What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Report your experience with getting insurance via ACA (1 Viewer)

SacramentoBob said:
Things must be going really bad on this site when even Ezra Klein is criticizing it.
Has anyone in government considered delaying the implementation until the kinks are worked out?
Have anyone asking for a delay considered the 10s of thousands per year who die due to inadequate access to health care? What do we tell them?

"Sorry, we're going to need another 18k to die over the next year while we work out issues with the server."

 
[icon] said:
Thankfully my healthcare through my office is going unchanged. God help all you folks trying to deal with this fiasco.
Yeah, "god help" those who have to go to a website a few times to sign up for health care.

Those dying each year due to inadequate access to health care? ####'em. /icon

 
This morning:

The system is down at the moment.We're currently performing scheduled maintenance. Please try again later.

 
[icon] said:
Thankfully my healthcare through my office is going unchanged. God help all you folks trying to deal with this fiasco.
Yeah, "god help" those who have to go to a website a few times to sign up for health care.

Those dying each year due to inadequate access to health care? ####'em. /icon
So you're saying that you haven't even been to the site and tried to register...awesome :lmao: This "system" has been an epic failure...thank your GOP buddies that they are too dumb to take advantage of this fiasco.

 
This morning:

The system is down at the moment.We're currently performing scheduled maintenance. Please try again later.
I've gone over there 3-4 times a day each day it's been open. I THINK I have an ID and password, but am not sure. When I try to log in I get a 404 message. I guess that's better than the 500 messages last week, but still. SNL said it best. The government has been running on this issue for 8 years telling us 50 million don't have insurance then are surprised when they turn it on that 50 million people want to access it. That's like 1800 flowers being blindsided by Valentines Day :lol:

 
SacramentoBob said:
Things must be going really bad on this site when even Ezra Klein is criticizing it.
Has anyone in government considered delaying the implementation until the kinks are worked out?
Have anyone asking for a delay considered the 10s of thousands per year who die due to inadequate access to health care? What do we tell them?

"Sorry, we're going to need another 18k to die over the next year while we work out issues with the server."
Looks like they have inadequate access to this website.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't try to talk about legal standards for discrimination. It's a bad look for you.
I'll give you that. Just saying that higher deductible plans are in no way "free" (even if an employer is paying for it, it's still being paid and most here still consider it part of a compensation package including you).
Salary isn't free either. The fact that the employer pays for it is part of why it's compensation.
So we agree he's incorrect when Badger said that it's "free", as it's most definitely not.
we can disagree, but name calling isnt cool. :(
Sorry about that, Bagger. Not to worry, people rarely type my name properly either (there are 3 Ts back to back, with an L on the backside).

 
SacramentoBob said:
Things must be going really bad on this site when even Ezra Klein is criticizing it.
Has anyone in government considered delaying the implementation until the kinks are worked out?
Have anyone asking for a delay considered the 10s of thousands per year who die due to inadequate access to health care? What do we tell them?

"Sorry, we're going to need another 18k to die over the next year while we work out issues with the server."
What about all the people who will not be able to afford healthcare thanks to this new law? For instance, those who have their healthcare cancelled by employer and then can't afford the new "affordable" premiums.

 
why are people actually signing up for this when they can avoid the premiums and sign up only when they are sick? you cannot be declined for a pre-existing condition. pay the fine until its not financially advantageous imo.
"Open enrollment" won't be year round, for one.

Another question, though, would be why don't people just buy underwritten coverage today (if they can obtain/qualify for it)? For the vast majority of people (who are reasonably healthy to even of average health), today's available coverage is less than what the ACA will bring (if you don't qualify for a massive subsidy to shift the cost). You can then keep that coverage for a full 12 months and drop it next year - assuming you only go "without" coverage for 3 months or less, you won't pay a fine/tax.

 
why are people actually signing up for this when they can avoid the premiums and sign up only when they are sick? you cannot be declined for a pre-existing condition. pay the fine until its not financially advantageous imo.
Good luck getting signed up after you've been T-Boned in a car accident and laying immobilized in the hospital.
This person would still receive medical care.

 
This morning:

The system is down at the moment.

We're currently performing scheduled maintenance. Please try again later.
I've gone over there 3-4 times a day each day it's been open. I THINK I have an ID and password, but am not sure. When I try to log in I get a 404 message. I guess that's better than the 500 messages last week, but still. SNL said it best. The government has been running on this issue for 8 years telling us 50 million don't have insurance then are surprised when they turn it on that 50 million people want to access it. That's like 1800 flowers being blindsided by Valentines Day :lol:
As an IT guy, it is staggering how much of a failure this website is. Unbelievable. Fortunately they can just say " well everybody wants in" and half the country eats it up. In gonna try that line at work today.

