<p>deleted post</p>
<p>[Obamacare’s</a> broken website cost more than LinkedIn, Spotify combined | Digital Trends](<a href=“http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/]Obamacare’s”>Obamacare's broken website cost more than LinkedIn, Spotify combined | Digital Trends)</p>
<p>This seems to have been written by an ACA supporter.</p>
<p>“Unlike some Americans, I actually want the Obamacare exchanges to succeed. I’ve given the state-specific options a try (there are 15 of them, including Washington D.C.’s) and they seem to greatly simplify the process of buying healthcare.”</p>
<p>As a person working in IT for a long time, I found this story interesting. If I am reading between the lines, it sounds like a lot of money was given to the contractor who delivered a shoddy product.</p>
<p>i’m not all that worried about the staffers. i personally know several hard-working parents who have lost their insurance benefits from work and must now go out to the exchanges. they have nice incomes, but the insurance for their family is not inexpensive. they will have to cut something else out of their budget now to afford the premiums. and their companies are not offering any stipends to offset the price of the new insurance premiums. there are lots of people hurting…</p>
<p>The healthcare.gov website has just notified the public that they can now view plans without having to fill out an application. (“We listened to your requests & now have high-level information about plans and rates in your community offered through HealthCare.gov.”)
See this link:</p>
<p><a href=“Health insurance plans & prices | HealthCare.gov”>Health insurance plans & prices | HealthCare.gov;
<p>Finally someone figured out there might be unnecessary traffic causing problems with people who just want to see if it is worth moving and there is no reason to get them all to logon.</p>
<p>It lists the plans in your county/state and gives a price. However, since it didn’t ask for ages or number of children on a PC plan, the prices are not valid.</p>
<p>CTTC, this is great news! Thank you for posting that. I just got onto healthcare.gov, and can see plans and rates for myself without giving any personal info. (Just age range, state, and county). I will look more closely at the plans now. :)</p>
<p>Wow, that was fast and easy!</p>
<p>A two tier system will exist for Congressional members and their personal staff vs everyone else on the exchange/off-exchange under ACA. Yes, they will have to enroll in an exchange, but unlike many of us who are being coerced to subscribe to an exchange/off-exchange plan and don’t qualify for subsidies, they will get significant subsidies from the federal govt., even though they don’t qualify based on the 400% of poverty threshold. As far as I can tell they will be the only people in the country who are on the exchanges and will get subsidies despite having income in excess of the 400% threshold. As someone who is involuntarily forced (against my will) to get my insurance from the exchange, getting hit with a huge premium increase and doesn’t qualify for a subsidy, I am not pleased by the disparate treatment.</p>
<p>I only posted this to clarify some of the prior posts regarding this subject. If it is political, I will refrain from any more discussion of this topic.</p>
<p>
If you are subsidy eligible and know your income, you can figure out the MAXIMUM you will pay for the 2nd lowest cost Silver plan on your exchange with simple math. Example: single person, annual income $40,000: maximum premium after subsidy is $3800 per year, or $317 per month. Doesn’t matter where that person lives or how old, it’s based on a percentage of income. </p>
<p>You might need to be logged into the exchange (depending on your state) to see how much you could save with a cheaper plan, or how much more you would pay if you prefer a more expensive plan on the exchange – but you know your benchmark. </p>
<p>Here’s a link to a simple calculator you can use: [Subsidy</a> Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation](<a href=“http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/]Subsidy”>Health Insurance Marketplace Calculator | KFF)</p>
<p>Roughly two-thirds of all insurance buyers should be eligible for subsidies, possibly more.</p>
<p>Goldenpooch, if you don’t like your choices why don’t you just go get a job that offers subsidized health care. No one is forcing you to be self employed or remain with an employer who doesn’t offer health care.</p>
<p>
I haven’t completed the buying process because I am waiting for the provider directories. I’ve been with Blue Shield for a long time, but for the plan I want, Anthem’s premium is $50 cheaper per month than BS – but they told me they will not have their directory online until October 11. </p>
<p>There are stats that have been published and I think it was something like 16,000 had completed the process through selecting a policy in California, a similar number in Kentucky which appears to be one state that has gotten the roll out and exchange system right. </p>
