Thursday, January 9, 2014

Random Updates on ObamaCare

In five states alone — Florida, Texas, Illinois, South Carolina and Arizona — about 104,000 people are still waiting to get enrolled in the public programs after trying to sign up through, according to state officials and advocacy groups.

The Website used by 36 states has been unable to transfer income and other data from applications to the state agencies that run Medicaid, the state-federal program for low-income adults, and the children’s insurance program. As a result, tens of thousands of applicants have been left in limbo – without coverage that was supposed to begin Jan.

State Medicaid officials in Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Arizona and Illinois say they have not been able to enroll anyone in Medicaid or CHIP directly from the Website.

In fact, about 59% of people who tried are unable to complete all of the requirements of ObamaCare on line.

If you have a baby during 2014, that baby will not be easily added to your policy.

People have been turned away from hospitals in cold weather because the hospitals can’t determine whether their ObamaCare is in effect. 

A woman discovered that her $5,500 per person deductible meant she would have to pay the $500 for x-rays.

Patients have been told they would have to pay their bills in full if they couldn't prove they had insurance, and proving it has been impossible.

Paperwork problems almost delayed suburban Chicago resident Sheri Zajcew’s scheduled surgery Thursday, but Dr. John Venetos decided to operate without a routine go-ahead from the insurance company. That was after Venetos’ office manager spent two hours on hold with the insurer Thursday, trying to get an answer about whether the patient needed prior authorization for the surgery. The office manager finally gave up.


Dave Miller said...

Joe, no program of this magnitude could possibly be implemented without any problems.

Medicare Part D, which incredibly the Dems opposed as an unwarranted expansion of the Federal Government, was a disaster during the roll out.

Yet for some reason, Congress worked together to make it better, fix the problems and get it right.

I wonder how much better the ACA could be if both parties accepted it as settled law and worked together, as was done before, to improve it.

Would that be a workable solution or approach?

Joe said...

DM"...settled law..."

Just like Jim Crow.

Shaw Kenawe said...

DM"...settled law..."

Just like Jim Crow.

Jim Crow laws existed only in the south. While there certainly was racial discrimination in the north, it was not encoded in law. When African-Americans came north during The Great Migration, they struggled to find housing and jobs, that is true. But it was not against the law, as it was in the south, to sit anywhere they wanted on the trains which transported them north, once they left the Jim Crow south; it was not against the law for their children to attend schools with non-African-American children.

Comparing the A.C.A. to Jim Crow laws is inane.

Joe said...

SK: At no time did I compare ACA with Jim Crow. What I DID compare was "settled law" with "laws that get changed."

There is absolutely, positively no such thing as settled law, even though liberals think any law that fits THEIR agenda is settled...until they change their minds.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, why did you choose to not deal with the thrust of my comment, that or political leaders should work together to improve the ACA?

Isn't that a worthy option?

Duckys here said...

The Policy Making Process
Charles E. Lindblom

Joe, I believe it is still in print and I recommend it to you.

The book gives a very good view of why policy is an iterative process.

By extension it implies that your unwillingness to answer Dave's question and explain how you would improve policy marks you as an obstructionist.

Or you may simply be happy with your "I've got mine and you can get lost" attitude.

Dave Miller said...

Here's a nice summary of the similarities of the problems and how the two parties handled fixing them relating directly to the ACA and Medicare Part D...

"First, both plans passed with substantial partisan tension, which tarnished the initial public views of them. Second, both plans created much confusion in the public, with small proportions of Americans having even a basic understanding of what was in the plans and how they would work. Third, both plans had a lot of time after passage and before they actually took effect to prepare for a massive rollout. Fourth, neither had its website ready to roll when the deadline hit, and both had crashes and long delays to gain access. Fifth, even after the websites became more reliable, other problems persisted, including inadequate call centers and inexperienced navigators at the local level who were unprepared with full or sophisticated answers to questions posed by those trying to sign up. Sixth, supporters of the laws issued cautions when they were first unveiled, warning of glitches ahead and asking the public for understanding and help at ameliorating the problems.

Now for the differences. While Medicare Part D was the subject of serious partisan chicanery—the infamous three-hour vote in the House; the conference committee that barred key Senate Democrats from participating, including Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle; the "bait and switch" that in the end took out all the parts of the bill that had made Ted Kennedy an initial partner of the Bush administration—once it was law, most Democrats worked hard to make the plan accessible and workable for seniors, as did Democratic governors and state legislatures. "

Joe, again, why can't, or won't conservatives work together, as politicians did during the Bush Admin, to make the ACA even better?

Here's the link to the article...

Joe said...

DM"...why did you choose to not deal with the thrust of my comment..."

Because the thrust of your comment was off point. This post was about conditions, not solutions.

I have solutions, but you are partisonly uninterested.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, my comment certainly accepted that are problems, as I've stated many times before, with the ACA.

On that, we agree. Is that all you wanted to hear?

I guess i mistakenly thought that people who agreed that there are problems with the law, could dialogue about reasonable attainable solutions.

Sorry I misunderstood you.

Xavier Onassis said...

Dave Miller - Joe doesn't want government to work at the federal level.

All Joe wants is from the federal government is a ring of gunboats and fences surrounding America keeping out foreigners and foreign products.

Within America, all Joe wants are 50 completely Sovereign States who are free to discriminate against gays, atheists, immigrants, or any other group they don't like.

Think of Joe's philosophy as the Free Market of State Government.

Don't like it in Florida or Utah? Go live in Missouri or New Jersey.

In Joe's World, there is no Equal Protection Under The Law at the Federal Level.

The smaller the local government, the more power Joe would give them.

If some rinky dink local Township wanted to revoke the authority of County, State and Federal jurisdiction and reinstate Jim Crow laws or create their own Immigration or gun laws, that would be just fine with Joe.

That's what he thinks Freedom means. The ability to create little fiefdoms of "liberty" that can be as oppressive and restrictive as they choose with no regard or accountability to a national norm.

He claims to cherish the Constitution, but he actually hates it because Federal Law ALWAYS supersedes State Law and he just can't swallow that.

Joe said...

Dave Miller: Do you really think you can out snot me? I can out snot you every day of the week and twice on Saturday afternoons. I may well be the snottiest person you know. Even though it snot nice to say.

Duckys here said...

Any response to XO, Joe?

*chirp *chirp*

That's when we know you've thrown in the towel.

Joe said...

Ducky: What did he write that was worthy of comment?

Xavier Onassis said...

Everything I write, by definition, is worthy of comment.