 
SacramentoBob said:
Things must be going really bad on this site when even Ezra Klein is criticizing it.
Has anyone in government considered delaying the implementation until the kinks are worked out?
Have anyone asking for a delay considered the 10s of thousands per year who die due to inadequate access to health care? What do we tell them?

"Sorry, we're going to need another 18k to die over the next year while we work out issues with the server."
And that sentence right there doesn't tell you how massively expensive this will be, and will continue to be?

On another note, that sentence isn't really true at all.

 
This morning:

The system is down at the moment.We're currently performing scheduled maintenance. Please try again later.
I've gone over there 3-4 times a day each day it's been open. I THINK I have an ID and password, but am not sure. When I try to log in I get a 404 message. I guess that's better than the 500 messages last week, but still. SNL said it best. The government has been running on this issue for 8 years telling us 50 million don't have insurance then are surprised when they turn it on that 50 million people want to access it. That's like 1800 flowers being blindsided by Valentines Day :lol:
I wonder if people like you (and me) are the reason there have been "millions of hits per day"? Of course they will have that when it's not working and people attempt the site 10-20x per day.

 
why are people actually signing up for this when they can avoid the premiums and sign up only when they are sick? you cannot be declined for a pre-existing condition. pay the fine until its not financially advantageous imo.
Good luck getting signed up after you've been T-Boned in a car accident and laying immobilized in the hospital.
This person would still receive medical care.
So?

 
why are people actually signing up for this when they can avoid the premiums and sign up only when they are sick? you cannot be declined for a pre-existing condition. pay the fine until its not financially advantageous imo.
Good luck getting signed up after you've been T-Boned in a car accident and laying immobilized in the hospital.
This person would still receive medical care.
So?
Just saying this guy won't die from his situation as Tommy Gunz would have you believe above as he doesn't have "adequate access to healthcare".

 
This morning:

The system is down at the moment.

We're currently performing scheduled maintenance. Please try again later.
I've gone over there 3-4 times a day each day it's been open. I THINK I have an ID and password, but am not sure. When I try to log in I get a 404 message. I guess that's better than the 500 messages last week, but still. SNL said it best. The government has been running on this issue for 8 years telling us 50 million don't have insurance then are surprised when they turn it on that 50 million people want to access it. That's like 1800 flowers being blindsided by Valentines Day :lol:
As an IT guy, it is staggering how much of a failure this website is. Unbelievable. Fortunately they can just say " well everybody wants in" and half the country eats it up. In gonna try that line at work today.
our group would have been fired over a performance like this.

 
why are people actually signing up for this when they can avoid the premiums and sign up only when they are sick? you cannot be declined for a pre-existing condition. pay the fine until its not financially advantageous imo.
Good luck getting signed up after you've been T-Boned in a car accident and laying immobilized in the hospital.
This person would still receive medical care.
So?
Just saying this guy won't die from his situation as Tommy Gunz would have you believe above as he doesn't have "adequate access to healthcare".
This particular discussion didn't involve TGunz.

 
SacramentoBob said:
Things must be going really bad on this site when even Ezra Klein is criticizing it.
Has anyone in government considered delaying the implementation until the kinks are worked out?
Have anyone asking for a delay considered the 10s of thousands per year who die due to inadequate access to health care? What do we tell them?

"Sorry, we're going to need another 18k to die over the next year while we work out issues with the server."
How about just delaying the individual mandate, which would save the government Billions of dollars? That would also alleviate some of web traffic the sites are getting at the moment.

 
This morning:

The system is down at the moment.We're currently performing scheduled maintenance. Please try again later.
I've gone over there 3-4 times a day each day it's been open. I THINK I have an ID and password, but am not sure. When I try to log in I get a 404 message. I guess that's better than the 500 messages last week, but still. SNL said it best. The government has been running on this issue for 8 years telling us 50 million don't have insurance then are surprised when they turn it on that 50 million people want to access it. That's like 1800 flowers being blindsided by Valentines Day :lol:
I wonder if people like you (and me) are the reason there have been "millions of hits per day"? Of course they will have that when it's not working and people attempt the site 10-20x per day.
Doesn't matter...if they didn't expect millions of hits per day to begin with....knowing it was brand new and 50 million didn't have insurance that wanted it, that's on them. I play by their rules...I wait in line...going through their design etc. Everything that I've encountered seems to being insufficient architecture in place to handle the load. That's a planning/implementation problem and my 3-4 times a day isn't going to make a difference.

