The ACA/ Obamacare Website Fiasco Thread

Centermass said:
Well, when the waitress shows up with the check after dinner, she doesn't care nor does the restaurant who the money comes from, just that the bill is paid.

Same thing.
Click to expand...

What?

It isn't the same thing. It's not like people having insurance is going to make doctors be like, "well now the government is like a co-signer for these people I better go after the govt."

And prior to the ACA and after it, we will still foot the bill when someone goes to the ER and racks up major bills while uninsured, because those people end up with Medicare and disability and go bankrupt from their bills.
 
I also wonder about those that get insurance but have such high deductibles they can't afford to get sick. Will be interesting as an observer only to see what those people elect to do. I feel for them.
 
And Sebelius throws herself under the bus with the old "The President didnt know" sob story. Please. :rolleyes: The hallmark of his Presidency, bearing his name and he doesnt know anything?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/22/politics/obamacare-sebelius-interview/index.html

In an exclusive interview with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta asked when the President first learned about the considerable issues with the Obamacare website. Sebelius responded that it was in "the first couple of days" after the site went live October 1.

"But not before that?" Gupta followed up.

To which Sebelius replied, "No, sir."
Click to expand...
 
Pretty much every online news source has a head line pointing out the failure of Healthcare.gov at the moment. This one from CBSnews.com
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57608843/healthcare.gov-pricing-feature-can-be-off-the-mark/

CBS News has uncovered a serious pricing problem with HealthCare.gov. It stems from the Obama administration's efforts to improve its health care website. A new online feature can dramatically underestimate the cost of insurance.

The administration announced it would provide a new "shop and browse" feature Sunday, but it's not giving consumers the real picture. In some cases, people could end up paying double of what they see on the website, CBS News' Jan Crawford reported Wednesday on "CBS This Morning."
Click to expand...

(Isnt that called a bait and switch O_o)

http://www.nbcnews.com/

Come back in two weeks: Even Obamacare experts can't tame glitchy website
Click to expand...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet...ed-fixing-obamacares-broken/story?id=20659016

Meet Jeff Zients: The Man Charged With Fixing Obamacare's Broken Site
Click to expand...

I can quote on and on..but the way I see it if big business has been given a year grace period why cant individuals get the same consideration in light of the fact this is so broken.
 
cback0220 said:
What?

It isn't the same thing. It's not like people having insurance is going to make doctors be like, "well now the government is like a co-signer for these people I better go after the govt."

And prior to the ACA and after it, we will still foot the bill when someone goes to the ER and racks up major bills while uninsured, because those people end up with Medicare and disability and go bankrupt from their bills.
Click to expand...

You completely missed my point. My point is it's about oversight, compliance and numerous other things too numerous to mention INCLUDING DISBURSEMENT OF GOVERNMENT REVENUE (Yeah, we've got to pass it to know what's in it......sigh) much like medicare, only now, you've just invited million upon millions more into a new system that not only includes an administrative organization made up of rookies dealing with newly implemented legislation, but will have to rely on a COMPUTER DATABASE in order to do so.

It hasn't even gotten that far yet. And when it does, I for one predict headaches of mammoth proportions based on what we've seen so far.

Rather than resort to stick figures and menial diagrams, here's an example:


Recently issued guidance clarifies the application of certain provisions under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to health reimbursement arrangements, employer payment plans, health flexible spending arrangements and employee assistance programs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes certain market reforms that apply to group health plans. These market reforms include a prohibition on annual limits on the plan’s essential health benefits (annual dollar limit prohibition), and the requirement for non-grandfathered plans to provide certain preventive care services without imposing cost-sharing requirements on those services (preventive services requirements). On September 13, 2013, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Department of Labor released guidance (Guidance) clarifying the application of these market reforms to (1) health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), including HRAs integrated with a group health plan; (2) employer payment plans; (3) health flexible spending arrangements (Health FSAs); and (4) employee assistance programs (EAPs). The Guidance applies for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, and may be applied for all prior periods.

HRAs are funded solely by an employer and are designed to reimburse the employee and his or her eligible dependents’ medical expenses. An HRA can be (but is not required to be) provided alongside another type of coverage.

In the case of a stand-alone HRA (one that is not integrated with another type of coverage), the Guidance provides that an HRA is a group health plan subject to the annual dollar limit prohibition and the preventive services requirements. Since HRA benefits are limited to the dollars within the HRA, and HRAs do not provide preventive care services without cost-sharing in all instances, a stand-alone HRA cannot comply with the annual dollar limit prohibition or preventive services requirements as required by the ACA. In addition, the Guidance confirms that for purposes of satisfying the annual dollar limit prohibition and preventive services requirements, stand-alone HRAs cannot be integrated with individual market coverage purchased using the HRA. Thus, a stand-alone HRA for active employees will fail to meet the ACA requirements. A retiree-only HRA can exist as a stand-alone HRA.

