ObamaCare
- Thread starter shankity
- Start date
Klingsor
Worshipped Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Posts
- 10,888
- Media
- 4
- Likes
- 11,640
- Points
- 293
- Location
- Champaign (Illinois, United States)
- Sexuality
- 80% Straight, 20% Gay
- Gender
- Male
The website still doesn't work. At least, not for me.
For the past few months, any time I log in and confirm my basic contact information, I get a page saying:
Sorry, there's a problem with our system
Please log out, then try again. If you continue to get this message, call the Marketplace Call Center 1-800-318-2596. TTY users should call 1-855-889-4325. You'll need the Application ID shown below.
I've called the number a couple of times. It took a good fifteen minutes to get hold of someone, and eventually the call got disconnected. I'll try again, but don't have great hope of success.
Obviously, others have had better experiences, since people have managed to sign up. But it's still frustrating to run into these difficulties, after all the time they've had to solve problems with the site.
For the past few months, any time I log in and confirm my basic contact information, I get a page saying:
Sorry, there's a problem with our system
Please log out, then try again. If you continue to get this message, call the Marketplace Call Center 1-800-318-2596. TTY users should call 1-855-889-4325. You'll need the Application ID shown below.
I've called the number a couple of times. It took a good fifteen minutes to get hold of someone, and eventually the call got disconnected. I'll try again, but don't have great hope of success.
Obviously, others have had better experiences, since people have managed to sign up. But it's still frustrating to run into these difficulties, after all the time they've had to solve problems with the site.
as Obama pointed out, factually, more than 10 milllion people in the U.S. now have health insurance who have never had it before.
facts are stubborn things, and fortunately for us , Obama is just as stubborn. and the website does work, Klingsor. if you cant get it to work, there is a free , 800 number to call. so stop whining and make the call.
facts are stubborn things, and fortunately for us , Obama is just as stubborn. and the website does work, Klingsor. if you cant get it to work, there is a free , 800 number to call. so stop whining and make the call.
Klingsor
Worshipped Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Posts
- 10,888
- Media
- 4
- Likes
- 11,640
- Points
- 293
- Location
- Champaign (Illinois, United States)
- Sexuality
- 80% Straight, 20% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Thank you, I have made the call, more than once, with similar lack of success.
And it's not a whine, since I'm supremely fortunate enough not to need health insurance right now (even with my cancer treatments). I hope that others in greater need have better success.
But it's fair for you to simply assume the nations are compared using different criteria? If you're going to try and claim the US spends more simply because of R&D, you better be able to support that. If not, it's just a straw man.
Klingsor
Worshipped Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Posts
- 10,888
- Media
- 4
- Likes
- 11,640
- Points
- 293
- Location
- Champaign (Illinois, United States)
- Sexuality
- 80% Straight, 20% Gay
- Gender
- Male
yes, mustard mess, even those who are unemployed are expected to pay a token payment to cover what their stipend doesnt cover for their Obamacare. the whole idea, perhaps revolutionary to you, is that in a democracy of millions of people, WE ARE ALL responsible for getting and maintaining our health insurance. what a concept. and no doubt foreign to you.
B_underguy1
Experimental Member
No democracy would force people to pay private corporations for health cover.
Basically the report says that low-income, part-time workers will not be as desperate to work long hours and multiple jobs. It stresses again and again that the "employment reduction" is almost entirely driven by labor supply. It does not say that employers will reduce the number of jobs, which is what most readers will assume based on this headline.
It's not just part time, it's full time as well.
CBO: Health-care law will lead to 2 million fewer workers - The Washington Post
"The reduction in employment from the health care law includes some people choosing not to work at all and other people choosing to work fewer hours than they would have in the absence of the law, the CBO said."
In essence, the CBO is saying the law provides incentives not to work. I'm sure the middle class will love having to pay for that.
Also, we are not just talking about low income workers being negatively impacted by this law as the Yahoo article indicates:
"Although CBO projects that total employment (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would have been in the absence of the ACA," the CBO said in the report."
I stand by what I originally wrote and I'm not going down the rabbit hole.
The budget office analysis found that much of the law’s effect comes from reducing the need for people to take a full-time job just to get insurance coverage, and from the premium subsidies effectively bolstering household income.
...the report’s finding that the law will have no effect on the total demand for worker hours.
...the report’s finding that the law will have no effect on the total demand for worker hours.
If Republicans and their Libertarian enablers cared at all about jobs they would have done more than spent the last 4 years doing as little as possible and becoming the most unproductive Congress in history. The concern for the poor and middle class at this point is just a cruel joke. Profits are surging, Wall Street is doing fine, CEO's are bring home huge bucks, everyone else can eat dirt and die.
That many people chose to not work is not surprising. It is one of the answers to the fact that fewer people are looking for employment. It shows that millions of people were holding on to their jobs, some of them not very good, in order to get health insurance. It also shows how essential health insurance is -- people would rather have a lousy job with bad pay but with health insurance than stay home and just get the insurance they can afford. This should let some pressure out of the employment market. The Dems need not feel ashamed of this outcome; perhaps they should celebrate it.
Last edited by a moderator:
And I suppose Obama/Democrats are showing how much they care about jobs by providing incentives to people not to seek full time employment? All on the dime of the middle class?
I realize you view everything in a Democrats are good and Republicans are evil world, but this is a troubling report when you see the govt acknowledging it is providing incentives to its citizenry not to seek full time employment.
- b.c.,
Exactly.
So-called concerns over this amount to just more hokus-pokus-GOP-smokus, imo. Which is to say, attempts on THEIR part to add to their "Obama jobs killing agenda" narrative you'll be hearing more and more of in their coming political campaigns, as evidenced by this statement from the same quoted article:
"There is, of course, a disclaimer — the projections are subject to "substantial uncertainty" because of the broad, sweeping nature of a law that has yet to be fully implemented."
"SUBSTANTIAL" uncertainty?? Meaning it could ALL be bullshit???
Amusing it is, though, what concerns some seem to focus on while totally ignoring others. Like, concerns about the middle class paying people to work less, but not so much concern that a substantial portion of the workforce earns a salary SO LOW, that they'd qualify for federal subsidies in the FIRST place.
Or not so much concern that a significant percentage of the population (the "invincibles") go about without any coverage at all, then show up in hospital emergency rooms with dope overdoses, gunshot wounds, injuries from accidents, etc. etc. receive the same FULL care that those of us WITH insurance pay through the nose for, rack up tens of thousands of dollars in services, then skip out on the bill, leaving those of us who PAY for insurance to pick up THEIR tab as well (their bills passed on to US via higher premiums) - only for US to be dropped by our insurers when coverage is most needed, or denied coverage due to lifetime caps on coverage, or refused coverage due to their determining a condition was "pre-existing".
AND all "on our dime" ANYWAY.
Last edited:
They are both concerns. But the topic and the "focus" is concerning people who would have no employer salary due to govt incentives, hence why there is no focus on your topic because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Same could be said for the next paragraph in your post.
Last edited:
