Administration rolls out 3-page Obamacare enrollment form

[mercury14]

Five bucks says Vette still whines about it being too long.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-simplifies-health-care-form-085104313.html

 

[Busybody]

going from 17 pages....which they defended


to 3 pages


clearly means they are HIDING SOMETHING


what are they hiding and WHY?

 

[mercury14]

going from 17 pages....which they defended


to 3 pages


clearly means they are HIDING SOMETHING


what are they hiding and WHY?

Just compare the forms and see for yourself.

 

[Busybody]

If they defended the 17 pages and they did

Then come with 3 pages

THEY ARE HIDING SOMETHING

Obviously

 

[kbate]

If they defended the 17 pages and they did

Then come with 3 pages

THEY ARE HIDING SOMETHING

Obviously

They'll just remove all of the questions about the applicant's health, smoking, drinking, legal residency, and keep in the big question which is "income" - the only thing needed to determine the applicant's subsidy status.

They'll wait until you get on the MedicAid to give you the "list your assets" form.

 

[Busybody]

Nope

the questions will be

Did you vote DUMOH?

if yes, WHERE DO YOU WANT THE MONEY SENT AND HOW MUCH?

if no, KILL YOURSELF, PARASITE!

why THAT took 3 pages is hard to imagine

 

[Ishmael]

They'll just remove all of the questions about the applicant's health, smoking, drinking, legal residency, and keep in the big question which is "income" - the only thing needed to determine the applicant's subsidy status.

They'll wait until you get on the MedicAid to give you the "list your assets" form.

*chuckle* Probably closer to the truth than anyone cares to admit. But then again, ObamaCare has always been about the money, not health.

One huge train wreck taking place in slo-mo.

Ishmael

 

[tactful]

Five bucks says Vette still whines about it being too long.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-simplifies-health-care-form-085104313.html

They could make it very easy by just getting rid of Heath Insurance Companies altogether, but, that would be too easy.

 

[Busybody]

the new forms

may have a different look

but the same shit

New look>>>>>>>>>

<<<<<same old shit

 

[RobDownSouth]

They'll just remove all of the questions about the applicant's health, smoking, drinking, legal residency, and keep in the big question which is "income" - the only thing needed to determine the applicant's subsidy status.

They'll wait until you get on the MedicAid to give you the "list your assets" form.

They never asked any questions about health, smoking or drinking in the first place.

They originally asked basic information (name, address, phone), then two pages for each member of your family as to relation, citizenship and income. They also ask if you have any existing insurance.

One extra page at the end for Alaskans (Alaska pays more co-pays and stuff), then one page if you want to designate a representative for your family.

That's it. So simple even a homeskooler could fill it out. Maybe even you, kbate!

LINK to the dastardly "21 page" form.

 

[Busybody]

its BULLSHIT


they always asked about SMOKING DRUGS HEALTH ISSUES

why would you LIE so obviously?

 

[mercury14]

Most pages of the old form didn't apply to people. No I do not have any native american tribal land ownership income, next page.

 

[Ishmael]

They could make it very easy by just getting rid of Heath Insurance Companies altogether, but, that would be too easy.

Despite their reassurances otherwise, what makes you think that isn't the plan? That it wasn't the plan from the very beginning?

And congress is now busily drafting legislation that will exempt themselves and their staff from ObamaCare. If it's so damn good why would they be doing that?

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

They could make it very easy by just getting rid of Heath Insurance Companies altogether, but, that would be too easy.

In theory, yes, in reality, no. The votes simply weren't there.

Obamacare is a necessary first step on the road to single-payer.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Despite their reassurances otherwise, what makes you think that isn't the plan? That it wasn't the plan from the very beginning?

The insurance industry was way too fucking happy about it...

In theory, yes, in reality, no. The votes simply weren't there.

True...but that's b/c our elected officials don't really answer to us beyond what they can get away with and still shmooze the general public. Their real constituency however special interest groups and companies with deep pockets.

Obamacare is a necessary first step on the road to single-payer.

No it's not...it's the bare minimum licking needed to gain enough public approval to let big pharma and everyone else in the HC industry cookie jar fuck the tax payer even harder than they were.