If an HRA is integrated with another type of coverage as part of a group health plan, and the other coverage alone complies with the preventive services requirements, the combined HRA and coverage satisfies the preventive services requirements, regardless of the fact that the HRA alone does not satisfy the requirement. However, if an HRA is integrated with other coverage as part of a group health plan, and the other coverage alone complies with the annual dollar limit prohibition, the two do not necessarily satisfy the annual dollar limit prohibition.

The Guidance does, however, provide rules for determining when an HRA can be integrated with other coverage as part of a group health plan for purposes of the annual dollar limit prohibition. An HRA will be integrated with other group health plan coverage for this purpose if the HRA meets the Minimum Value Not Required Integration Method or the Minimum Value Required Integration Method. The Guidance does specify that the HRA and the coverage with which it is integrated are not required to share the same plan sponsor or governing documents, or to file a single Form 5500, in order to comply with either integration method.

Under the Minimum Value Not Required Integration Method, an HRA is integrated for purposes of the annual dollar limit prohibition if the following conditions are satisfied. The employer offers a group health plan in addition to the HRA that does not consist solely of excepted benefits; The employer offers a group health plan in addition to the HRA that does not consist solely of excepted benefits;The employer offers a group health plan in addition to the HRA that does not consist solely of excepted benefits;

The employee receiving the HRA is actually enrolled in any group health plan other than the HRA that does not consist solely of excepted benefits (non-HRA coverage);

The HRA is available only to employees enrolled in non-HRA coverage, regardless of whether the employer sponsors the non-HRA coverage;The HRA is limited to reimbursement of co-payments, co-insurance, deductibles and premiums under the non-HRA coverage, as well as medical care that is not essential health benefits;

Under the HRA terms, an employee may permanently opt out and waive future reimbursements from the HRA at least annually, and upon termination of employment either the remaining amounts in the HRA are forfeited, or the employee may permanently opt out of and waive future reimbursements from the HRA.

Under the Minimum Value Required Integration Method, an HRA is integrated for purposes of the annual dollar limit prohibition if the following conditions are satisfied:

The employer offers a group health plan that provides “minimum value” under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii);

The employee receiving the HRA is actually enrolled in any group health plan that provides such minimum value (non-HRA MV coverage);

The HRA is available only to employees enrolled in non-HRA MV coverage, regardless of whether the employer sponsors the non-HRA MV coverage; and

Under the HRA terms, an employee may permanently opt-out and waive future reimbursements from the HRA at least annually, and upon termination of employment either the remaining amounts in the HRA are forfeited or the employee may permanently opt-out of and waive future reimbursements from the HRA.

Amounts newly made available under an HRA for a plan year are able to count towards determining whether the coverage meets the affordability or minimum value requirements in the following circumstances:

If an employer offers an employee both a primary eligible employer-sponsored plan and an HRA that would be integrated with the primary plan, and the employee enrolls in the plan, the HRA amounts newly made available for the current plan year may be considered in determining whether the arrangement satisfies either the affordability requirement or the minimum value requirement, but not both;

Newly made available HRA amounts, for the current plan year, which can only be used by the employee to reduce cost-sharing for covered medical expenses under the primary employer-sponsored plan, may be considered for meeting the minimum value requirement; and

Newly made available HRA amounts, for the current plan year, which an employee may use to pay premiums or to pay both premiums and cost-sharing under the primary employer-sponsored plan, may be considered for meeting the affordability requirement.

Amounts newly made available under an HRA for a plan year do not count towards determining whether the coverage meets the affordability or minimum value requirements in the following circumstances:

HRAs integrated with a plan offered by another employer for purposes of the annual dollar limit prohibition or the preventive services requirements will not count toward the affordability or minimum value requirement of the plan offered by the other employer; and

If an employer offers an HRA on the condition that the employee does not enroll in non-HRA coverage offered by the employer and instead enrolls in non-HRA coverage from a different source, the HRA does not count in determining whether the employer’s non-HRA coverage satisfies either the affordability or minimum value requirement.

The Guidance clarifies that an employee may not purchase Exchange coverage through an employer’s Code Section 125 plan.

Similar to an HRA, a stand-alone health FSA will not meet the annual dollar limit prohibition or preventive services requirements as required by the ACA. An employer may still offer a health FSA as long as the health FSA covers excepted benefits.

The Guidance clarifies that an employer may not reimburse an employee for some or all of the employee’s Exchange premiums, or purchase Exchange-based coverage for an employee on a tax-favorable basis.

The Guidance provides that benefits offered under an EAP are considered excepted benefits not subject to the ACA market reforms, as long as the EAP does not provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment. Until rulemaking is finalized, plan sponsors are allowed to use a reasonable good-faith interpretation of whether an EAP provides significant medical care or treatment benefits.

