake...this is good stuff. You got in "far right," the always classic "reactionary," and "radical."


I think you forgot "TPM," or "teabaggers."


Since you got 3 out of 4 you still get a passing grade, but it needs work.

I thought this thread was about the government run website?

Part of the problem with the software is the fact that the legislation for the ACA is constantly being re-tooled. I would imagine that this would have a profound effect on the consistency that IT guys love to have as a solid base with which to start from.

Another scenario for which to take note, is that the site will never have more traffic than its early days of its inception (now). The hits this site will need to take will wane dramatically by early next year.

As for how the contract for building the site goes, this is not any different than any other government contract was handled. Would everyone feel better if the contract was no-bid?

The legislation was passed 3 years ago. It has not been amended. Obama has swept his regal pen and delayed some provisions and done other things that are invalid. But that doesnt affect the basic program.
There are millions of people due to lose health care insurance when the employer mandate kicks in. They will all need to go on the website.
So your post is factually incorrect.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have NEVER been on the website, you have NEVER even looked at a plan.

I have, of course, and I expect as in all human-designed organizations there will be changes. We had a chance with the roll out blow out to challenge the Dems then but blew it on obviously losing goals of shut down and debt default, the which the Dems came out (again) much stronger than our GOP.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The GOP still has a chance at the Senate majority if we don't try another shut down and default.

 

[Antares]

The flap over the individual mkt cancellations was nothing compared to whats coming.

The word "tsunami" isn't descriptive enough to describe what is coming as the groups get hit.

 

[william the wie]

The flap over the individual mkt cancellations was nothing compared to whats coming.

The word "tsunami" isn't descriptive enough to describe what is coming as the groups get hit.

In order to immunize both of us from an SEC charge of insider trading I wanted to put these questions in the public domain:

As I understand it as long as the non-exchange insurers offer a gender neutral policy that covers pre-existing conditions and correctly covers the probable cost of both obstetrics, ED and other gender based treatments for the average member of the insurance pool they are ACA compliant. Is that correct?

They can also exclude medicaid and medicare patients from their general pool?

That if the above two things are true then as long as they offer the four levels of coverage dictated by ACA they can price premiums, co-pays and deductibles in accordance to actuarial principles i. e. at much lower cost than exchange policies. Is that true as well?

 

[Antares]

The flap over the individual mkt cancellations was nothing compared to whats coming.

The word "tsunami" isn't descriptive enough to describe what is coming as the groups get hit.

In order to immunize both of us from an SEC charge of insider trading I wanted to put these questions in the public domain:

As I understand it as long as the non-exchange insurers offer a gender neutral policy that covers pre-existing conditions and correctly covers the probable cost of both obstetrics, ED and other gender based treatments for the average member of the insurance pool they are ACA compliant. Is that correct?

They can also exclude medicaid and medicare patients from their general pool?

That if the above two things are true then as long as they offer the four levels of coverage dictated by ACA they can price premiums, co-pays and deductibles in accordance to actuarial principles i. e. at much lower cost than exchange policies. Is that true as well?

Put aside everything but Guarantee Issue.....nobody has any loss ratio experience with this stuff......no Company can safely lowball the rates and expect to stay in business.

Right now the overwhelming number of people enrolled are the ones that we would call "adverse risk"...this is a recipe for disaster.

 

[william the wie]

The flap over the individual mkt cancellations was nothing compared to whats coming.

The word "tsunami" isn't descriptive enough to describe what is coming as the groups get hit.

In order to immunize both of us from an SEC charge of insider trading I wanted to put these questions in the public domain:

As I understand it as long as the non-exchange insurers offer a gender neutral policy that covers pre-existing conditions and correctly covers the probable cost of both obstetrics, ED and other gender based treatments for the average member of the insurance pool they are ACA compliant. Is that correct?

They can also exclude medicaid and medicare patients from their general pool?

That if the above two things are true then as long as they offer the four levels of coverage dictated by ACA they can price premiums, co-pays and deductibles in accordance to actuarial principles i. e. at much lower cost than exchange policies. Is that true as well?

Put aside everything but Guarantee Issue.....nobody has any loss ratio experience with this stuff......no Company can safely lowball the rates and expect to stay in business.

Right now the overwhelming number of people enrolled are the ones that we would call "adverse risk"...this is a recipe for disaster.

Thank you.