My sister works for a major pharmaceutical company that threw a party costing over a million bucks when that bill passed. They are going to make such an obnoxious/obscene amount of money off this shit....it's sickening. Congratulations dumoh's...you made some of the worlds most filthy fuckin' rich...EVEN MORE SO!!! LMFAO!!

Justification shoved on the public? "It's a step in the right direction."....

Where is that occupation hippie meme when you need it..."Opposes 1% getting wealthier, supports Obamacare increasing their profits to the fucking moon. "

I have to give it to the politicians though...like used car salesman...rip you off and make you love every second of it.

 

[Busybody]

I still wanna know

How 17 can get to 3

WITHOUT HIDING STUFF

 

[mercury14]

Despite their reassurances otherwise, what makes you think that isn't the plan? That it wasn't the plan from the very beginning?

You're going to have to explain to me how handing private insurance companies 35 million new customers is a step toward eliminating the companies.

And congress is now busily drafting legislation that will exempt themselves and their staff from ObamaCare. If it's so damn good why would they be doing that?

Ishmael

No it's not, dumbass. Stop taking Fox News at face value, you're being lied to and you're always oh-so-willingly gullible, aren't ya? The fake story you were duped into believing is actually based on Republicans trying to play a political game to embarrass Democrats that ended up in a technical problem.

No, Congress isn’t trying to exempt itself from Obamacare
Posted by Ezra Klein on April 25, 2013 at 8:50 am

There’s a Politico story making the rounds that says that members of Congress are engaged in secret, sensitive negotiations to exempt themselves and their staffs from Obamacare.

Well, they were secret, anyway.

The story has blown up on Twitter. “Unbelievable,” tweets TPM’s Brian Beutler. “Flat out incredible,” says Politico’s Ben White. “Obamacare for thee, but not for me,” snarks Ben Domenech. “Two thumbs way, way down,” says Richard Roeper. (Okay, I made the last one up).

If this sounds unbelievable, it’s because it is. There’s no effort to “exempt” Congress from Obamacare. No matter how this shakes out, Congress will have to follow the law, just like everyone else does.

Based on conversations I’ve had with a number of the staffs involved in these talks, the actual issue here is far less interesting, and far less explosive, than an exemption. Rather, a Republican amendment meant to embarrass Democrats and a too-clever-by-half Democratic response has possibly created a problem in which the federal government can’t make its normal contribution to the insurance premiums of congressional staffers.

Maybe.

See? This is getting boring already.

Here’s how it happened: Back during the Affordable Care Act negotiations, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) proposed an amendment forcing all members of Congress and all of their staffs to enter the exchanges. The purpose of the amendment was to embarrass the Democrats. But in a bit of jujitsu of which they were inordinately proud, Democrats instead embraced the amendment and added it to the law. Here’s the relevant text:

The only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

Let’s stop for a moment here and explain why this is unusual. Large employers — defined in the law as employers with more than 100 employees — aren’t allowed onto the insurance exchanges until 2017, and only then if a state makes an affirmative decision to let them in.

But the federal government is the largest employer in the country. So Grassley’s amendment means that the largest employer in the country is required to put some of its employees — the ones working for Congress — on the exchanges. But the exchanges don’t have any procedures for handling premium contributions for large employers.

That’s where the problem comes in. This was an offhand amendment that was supposed to be rejected. It’s not clear that the federal government has the authority to pay for congressional staffers on the exchanges, the way it pays for them now in the federal benefits program. That could lead to a lot of staffers quitting Congress because they can’t afford to shoulder 100 percent of their premiums. (There’s also a smaller issue related to how retiree benefits might be calculated. But I’m only willing to go so far into the weeds here.)

You’ll notice a lot of hedged language here: “Ifs” and “coulds”. The reason is that the Office of Personnel Management — which is the agency that actually manages the federal government’s benefits — hasn’t ruled on their interpretation of the law. So no one is even sure if this will be an issue. As the Politico article notes, some offices, like that of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), interpret the language of the law such that there’s no problem at all. Others are worried it could be an issue, and are trying to prepare ways around it. The staffs I talked to stressed this worrying was preliminary, and felt the Politico article was jumping the gun. “This whole Politico story is based on a ruling that hasn’t even come down yet,” one griped.

But no one is discussing “exempting” congressional staffers from Obamacare. They’re discussing creating some method through which the federal government can keep making its current contribution to the health insurance of congressional staffers.

