<p>“GP - have you filed that hardship paper yet?”</p>
<p>I should file it just for the heck of it. I would love telling the IRS it is too difficult to pay what I owe you.</p>
<p>“Those who lost coverage because insurers canceled their plans have been given a hardship exemption through October 2016…” KHN</p>
<ul>
<li>Not easy to follow just via headlines. I’m not seeing anything that confirms for me that this is quite as easy as stated.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>“Exemptions from the mandate will be decided on a case-by-case basis, the government said.”
“allows a limited number of individuals who are facing hardship to apply for an exception.”
(Those seem to be via Bloomberg.)</p>
<p>Everything I’m seeing this am still refers to a “second rule,” (if you’ve been following links, you’ve seen this) which takes us right back to where we were the other day: the December CMS/CCIIO document (again, cancelled policies) which links to the Application for Exemption."</p>
<p>It sure seems the frame is the same, only the date brackets have changed. ??</p>
<p>This resignation letter is an unbelievable indictment of HHS, the agency that has oversight for Obamacare. It is written by David Wright, a director of the US govt office that monitors scientific research in biomedical research. It is a blistering critique of HHS, specifically, and govt bureaucracy, generally. He laments the incredible dysfunction and seriously flawed culture of govt. Here are a couple of quotes:</p>
<p>“I knew coming into this job about the bureaucratic limitations of the federal government, but I had no idea how stifling it would be. What I was able to do in a day or two as an academic administrator takes weeks or months in the federal government”</p>
<p>“The academic literature over the last twenty-five years on successful organizations highlights several characteristics: transparency, power-sharing or shared decision-making and accountability. If you invert these principles, you have an organization, which is secretive, autocratic and unaccountable.” </p>
<p>“I’m offended as an American taxpayer that the federal bureaucracy—at least the part I’ve labored in—is so profoundly dysfunctional.”</p>
<p>Yes, this is the agency headed by Sebelius that is responsible for the execution of Obamacare. It is no wonder almost everything that could go wrong has gone wrong with this law. Trusting the govt to takeover the healthcare system is a leap of faith that is not warranted by its track record. Please read the letter.</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2014/03/top-u.s.-scientific-misconduct-official-quits-frustration-bureaucracy”>Science | AAAS;
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hhs-official-pens-a-caustic-resignation-letter/2014/03/13/9d8b5736-aad7-11e3-adbc-888c8010c799_story.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hhs-official-pens-a-caustic-resignation-letter/2014/03/13/9d8b5736-aad7-11e3-adbc-888c8010c799_story.html</a></p>
<p>Neither says he or his group had “oversight for Obamacare.” </p>
<p>“ran the Office of Research Integrity, responsible for reviewing any misconduct in research projects.” and “director of the U.S. government office that monitors scientific misconduct in biomedical research.” “monitors alleged research misconduct by researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other Public Health Service (PHS) agencies.”</p>
<p>And integrity in scientific research and in funding requests (and all the etceteras) is a long-standing issue. That doesn’t excuse flaws at the bench, in applications, or in monitoring, but it exists. Partly due to the process(es) in funding. </p>
<p>I believe there was a point at which some administration wanted to break this arm away from HHS. And it was vetoed. But that’s a sidebar.
…</p>
<p>Also, didn’t post this before, because I’m sure it will get a knee-jerk response from some. But it’s a thinking point:<a href=“High Enrollment In A State With No Love For Obamacare | Boise State Public Radio”>http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/high-enrollment-state-no-love-obamacare</a></p>
<p>LF, why don’t you read the letter, instead of your knee-jerk defense of anything connected to this law. The principles he refers to are endemic in govt agencies, particularly HHS. I should know because I worked for the federal govt in the late 1970’s. </p>
<p>BTW, there is a general hardship exemption separate from the one related to those who had their policies cancelled. </p>
<p><a href=“Updated: Cover Oregon health insurance exchange not attracting younger enrollees; half of applicants don't sign up - oregonlive.com”>Updated: Cover Oregon health insurance exchange not attracting younger enrollees; half of applicants don't sign up - oregonlive.com;
<p>The mess in Oregon. But no state is anywhere close to the ‘goal’ that 40% of enrollees would be between 18 and 34. Were the insurance premiums this year really based on that goal? If so, since no one has reached that goal won’t premiums really skyrocket next year? </p>
<p>And I worked for an organization regularly seeking forms of federal funding for research.<br>
I’m not knee-jerk in support; in fact, I’ve pointed out, several times, that each time some of us who disagree with you have hinted at or stated our concerns, you’ve missed that. </p>
<p>I think what we disagree with, GP, is what you see as “sufficient proof” ACA is doomed. Or, “dead if the person has a functioning brain.”</p>
<p>"Were the insurance premiums this year really based on that goal? If so, since no one has reached that goal won’t premiums really skyrocket next year? "</p>
<p>No and no.</p>
<p>And no explanation.</p>
<p>Oregon is asking for a ‘grace period’ because the sign up numbers are so low and because their exchange never worked despite spending umpteen millions on it.