 
It's probably tough to hire or pay an IT team to do extra work or negotiate a continuing contract or find people to deal with the site during, you know, a government shutdown.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's probably tough to hire an IT team to do extra work or negotiate a continuing contract or find people to deal with the site during, you know, a government shutdown.
Plus they probably had to hire security people to ensure that no employees try to come to work to work.

 
Foosball God said:
It's the identity proofing piece that is causing the bottleneck.
So when do you think this will be fixed?

And thanks for your input in this,much appreciated.
Let's just say that someone, somewhere decided it was a good idea to implement brand new identity proofing software at the same time our company was ramping up data collection for the ACA. The Identity proofing software was not developed by my company so I don't have specific information on when/if it will get "fixed". I do know they are contemplating other more extreme measures. I can't really get into more detail.

 
SacramentoBob said:
Things must be going really bad on this site when even Ezra Klein is criticizing it.
Has anyone in government considered delaying the implementation until the kinks are worked out?
This won't get delayed. Even if the account portion never gets fixed in time. People can always get insurance the old fashioned way, by calling up the Issuer themselves, or working through a broker.

 
why are people actually signing up for this when they can avoid the premiums and sign up only when they are sick? you cannot be declined for a pre-existing condition. pay the fine until its not financially advantageous imo.
Good luck getting signed up after you've been T-Boned in a car accident and laying immobilized in the hospital.
This person would still receive medical care.
You're right. They'll be bankrupt.But they'll get medical care.

 
It's probably tough to hire an IT team to do extra work or negotiate a continuing contract or find people to deal with the site during, you know, a government shutdown.
Plus they probably had to hire security people to ensure that no employees try to come to work to work.
No, they just put up a few barricades and roped some sections off.
Out of barricades. Two essential personnel just stand there and holds up the ends of the rope.
 
It's probably tough to hire an IT team to do extra work or negotiate a continuing contract or find people to deal with the site during, you know, a government shutdown.
Plus they probably had to hire security people to ensure that no employees try to come to work to work.
No, they just put up a few barricades and roped some sections off.
Out of barricades. Two essential personnel just stand there and holds up the ends of the rope.
Heard they were hiring people with megaphones to continually announce that the government was shut down to people passing by.

 
It's probably tough to hire an IT team to do extra work or negotiate a continuing contract or find people to deal with the site during, you know, a government shutdown.
Plus they probably had to hire security people to ensure that no employees try to come to work to work.
No, they just put up a few barricades and roped some sections off.
Out of barricades. Two essential personnel just stand there and holds up the ends of the rope.
Heard they were hiring people with megaphones to continually announce that the government was shut down to people passing by.
Due to budget cuts, there's only one megaphone-wielding employee for every ten people in this country. Time was, every citizen would have someone following him or her around. Thanks, Obama.

 
why are people actually signing up for this when they can avoid the premiums and sign up only when they are sick? you cannot be declined for a pre-existing condition. pay the fine until its not financially advantageous imo.
Good luck getting signed up after you've been T-Boned in a car accident and laying immobilized in the hospital.
This person would still receive medical care.
You're right. They'll be bankrupt.But they'll get medical care.
Actually, no, they wouldn't be bankrupt at all. If they've "been T-boned", the other driver's insurance would pay for the medical bills.

If we're to assume it was a single car accident or another situation, how do you know the person wouldn't just be able to pay out of pocket? Also, something like 78% of people who filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses already had medical insurance - so maybe even having the coverage wouldn't have prevented it.

 
why are people actually signing up for this when they can avoid the premiums and sign up only when they are sick? you cannot be declined for a pre-existing condition. pay the fine until its not financially advantageous imo.
Good luck getting signed up after you've been T-Boned in a car accident and laying immobilized in the hospital.
This person would still receive medical care.
You're right. They'll be bankrupt.But they'll get medical care.
Actually, no, they wouldn't be bankrupt at all. If they've "been T-boned", the other driver's insurance would pay for the medical bills.If we're to assume it was a single car accident or another situation, how do you know the person wouldn't just be able to pay out of pocket? Also, something like 78% of people who filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses already had medical insurance - so maybe even having the coverage wouldn't have prevented it.
Insurance minimums are generally insufficient to pay for vehicle damage plus emergency room bills in the case of a serious car accident. Hopefully you get t-boned by someone with a 100-300 policy at a minimum.
 