“Even if OPM rules against us,” one staffer said, “it’s inaccurate to imply that any talks are aimed at exempting federal employees from routine mandates of ACA since any talks are about resolving the unique bind that the Grassley amendment puts federal employees in.”

This isn’t, in other words, an effort to flee Obamacare. It’s an effort to fix a drafting error that prevents the federal government from paying into insurance exchanges on behalf of congressional staffers who got caught up in a political controversy.

 

[Sean]

And congress is now busily drafting legislation that will exempt themselves and their staff from ObamaCare. If it's so damn good why would they be doing that?

Ishmael

This is a complete lie. But the RWCJ never let the facts get in the way.

 

[mercury14]

I still wanna know

How 17 can get to 3

WITHOUT HIDING STUFF

As I pointed out on the GB when Litcons were flipping their lids over seventeen pages, the administration said that the 17-page was just a draft that included all possible questions that may need to be included. I even quoted their comments saying that the finished product wouldn't need to be anywhere near that extensive. You all chose to disbelieve their statement and now here you are holding a three-page application in your hand looking completely stupid.

... Just as I said you would.

 

[mercury14]

This is a complete lie. But the RWCJ never let the facts get in the way.

Ish is notorious for believing any and all right-wing lies about health-care reform. When he's exposed for getting suckered into yet another hoax he flees the thread and pretends like nothing ever happened. Then a few weeks later the cycle repeats itself.

Not to mention you can just eyeball this hoax and see it for what it is. Why would Congress want to exempt itself from the ACA? They already get employer-provided health insurance from their employer that exceeds the minimum standard. Makes you wonder what Ish thought they had to gain...

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're going to have to explain to me how handing private insurance companies 35 million new customers is a step toward eliminating the companies.

I was going to say....I was pretty sure I remember seeing insurance company big wig's popping champagne with the pill pushers and toy makers.

Any time uber corp board members are that stoked over legislation...we gettin' fucked deep n' proper.

 

[Sean]

Ish is notorious for believing any and all right-wing lies about health-care reform. When he's exposed for getting suckered into yet another hoax he flees the thread and pretends like nothing ever happened. Then a few weeks later the cycle repeats itself.

Not to mention you can just eyeball this hoax and see it for what it is. Why would Congress want to exempt itself from the ACA? They already get employer-provided health insurance from their employer that exceeds the minimum standard. Makes you wonder what Ish thought they had to gain...

I've been linking the Forbes article about it to various RW sky is falling types, it's like pissing into a hurricane.

 

[Ishmael]

You're going to have to explain to me how handing private insurance companies 35 million new customers is a step toward eliminating the companies.



No it's not, dumbass. Stop taking Fox News at face value, you're being lied to and you're always oh-so-willingly gullible, aren't ya? The fake story you were duped into believing is actually based on Republicans trying to play a political game to embarrass Democrats that ended up in a technical problem.

First of all moron, the story was first broken by Politico, hardly a right-wing rag. Followed up on by the WSJ and others. Secondly those stories were reportorial writings, not partisan commentary like Klein's who said, essentially, "No they aren't but this is why they are."

The Insurance companies as we know them ARE going away. ObamaCare has reformed the Health insurance market place in the same manner that the Dodd-Frank reformed banking. Dodd-Frank created an unholy alliance between the 7+ largest banking firms and the Federal Reserve. ObamaCare has established a governmental alliance between the largest health care carriers and the government, for all intents and purposes creating a monopoly. Think of it in terms of the government being AT&T and the carriers now being the baby bells. It's going to be a train wreck.

Ishmael

 

[Busybody]

As I pointed out on the GB when Litcons were flipping their lids over seventeen pages, the administration said that the 17-page was just a draft that included all possible questions that may need to be included. I even quoted their comments saying that the finished product wouldn't need to be anywhere near that extensive. You all chose to disbelieve their statement and now here you are holding a three-page application in your hand looking completely stupid.

... Just as I said you would.

they BACKTRACKED cause of the RIDICULE

 

[tactful]

Most pages of the old form didn't apply to people. No I do not have any native american tribal land ownership income, next page.

How many languages will it be written in, and will there be one in sign language for native american tribal people, that might own land?