Healthcare.gov alternative

[JustRalph]

Built over a weekend.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57611592/s.f-programmers-build-alternative-to-healthcare.gov/

Check your rates

Mine go up about 40% and my deductible is 4x what it is now. I qualify for $0 subsidies

[iceknight]

Built over a weekend.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57611592/s.f-programmers-build-alternative-to-healthcare.gov/

Check your rates

Mine go up about 40% and my deductible is 4x what it is now. I qualify for $0 subsidies
Nice find. but the whole premium going up part sucks!! (for me too)

[tucker6]

Built over a weekend.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57611592/s.f-programmers-build-alternative-to-healthcare.gov/

Check your rates

Mine go up about 40% and my deductible is 4x what it is now. I qualify for $0 subsidies
Not sure Mostie and Stinks are available at this early hour on Saturday, so allow me to answer on their behalf.

According to the talking points from my govt handbook, you will have more benefits and lower premiums. Just because your plan was full of holes, like unadequate maternity and drug abuse coverage, isn't the problem of ACA (those guys would never call it Obamacare :D ). Everybody needs to pitch in to help the crack moms. After all, they vote dem and help keep us in power. If you do have higher premiums for the same coverage, it is because you are too rich and haven't been paying your fair share all these years, which is typical for you tea baggers.

[pandy]

These guys are amazing. Obama should hire them.

[Clocker]

These guys are amazing. Obama should hire them.

They appear to be doing a much better job of delivering the information, but if the information they are delivering is ultimately from HealthCare.gov, it is still highly questionable.

The .gov site has been changed so that you can browse the rates without putting in your personal data. But a threshold question to get rate estimates asks about your age. There are only two choices: 49 or younger and 50 or older. If you check 49 or younger, you are shown typical rates for a 27 year old. If you check 50 or older, you are shown typical rates for a 50 year old. Those rates would obviously be way out of line for people in their 40s, and for people 60 and up.

There have been numerous stories in the media of people complaining that their actual rates when they finally deal with an insurance company are up to double the estimates they get on HealthCare.gov.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Yeah, I can't imagine why it is so challenging to narrow those ranges to something slightly more specific and accurate. They certainly don't need to go in five year intervals, but surely they could do a vastly better job at delivering the estimates than that just by adding even two more possible ranges for a total of four.

[Clocker]

Yeah, I can't imagine why it is so challenging for government to narrow those ranges to something slightly more specific and accurate.

Question recalibrated to reflect reality. Still wondering? ;)

[pandy]

They appear to be doing a much better job of delivering the information, but if the information they are delivering is ultimately from HealthCare.gov, it is still highly questionable.

The .gov site has been changed so that you can browse the rates without putting in your personal data. But a threshold question to get rate estimates asks about your age. There are only two choices: 49 or younger and 50 or older. If you check 49 or younger, you are shown typical rates for a 27 year old. If you check 50 or older, you are shown typical rates for a 50 year old. Those rates would obviously be way out of line for people in their 40s, and for people 60 and up.

There have been numerous stories in the media of people complaining that their actual rates when they finally deal with an insurance company are up to double the estimates they get on HealthCare.gov.

That figures.

[mostpost]

Not sure Mostie and Stinks are available at this early hour on Saturday, so allow me to answer on their behalf.

According to the talking points from my govt handbook, you will have more benefits and lower premiums. Just because your plan was full of holes, like unadequate maternity and drug abuse coverage, isn't the problem of ACA (those guys would never call it Obamacare :D ). Everybody needs to pitch in to help the crack moms. After all, they vote dem and help keep us in power. If you do have higher premiums for the same coverage, it is because you are too rich and haven't been paying your fair share all these years, which is typical for you tea baggers.
Why don't you just limit yourself to spewing your conservative nonsense and not worry about us liberals. I don't own a government handbook and I don't get talking points for the so called liberal press. I so use the liberal press to enhance points which I have developed myself.

As for more benefits and lower premiums, you are comparing apples and oranges. The ACA will eventually result in lower premiums for similar coverages. You are trying to compare the premiums for the inferior coverages of the now cancelled plans with the much improved coverages of the new approved plans. Obviously they are going to be higher. You pay more for a steak dinner than for a Big Mac.

Despite what you think, we frequently use the term Obamacare. Check any number of my posts on the subject. Obama himself likes the term, although he has quite the different interpretation of it than you do.

I do not support Obamacare because it is good for crack moms. I support it because it is good for middle class and poor Americans. I understand that in your view, any poor American woman with children is a crack mom.

I vote Democratic to keep the Democrats in power. But also to keep the ignorant, greedy, dishonest, know nothing Republicans out of power.

Yes you are tea baggers. In all the senses of that word.