SacramentoBob said:
Things must be going really bad on this site when even Ezra Klein is criticizing it.
Has anyone in government considered delaying the implementation until the kinks are worked out?
Have anyone asking for a delay considered the 10s of thousands per year who die due to inadequate access to health care? What do we tell them?

"Sorry, we're going to need another 18k to die over the next year while we work out issues with the server."
And that sentence right there doesn't tell you how massively expensive this will be, and will continue to be?

On another note, that sentence isn't really true at all.
How many die every year due to lack of access to adequate health care according to your research?

 
How many die every year due to lack of access to adequate health care according to your research?
The research shows that people died for lack of health insurance, not for lack of health care. People can still receive health care, even without insurance. All these people obtaining insurance (at a massive cost to the taxpayer) will not simply save all of those people, though. Further, this will lead to a supply and demand situation leaving others to go without care when needed and them to suffer (and die) because of it, even though they had insurance.

There are over 2.5 million deaths per yer in America. If "45 thousand" of them (number from the Harvard study you're likely referencing) is because of lack of access to adequate health care (lack of health insurance in the study), then we're only talking about less than 2% of all the deaths in this country. And that number is across all age bands, including those age 65 or more, which wouldn't be covered by the ACA.

Roughly 14 times as many people die from heart disease, and 13 times as many die from cancer each year. Even in today's day and age, more people die from pneumonia and influenza than die from "lack of adequate health care access". Just to put that number into perspective a bit, if you're to believe it 100%, which I don't.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd like to definitively know where tgunz is getting that number.

Apologies for not following closely along and missing it if it has already been linked.

 
I'd like to definitively know where tgunz is getting that number.

Apologies for not following closely along and missing it if it has already been linked.
He's likely referring to this ;

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917

What the article implies is that these people died because they didn't seek treatment because they didn't have insurance. However, the numbers of people who have preventive care covered at 100% with their current insurance who actually obtain that preventive care is very low, so personally I don't think that all of those 45k would have been saved if they simply had insurance, many still wouldn't have obtained the care they needed even with insurance.

Only half of women get mammograms at the recommended intervals, even though they are covered by insurance. It's even a lower rate for males obtaining a covered colonoscopy. Those are just two examples. Blood screenings are another. Just because people have access doesn't automatically mean it will be obtained.

And again, even if the article is to be believed and all 45k deaths were because of this, that's less than 2% of all the deaths in this country per year. We've got much bigger issues, specifically the lifestyles that the average American chooses to lead.

 
I'd like to definitively know where tgunz is getting that number.

Apologies for not following closely along and missing it if it has already been linked.
No worries. The Harvard study estimated 45k die each year due to not having adequate access to health care. Link.

 
How many die every year due to lack of access to adequate health care according to your research?
The research shows that people died for lack of health insurance, not for lack of health care. People can still receive health care, even without insurance. All these people obtaining insurance (at a massive cost to the taxpayer) will not simply save all of those people, though. Further, this will lead to a supply and demand situation leaving others to go without care when needed and them to suffer (and die) because of it, even though they had insurance.

There are over 2.5 million deaths per yer in America. If "45 thousand" of them (number from the Harvard study you're likely referencing) is because of lack of access to adequate health care (lack of health insurance in the study), then we're only talking about less than 2% of all the deaths in this country. And that number is across all age bands, including those age 65 or more, which wouldn't be covered by the ACA.

Roughly 14 times as many people die from heart disease, and 13 times as many die from cancer each year. Even in today's day and age, more people die from pneumonia and influenza than die from "lack of adequate health care access". Just to put that number into perspective a bit, if you're to believe it 100%, which I don't.
Do you have the cure to cancer? B/c I'm pretty sure we have the cure to getting most of these folks access to health care.

 
Essentially, matttyl's argument is: "It's only 20-30k Americans needlessly dying every year due to lack of access to adequate health care, so who cares."

I'll never understand this attitude. 2-3k people (roughly a 9/11) are dying every month, and folks like matttyl say they don't matter, b/c it's only 2% of US deaths.

 
I'd like to definitively know where tgunz is getting that number.