<p>Part of the issue with the numbers is that no one has actually purchased insurance until they have paid, but most people don’t want to pay now for a policy starting in January – so they are opting to be invoiced down the line. I think one state – maybe Kentucky – is requiring the people to pay the first month’s premium with sign up and is showing higher enrollment numbers because of that requirement.</p>
<p>I may be off on the states and numbers – there were a couple of articles on this, and I my 59-year-old brain doesn’t have all that great a memory for facts and figures any more. I’m sure you could find more simply by Googling “exchange enrollment statistics” or something along those lines.</p>
<p>But yes, I do know some real people who have completed the enrollment process via healthcare.gov as well.</p>
<p>Why would requiring payment up front cause enrollment numbers to be higher? I’d think it would cause enrollment figures to be lower. In California I could sign up now (assuming I could get the exchanges to work) and be billed in January, but in Kentucky if I sign up now I’m billed now. Wouldn’t I be more likely to want to sign up if I lived in California (no cost until January) but wait a month if I lived in Kentucky?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They HAD employer-provided insurance and in the course of the political process that was TAKEN from them. </p>
<p>They will NOT get be eligible for subsidies on the individual exchange. They will be getting their insurance via SHOP, the small-business exchanges, which is the system that is set up to manage employer contributions. So they will be exactly like any employee of a small business that goes to the exchange.</p>
<p>See: [Congress</a>, staff to buy insurance in D.C. exchange - Paige Winfield Cunningham - POLITICO.com](<a href=“http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/congress-staff-insurance-dc-exchange-97571.html]Congress”>Congress to buy insurance in D.C. exchange - POLITICO)</p>
<p>Goldenpooch - I don’t recall if you are self-employed, early retired, or if your employer does not offer health care benefits. </p>
<p>In my family, our employers are paying towards our still employer provided plans. We pay a lot too and have a high deductible, but the employer contribution is helpful and considered part of our overall comp. Accessibility to healthcare is a huge part of our career decisions and retirement planning (basically one of us will keep working in a traditional job longer than we would otherwise do so). I hope that Affordable Healthcare Act and the trend to unbundle work and insurance will allow us more choice later. For now, I will be grateful for what I have. </p>
<p>FWIW, in my state, we can get plan info without setting up an account. I am happy to hear that the federal plan now allows that as well. </p>
<p>I work in finance and have been dealing with unrelated regulatory reform implementation. It is interesting how similar the situation is. Lots of confusion and frustration and system issues on day 1 followed by changes, improvements, fixes that helped immensely. I hope over time, the situation improves with healthcare.</p>
<p>
Because if you only count people who have paid as being “enrolled” then those who sign up without paying yet are not counted. </p>
<p>Perhaps in a state where the computer system is smooth and glitch-free, it’s a lot easier to go ahead and click that “buy” button. Kind of like Amazon’s one-click system. Marketing 101: the easier you make the process for the customer to complete the sale, the more customers you will have.</p>
<p>But then why wouldn’t the number of people who signed up in California be zero, because everybody who signed up in California will be billed in January (or December, or whatever)?</p>
<p>Before I get too excited, I need someone to verify what I think I know, please. </p>
<p>Assume I stay in-network:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Premiums + out of pocket maximum = the most I will pay for healthcare in 2014?</p></li>
<li><p>Deductible amount is included in out of pocket maximum?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I’m having a hard time understanding the anger towards Congress continuing to get employer contributions to their health care. Others who get insurance through their employers will continue to do so. It seems it would be disparate treatment to drop the employer contribution for them. </p>
<p>My premium in Maryland won’t go down. In fact, it will be the same almost to the dollar, but I will have better coverage under the exchange because my current plan is grandfathered in so it doesn’t have to adhere to the new ACA requirements and I don’t have any prescription coverage.</p>
<p>The company hired to set up healthcare.gov had three years to get it right. According to an article in the Washington Examiner that same company was fired by the province of Ontario for failing to meet deadlines and creating a shoddy system.</p>