[pandy]

The more I find out about Obamacare, the more I think it was just a sneaky way to redistribute wealth. The Democrats know that they couldn't raise taxes without losing votes, so they passed this huge tax increase disguised as some sort of social reform bill.

[JustRalph]

The more I find out about Obamacare, the more I think it was just a sneaky way to redistribute wealth. The Democrats know that they couldn't raise taxes without losing votes, so they passed this huge tax increase disguised as some sort of social reform bill.

Ding!!

[Clocker]

The more I find out about Obamacare, the more I think it was just a sneaky way to redistribute wealth. The Democrats know that they couldn't raise taxes without losing votes, so they passed this huge tax increase disguised as some sort of social reform bill.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Any other way of subsidizing health insurance for more people would require significantly higher taxes or a major increase in deficit spending. ObamaCare funds a new welfare program off the government books by imposing a hidden tax on the young and healthy, and having the insurance companies collect the tax and redistribute it to lower income earners in the form of artificially low insurance premiums.

[JustRalph]

Yes you are tea baggers. In all the senses of that word.

Nice touch.........You're lucky it's not my board, or you don't live next door

[Clocker]

Yes you are tea baggers. In all the senses of that word.

Very classy. Unable to engage in an objective discussion of the issues, you stoop to school yard tactics of filthy name calling.

[tucker6]

The more I find out about Obamacare, the more I think it was just a sneaky way to redistribute wealth. The Democrats know that they couldn't raise taxes without losing votes, so they passed this huge tax increase disguised as some sort of social reform bill.
not to be harsh to you Pandy, but you just figured this out??? Every bill ever passed by the democrats is an attempt to extract wealth from others to give to their constituents. At times, like the whole global warming nonsense, it isn't even sneaky. The UN wants Obama to go all in with cash and giving up sovereignty, and if it was up to him, he'd do it tomorrow.

[tucker6]

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Any other way of subsidizing health insurance for more people would require significantly higher taxes or a major increase in deficit spending. ObamaCare funds a new welfare program off the government books by imposing a hidden tax on the young and healthy, and having the insurance companies collect the tax and redistribute it to democratic voters in the form of artificially low insurance premiums.
fyp

[pandy]

What worries me about this is the timing. The economy is still fragile, job participation is at record lows, the deficit is enormous. QE3 along with low interest rates is artificially supporting the stock market. Sucking more money out of people's pockets via the Obamacare taxes and penalties could be dangerous.

Eventually the Fed. is going to have to stop buying these mortgage backed securities each month and when that happens interest rates are going to go up and the stock market will most likely fall. But, the bigger question is, will Obamacare hurt the already tenuous job market?

[tucker6]

What worries me about this is the timing. The economy is still fragile, job participation is at record lows, the deficit is enormous. QE3 along with low interest rates is artificially supporting the stock market. Sucking more money out of people's pockets via the Obamacare taxes and penalties could be dangerous.

Eventually the Fed. is going to have to stop buying these mortgage backed securities each month and when that happens interest rates are going to go up and the stock market will most likely fall. But, the bigger question is, will Obamacare hurt the already tenuous job market?
A good case could be made that it helps the job market actually. With health care cost no longer tied to employment, many employers may be able to afford a slight expansion in human resources as the cost for those resources declines. When I managed a business unit, benefits were calculated at 30% of salary, and most of that was health care. So $30k was set aside for benefits for someone making $100k. If you don't have many benefits to give as an employer, I could see them either hiring better skilled labor, or hiring one or two more employees to fill gaps from the recession. I'd hazard that this Obamacare monster will have the unintended effect of improving jobs. The big question is how much employers are willing to give back to the employees since they aren't paying bennies any longer. Probably just enough to cover the extra cost of Obamacare, and so therefore the rich get richer as Mostie likes to say.

[HUSKER55]

why should anyone pay for something they don't need?

[Clocker]

But, the bigger question is, will Obamacare hurt the already tenuous job market?

It already has, and will continue to do so. The job issue has been pushed to the background by all the clamor about the website failure and millions of canceled policies and Obama's lies. But the facts remain that many people had their hours cut to 30 hours a week and that many small businesses avoid expansion in order to keep their employee count under 50.

And while no one on the left will admit it, many businesses of all sizes are delaying expansion until the employer mandate goes into effect. They no longer trust anything the government tells them, especially about ObamaCare, and don't want to make any commitments until they actually see it in operation. The one thing that is known, and that Obama continues to deny, is that millions of employer-based health policies will be canceled next year for non-compliance. Current estimates in the media range from 30 to 50 million. The delay in the employer mandate until 2015 gives the administration plenty of time to tinker with the rules, including the definition of a qualified plan. Lots of employers feel it's better just to wait and see.