Employers sponsoring HRAs, employer payment plans or similar arrangements, Health FSAs or EAPs should review the structure of these benefits to ensure compliance with the ACA, applying the Guidance. Sponsors of HRAs also should determine whether the HRA can be integrated with another group health plan for purposes of compliance with the annual dollar limit prohibition and preventive services requirements.

Excise taxes and self-reporting requirements under Section 4980D of the Code are applicable for failure to comply with the ACA market reforms, including the annual dollar limit prohibition and preventive services requirements.

When all else fails, just hit this


Yeah, that'll take care of it.
clear.png
:rolleyes:

 
I wanted to let you know that earlier today I received my "Obamacare enrollment packet” from the White House.
It contained:

· An aspirin and a band-aid
· An 'Obama Hope & Change' bumper sticker
· A 'Bush's Fault' yard sign
· A 'Blame Republicans first, then anybody and everybody' poster
· A 'Tax the Rich' banner
· An application for unemployment and a free cellphone
· An application for food stamps
· A prayer rug
· A letter assigning my debt to my grandchildren
· And lastly, a coupon for a machine that blows smoke up my a**.
Everything was made in China and all directions were in Spanish.
Keep an eye out. Yours should be arriving soon.
 
Now even some Democrats are waking up to smell the coffee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/jeanne-shaheen-calls-for-open-enrollment-extension-98700.html

Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is calling on the White House to extend Obamacare’s open enrollment period amid continued frustration with the troubled HealthCare.gov.

“The difficulty that people in New Hampshire and in other states that are relying on the federally facilitated marketplaces are experiencing is incredibly frustrating and disappointing,” Shaheen wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama. “For over three years, we have been waiting for the creation of the health insurance exchanges, which now in their fourth week of existence, are riddled with problems.”
Click to expand...

She is also asking the administration to clarify whether Americans will get fined for not getting insurance when the site is not working properly.

The move makes Shaheen, of New Hampshire, the first Senate Democrat to come out for extending the open enrollment period, which is scheduled to end on March 31.
Click to expand...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/10/24/democrats-ask-to-delay-obamacare-deadline

Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., agreed, issuing a statement late Wednesday that said: "I believe, given the technical issues, it makes sense to extend the time for people to sign up."

Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, also released a statement calling for new deadlines. "I have repeatedly said this law is not perfect and have proposed changes to make it work for Alaska families and small businesses," he wrote. "Given the recent website issues, I also support extending open enrollment season. I want to work with the administration to ensure that individuals are not unfairly penalized if technical issues with the website continue."

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., also spoke in support of Shaheen, Fox News reported, and on the House floor, Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., called delaying the individual mandate "the only practical thing to do."
Click to expand...

Other Democrats, like Rep. Rick Nolan, D.-Minn., and Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., called on the administration to find and fire the people responsible for the ACA's glitch-filled rollout. And a spokesman for Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., told NBC News that the senator was already drafting a bill to delay the Affordable Care Act's controversial individual mandate by a year.
Click to expand...
 
Chopstick said:
I hope Earling has an employment back-up plan as well as an alternate healthcare plan for when they fire her. Priceless. Maybe she can plead that she is pregnant and has type 1 diabetes and she was ready to pass out....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ter_operator_says_no_one_likes_it_so_far.html
Click to expand...

Well, that didnt take long.

Hope, Change and Transparency.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...her_a_years_salary.html#.Uml_E9uD2eU.facebook

On the top of Thursday's broadcast of his radio show, Sean Hannity revealed Erling Davis, the Obamacare operator he called early in his Monday show, got fired. Hannity quizzed her on how well the law is being received by applicants and she revealed no one liked it. Hannity had Davis on his show today and revealed he will give her a year's salary of $26,000 and help her find a new job.

SEAN HANNITY: Something happened between the time we made that call to you, and now, what happened?

ERLING DAVIS: They fired me from my job.

HANNITY: Because of the phone call, the information that you gave us?

DAVIS: Yes sir.

HANNITY: Tell us what happened.
Click to expand...
 
Watching Frank Pallone spew his bullshit today was a very frustrating experience. To say that the problems with the website are irrelevant and that people should just call the phone number or go to an insurance agent for coverage is ridiculous.
 

Similar threads

AWP
The Racing Thread
4 5 6
Replies
111
Views
4K
Topkick
Topkick
AWP
Computer Help
Replies
4
Views
125
RackMaster
RackMaster
R.Caerbannog
Distortion of History
2
Replies
32
Views
683
R.Caerbannog
R.Caerbannog
AWP
The Aging Crisis in America
Replies
8
Views
295
Dame
Dame
ni.ks9041990
VHP (Veterans History Project)
Replies
0
Views
80
ni.ks9041990
ni.ks9041990
Back
Top