Crow at this.

 

HHS "Started" Individual Obamacare Applications Prior To Deadline,Obtained Personal Info From States - The Shark Tank

 

In the closing days of the open enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) , the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was mailing out letters notifying certain Americans that they had already started a healthcare coverage application on their behalf.

The HHS letter stated that the information they used to begin the application for individual Healthcare was obtain by the state agency in charge of implementing Obamacare.

The next step for the individual would be visit Healthcare.gov and complete the already started application to see if they qualify for “Marketplace coverage.”

News of the HHS letter was first mentioned by a listener of the popular “Daybreak with Drew Steele” Show on Fox 92.5, which is out of Fort Myers, Florida.

 

 

A reasonable question would be who will be prosecuted for this obvious fraud. But no one will be prosecuted. They will not even be fired. They will likely get a promotion for creative approach to making a political goal.

 

How does one 'start' an application without protected or sensitive information? HIPPA law, identity thief laws, hacking laws? How many did HHS break?

How is it not true? Just because they can doesn't mean they did. In other words, I'm sure some did it that way and others didn't.

 

What are your thoughts on the RAND study?

 

Haven't seen it.

How is it not true? Just because they can doesn't mean they did. In other words, I'm sure some did it that way and others didn't.

 

What are your thoughts on the RAND study?

 

But you stated they were forced to purchase through the exchanges.

But you stated they were forced to purchase through the exchanges.

Yeah, some were, so....

 

Hell, we were all forced into worse insurance.

Yeah, some were, so....

 

Hell, we were all forced into worse insurance.

 

No, we weren't. My coverage went up $6/pay period, but wasn't "worse" by any stretch of the imagination.

No, we weren't. My coverage went up $6/pay period, but wasn't "worse" by any stretch of the imagination.

I find it hard to believe your out of pocket isn't worse. If it isn't, you are in the minority, and I find it hard to believe since they are forced to make coverage less since they have to cover pre-existing .

 

And I find it curious you're avoiding my question. I told you what is said.

I find it hard to believe your out of pocket isn't worse. If it isn't, you are in the minority, and I find it hard to believe since they are forced to make coverage less since they have to cover pre-existing .

 

And I find it curious you're avoiding my question. I told you what is said.

 

You aren't exactly the most unbiased individual. I'm sure there's a lot you didn't relay. I would want to read it in full for myself.

You aren't exactly the most unbiased individual. I'm sure there's a lot you didn't relay. I would want to read it in full for myself.

No different than you, obviously. See guns, etc, etc, etc...

You never want to point out when this administration does wrong. And before you say it, when they've done good, I gave credit, just few and far between when they have.

No different than you, obviously. See guns, etc, etc, etc...

You never want to point out when this administration does wrong. And before you say it, when they've done good, I gave credit, just few and far between when they have.

 

 

Ummmm...as usual, you overlook the full context of my thoughts on my positions, espicially guns. I'm not against guns..I'm for certain changes in controls.

 

And I'm 100% for the AHCA, yet have admitted that some things need to be worked on. I just don't think the AHCA is wrong.

 

And frankly, I'm surprised that you would even WANT someone to form an opinion on anything without having personally having researched it. Aren't you one of the people who always rails against the "uninformed"? I won't form an opinion on the RAND study until I've read it. And I most CERTAINLY will not form an opinion based upon a snippet of information shared by someone I absolutely know is looking for anything to support their position that the AHCA must be completely abolished.

Ummmm...as usual, you overlook the full context of my thoughts on my positions, espicially guns. I'm not against guns..I'm for certain changes in controls.

 

And I'm 100% for the AHCA, yet have admitted that some things need to be worked on. I just don't think the AHCA is wrong.

 

And frankly, I'm surprised that you would even WANT someone to form an opinion on anything without having personally having researched it. Aren't you one of the people who always rails against the "uninformed"? I won't form an opinion on the RAND study until I've read it. And I most CERTAINLY will not form an opinion based upon a snippet of information shared by someone I absolutely know is looking for anything to support their position that the AHCA must be completely abolished.

The changes on guns that you want are not in support of the Second Amendment. But we can save that for another thread.

 

Let me ask you a few questions.

 

The president claims 7 million people signed up for health insurance on the ObamaCare exchanges. If this is true, and keep in mind all the lies he has told about the AHCA since day one, how many of these 7 million include those dropped from their policies? How many of these enrollees have paid for their AHCA policies? How many of these 7 million were previously uninsured?

 

Here is what I can tell you about the RAND study, and note, from the beginning I DID say "if the study is correct":

 

“A new study from the RAND corporation indicates that only one-third of exchange sign-ups were previously uninsured. The RAND study hasn’t yet been published, but its contents were made available to Noam Levey of the Los Angeles Times. RAND also estimates that 9 million individuals have purchased health plans directly from insurers, outside of the exchanges, but that “the vast majority of these people were previously insured.”

 

Then there is Goldman Sachs:

 

“Goldman Sachs is projecting that only 1 million Obamacare sign-ups will come from previously uninsured Americans. Indeed, it estimates that the number of total signups will be just 4 million — not 6 million, as the administration claims — because ‘HHS figures . . .count all persons who selected an ACA exchange plan regardless of whether or not they have actually completed the enrollment process by paying their premium.’ Goldman Sachs also anticipates that fully 75 percent of all the Obamacare sign-ups will be from people who already had insurance.”

 

McKinsey survey:

 

“Of the Obamacare sign-ups, only 27 percent had been previously uninsured in 2013. And of the 27 percent, nearly half had yet to pay a premium. (By contrast, among the 73 percent who had been previously insured, 86 percent had paid).”

In the McKinsey survey, of those who had decided not to sign up for Obamacare, the most common reason was the affordability of the offered plans. Indications from insurers like Aetna and WellPoint is that the premiums on the exchange will go up substantially next year.

 

Again, I don't know what is 100% true or not true at this point, but if this is correct, since the number one problem with healthcare hasn't been addressed, cost, what do you think is going to happen down the road in a few years?

I'm going to be really busy going on living my life and being a generally happy person for the next few chaotic weeks. When I get time, I might search for the links to read all of the above in their ENTIRETY. You will not push me into stating an uninformed opinion. But, in the end, time will bear it all out one way or another.

I'm going to be really busy going on living my life and being a generally happy person for the next few chaotic weeks. When I get time, I might search for the links to read all of the above in their ENTIRETY. You will not push me into stating an uninformed opinion. But, in the end, time will bear it all out one way or another.

I'm not trying to push you into anything. Just having a conversation about what we know at this point. Not sure what the anger is about, but, whatever.

If your plan has not changed it's grandfathered. Illegal delay actions by the executive branch allow this.

 

When employer plans have to 'conform' things will get real.

If your plan has not changed it's grandfathered. Illegal delay actions by the executive branch allow this.

 

When employer plans have to 'conform' things will get real.

 

My companies plan was not grandfathered. It is compliant with the requirements of the ACA. As a small employer we were not required to provide insurance at all, but if I want to attract and keep good people I need to offer good insurance. The year over year change in premium was 3.9 percent. I was able to up the company contribution slightly so that for every single employee the out of pocket went DOWN. I outlined the small changes in coverage in an earlier post. The rate of inflation in medical costs is at the lowest it has been in a couple of generations. As an individual and as an employer, I think the ACA is doing just what it was supposed to do. I would make a few changes to the ACA, but as long as the Republicans control the House there is little chance of making any improvements.