Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 77 posts

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#21

Post by drivingmissm »

Bsharp wrote: post #15
uptown wrote: post #9

Completely separate issue from the technical issues - but how are people expected to find out that they need to do this. I have to assume there's a non-trivial percentage of the population that's not only uninsured but also completely disconnected from news and the internet. Does somebody contact them somehow to get them enrolled?

Like taxes, this will likely be a largely individual endeavor. Maybe there will be PSAs, but their effectiveness is questionable. Many people (and the politicians who signed it!) don't know the enrollment requirements, subsequent responsibilities, and consequences for failure to comply. Everyone is fighting over the validity and constitutionality of this law, instead of informing the public about what they need to do…

I think civil disobedience is appropriate, and that people should resist compliance and urge others to resist. I believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the law was passed in a party-line vote using shady Senate tactics. Further, we now know that President Obama flat-out knowingly lied when he told the public "if you like your plan you can keep it." The law needs to be delayed so that Congress can pass a bipartisan health care reform bill. This issue is too important to not have achieved a governing consensus.

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#22

Post by hga »

newsreader wrote: post #19
ceejayoz wrote: post #8

For reference, only 123 managed to sign up for Romneycare in the first month . There are clearly large technical issues, but early on it seems that people also do a lot of "let's see how much it'd cost" and sign up later.

Not a good comparison. Romneycare was implemented in one state, Obamacare is nation wide.

A moderate sized state in population, 6.6 million as of 2012 or roughly 2% of the nation's population, with a high median home income and as I recall a way above average percentage of insured residents.

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#23

Post by ceejayoz »

newsreader wrote: post #19
ceejayoz wrote: post #8

For reference, only 123 managed to sign up for Romneycare in the first month . There are clearly large technical issues, but early on it seems that people also do a lot of "let's see how much it'd cost" and sign up later.

Not a good comparison. Romneycare was implemented in one state, Obamacare is nation wide.

So your assertion is that Massachusetts has an unusual aversion to signing up in the first month that the rest of the nation lacks?

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#24

Post by cbhl »

uptown wrote: post #9

Completely separate issue from the technical issues - but how are people expected to find out that they need to do this. I have to assume there's a non-trivial percentage of the population that's not only uninsured but also completely disconnected from news and the internet. Does somebody contact them somehow to get them enrolled?

> In July, HHS inked a $33 million contract with PR giant Weber Shandwick. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid had already signed a $3 million and $8 million contracts. Porter Novelli also has a $20 million contract with the agency

There are contracts with traditional marketing agencies to market through traditional channels (presumably TV and print), although they're waiting until the site is fixed to actually turn the machine to full throttle.

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#25

Post by abarringer »

ck2 wrote: post #18

Look I am the first to be upset at how much healthcare.gov management and dev sucked. But I don't give a darn how many signed up on the first day. I care how many sign up by December 31st. Then we can discuss enrollment problems.

No, the date is Dec. 15th. If your one of the apparently millions whose plan didn't meet the new guidelines then you must sign up by Dec. 15th.

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#26

Post by jonlucc »

josefresco wrote: post #11
ceejayoz wrote: post #8

For reference, only 123 managed to sign up for Romneycare in the first month . There are clearly large technical issues, but early on it seems that people also do a lot of "let's see how much it'd cost" and sign up later.

Link? Would love to read up on that, if in fact it's true.

I agree that data is preferred, but we can also look at it another way. There is no incentive to sign up before December 15th. All plans signed up before then start Jan 1. With all of the talk about the technical limitations, I think people are right to wait a month until people aren't ranting about it being broken.

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#27

Post by tptacek »

pmorici wrote: post #16

Perhaps because of the sticker shock and because, if you can get them, pre ACA plans are cheaper and offer more value. For example if you go to ehealthinsurance.com and compare the lowest cost pre-ACA 2013 plans with ACA-compliant 2014 plans for a healthy individual in their late 20's early thirties you get the following very affordable options pre-ACA... BlueCross BlueShield; Deductible: $5,000, Co-Insurance: 0%, Do…

Aren't you comparing conditionally-issued insurance with guaranteed-issue health insurance? The big problem I had with sites like ehealthinsurance.com is that a family using it to find insurance had a coinflip chance of actually getting one of those rates after completing an application.

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#28

Post by jevinskie »

pmorici wrote: post #16

Perhaps because of the sticker shock and because, if you can get them, pre ACA plans are cheaper and offer more value. For example if you go to ehealthinsurance.com and compare the lowest cost pre-ACA 2013 plans with ACA-compliant 2014 plans for a healthy individual in their late 20's early thirties you get the following very affordable options pre-ACA... BlueCross BlueShield; Deductible: $5,000, Co-Insurance: 0%, Do…

I thought the law was supposed to encourage preventative care. Not offering at least one low cost doctor visit seems to betray that goal.

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#29

Post by newsreader »

ceejayoz wrote: post #23
newsreader wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a good comparison. Romneycare was implemented in one state, Obamacare is nation wide.

So your assertion is that Massachusetts has an unusual aversion to signing up in the first month that the rest of the nation lacks?

My assertion is that the comparison made is not a good comparison.

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#30

Post by mikeash »

drivingmissm wrote: post #21
Bsharp wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like taxes, this will likely be a largely individual endeavor. Maybe there will be PSAs, but their effectiveness is questionable. Many people (and the politicians who signed it!) don't know the enrollment requirements, subsequent responsibilities, and consequences for failure to comply. Everyone is fighting over the validity and constitutionality of this law, instead of informing the public about what they need to do…

I think civil disobedience is appropriate, and that people should resist compliance and urge others to resist. I believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the law was passed in a party-line vote using shady Senate tactics. Further, we now know that President Obama flat-out knowingly lied when he told the public "if you like your plan you can keep it." The law needs to be delayed so that Congres…

This is as bi-partisan as you can get. The Democrats passed the Republicans' plan. The only reason it didn't get any Republican support was because the Republicans are completely nuts. There is no way to get their support for anything right now.
Post reply on HN