Apologies for not following closely along and missing it if it has already been linked.
No worries. The Harvard study estimated 45k die each year due to not having adequate access to health care. Link.
Matttyl seems to be correct: the study was 45k deaths are "associated with the lack of health insurance." Why do you keep associating the deaths with a lack of adequate access to health care?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Essentially, matttyl's argument is: "It's only 20-30k Americans needlessly dying every year due to lack of access to adequate health care, so who cares."

I'll never understand this attitude. 2-3k people (roughly a 9/11) are dying every month, and folks like matttyl say they don't matter, b/c it's only 2% of US deaths.
So what if ACA becomes so unaffordable that many people end up paying the fines and not having health insurance. What about all the deaths that could occur then? Since we are pulling numbers out of thin air and imagining that this new system is going to save 20k-30k people a year, let's make sure we factor in the deaths that could possibly occur due to people not having health insurance when they previously did, due to the high cost.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do we have any idea how many have actually been able to get signed up for this so far?

Haven't been able to find this anywhere.

 
Do we have any idea how many have actually been able to get signed up for this so far?

Haven't been able to find this anywhere.
By signed up, do you mean getting a username and password for the system?
Yes.I haven't been able to get that far as of yet.

And a total of how many have bought insurance wouldn't hurt either,just curious as to if the numbers expected are met or not.

 
How many die every year due to lack of access to adequate health care according to your research?
The research shows that people died for lack of health insurance, not for lack of health care. People can still receive health care, even without insurance. All these people obtaining insurance (at a massive cost to the taxpayer) will not simply save all of those people, though. Further, this will lead to a supply and demand situation leaving others to go without care when needed and them to suffer (and die) because of it, even though they had insurance.

There are over 2.5 million deaths per yer in America. If "45 thousand" of them (number from the Harvard study you're likely referencing) is because of lack of access to adequate health care (lack of health insurance in the study), then we're only talking about less than 2% of all the deaths in this country. And that number is across all age bands, including those age 65 or more, which wouldn't be covered by the ACA.

Roughly 14 times as many people die from heart disease, and 13 times as many die from cancer each year. Even in today's day and age, more people die from pneumonia and influenza than die from "lack of adequate health care access". Just to put that number into perspective a bit, if you're to believe it 100%, which I don't.
Do you have the cure to cancer? B/c I'm pretty sure we have the cure to getting most of these folks access to health care.
When did the goal become "access to health care"?? Anyone can walk into an emergency room today and get treated. If you're talking about access to insurance, that's a different discussion and even then the access is only part of the equation. Doesn't help at all if they can't afford the access.

 
I'd like to definitively know where tgunz is getting that number.

Apologies for not following closely along and missing it if it has already been linked.
No worries. The Harvard study estimated 45k die each year due to not having adequate access to health care. Link.
Matttyl seems to be correct: the study was 45k deaths are "associated with the lack of health insurance." Why do you keep associating the deaths with a lack of adequate access to health care?
B/c I think the two are related.

Do you think we should just continue to let 45k die each year b/c they don't have health insurance? That's ~ 3750 per month, more than the number who died on 9/11.

 
How many die every year due to lack of access to adequate health care according to your research?
The research shows that people died for lack of health insurance, not for lack of health care. People can still receive health care, even without insurance. All these people obtaining insurance (at a massive cost to the taxpayer) will not simply save all of those people, though. Further, this will lead to a supply and demand situation leaving others to go without care when needed and them to suffer (and die) because of it, even though they had insurance.

There are over 2.5 million deaths per yer in America. If "45 thousand" of them (number from the Harvard study you're likely referencing) is because of lack of access to adequate health care (lack of health insurance in the study), then we're only talking about less than 2% of all the deaths in this country. And that number is across all age bands, including those age 65 or more, which wouldn't be covered by the ACA.

Roughly 14 times as many people die from heart disease, and 13 times as many die from cancer each year. Even in today's day and age, more people die from pneumonia and influenza than die from "lack of adequate health care access". Just to put that number into perspective a bit, if you're to believe it 100%, which I don't.
Do you have the cure to cancer? B/c I'm pretty sure we have the cure to getting most of these folks access to health care.
When did the goal become "access to health care"?? Anyone can walk into an emergency room today and get treated. If you're talking about access to insurance, that's a different discussion and even then the access is only part of the equation. Doesn't help at all if they can't afford the access.
Sounds like making access to affordable health care for the 50M who are currently uninsured should be something we do immediately. Maybe create individual state markets in which private insurers compete to provide similar products for uninsured folks, and have the gov't subsidize those purchasing insurance from those markets if they meet certain income requirements.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top