<a href=“With March 31 health coverage deadline approaching, Oregon hopes for longer - oregonlive.com”>With March 31 health coverage deadline approaching, Oregon hopes for longer - oregonlive.com;
<p><a href=“Cover Oregon: Feds blast state health insurance exchange and lead contractor, Oracle - oregonlive.com”>Cover Oregon: Feds blast state health insurance exchange and lead contractor, Oracle - oregonlive.com;
<p>Btw, I did read the letter. It’s simply not enough to portend doom for ACA. It’s an important side issue, but not main track. </p>
<p>I can tell who here makes it clear they read past headlines and front summaries and follows links. AND, googles for more context and background. It’s simply not enough to go onesie-twosie. It’s also fascinating to see how dstark positions and listen in on the DS-CF conversation.</p>
<p>And remember, a lot of the issue here starts with the fact that, in our federal system, states can often make their own ways through national directives.</p>
<p>“The report is significant in part because of the agency that issued it: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which gave Oregon $305 million in grants to build its health exchange. The report is also significant because it provides an independent and relatively up-to-date snapshot of what’s gone on behind the scenes, providing clarity where officials’ public statements have been cryptic and contradictory.”</p>
<p>$305 Million for a state with 4 million people? How much does it amount to per enrollee?</p>
<p>There are so many IT/programming people on this thread. I assume the first thing that comes to mind is the word boondoggle.</p>
<p>Oregon remains the only state exchange that does not let the public self-enroll in a single sitting I thought we already covered that most people, anywhere, have not been enrolling in one sitting. (I don’t even buy tickets of any sort or goods online in one sitting.)</p>
<p>In fact, I was surprised romani’s fiance apparently turned around his own enrollment so fast. From “just” notified of an employer insurance change to results, same evening. Then again, she now has the info basis.</p>
<p>texaspg, Yay! Sounds like the enrollment process was far more difficult than it should have been, especially for the non-citizens. Glad it’s finally done.</p>
<p>Does the insurance the employees now have seem to be satisfactory? Does it cover the things they need to have covered, and include the providers they need or want?</p>
<p><a href=“http://resources.coveroregon.com/Enrollment-update-3-1-14.html”>http://resources.coveroregon.com/Enrollment-update-3-1-14.html</a></p>
<p>
Is that really true? On another site I read, people report their signup results. A lot of people say either that they signed up smoothly in one session, or they tried to sign up in one session but couldn’t. And it sounds like of texaspg’s people, some signed up in one go. </p>
<p>CF - they are registered at this point but not enrolled. We checked on the doctors as I was prepared to find lots of them missing since GP has been warning us for months! However, for this particular org the doctors come to visit the establishment on a regular basis anyway and many would never charge the employees. So we have decided that being enrolled in a plan is more important than finding their favorite doctors. Many of them might be out of network but I am certain some arrangements can be made with those doctors.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hepatitis-c-drug-costs-20140310,0,3828835,full.story#axzz2vx5dOUfp”>http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hepatitis-c-drug-costs-20140310,0,3828835,full.story#axzz2vx5dOUfp</a></p>
<p>Tomorrow’s the last day to get April 1 coverage and avoid the tax penalty, right? It could get busy on the fed site.</p>
<p>CF, depends on the state. Mine says 3/23 is last date to enroll and pay, for 4/1 coverage.
Also, I don’t know about “one session.” I thought it was mentioned here. We look, we play with calculators, we think. Then we come back. ?</p>