ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

There has to be so many local and state stories like this that we never go to hear about.

Obamacare - the efficiency of the court system combined with the compassion of the IRS.

http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_2 ... ly-resigns

Under fire, MNsure's executive director abruptly resigns

Amid growing consumer frustration and a series of embarrassing disclosures, MNsure Executive Director April Todd-Malmlov resigned Tuesday from her post running the state's new health insurance exchange.

Scott Leitz, assistant commissioner for health care at the Minnesota Department of Human Services, will take over as MNsure's interim chief executive until a permanent replacement can be found.

The announcements came Tuesday after an emergency meeting of the MNsure board of directors. Members assembled by teleconference and weren't actually present inside MNsure's headquarters, spokesman John Schadl said while addressing reporters inside the downtown St. Paul building on Tuesday evening.

"The board believes the organization is at a stage where it needs a CEO to manage both MNsure's current challenges and position it for greater success in the future," Brian Beutner, the MNsure board chair, said in a prepared statement.

"MNsure must do better," Leitz said in a statement. "If there are problems or mistakes, we will acknowledge them and fix them."

MNsure's problems and mistakes have become increasingly apparent in recent weeks as consumers have struggled to finalize health insurance coverage before a deadline Monday.

The issues ranged from an understaffed call center, which forced consumers calling in to wait hours on hold for help, to a health exchange website that's been riddled with glitches.

Over the past three weeks, officials have scrambled to send notices and make phone calls to thousands of consumers after the MNsure system wrongly calculated whether individuals qualified for federal tax credits to discount the cost of their coverage or for subsidized health insurance from the government.

In addition, recent reports that Todd-Malmlov vacationed in Costa Rica last month sparked outrage, even though MNsure board members knew of the trip and Todd-Malmlov maintained daily contact with health exchange officials.

"I commend the members of the MNsure board for their strong action to change immediately the executive staff leadership," Gov. Mark Dayton said in a statement. "The recent problems some have experienced with MNsure are completely unacceptable."

Republicans said the changes don't provide comfort to Minnesotans still struggling to obtain coverage.

"For too long, Governor Dayton and Democrats have ignored the reality that their new state agency, MNsure, is failing Minnesotans," House Republican Leader Kurt Daudt said in a statement.

"It is time for Dayton to take responsibility and apologize to Minnesotans for not being sufficiently prepared," Ben Golnik, a Republican strategist and chairman of the Minnesota Jobs Coalition, said in a statement. "This staggering incompetence is a new low."

Last spring, Minnesota lawmakers passed legislation to create MNsure and take more control over implementation in the state of the federal Affordable Care Act. Passed in 2010, the federal health law requires almost all Americans to have health insurance next year or pay a tax penalty.

Health exchanges are intended to make coverage more affordable and accessible. People don't have to shop on MNsure, but it's the only way to receive subsidies for insurance. The health exchange website was intended to help consumers by making it easier to buy health insurance.

So far, the federal government has committed more than $150 million to help the state create MNsure. The marketplace is meant to be an option for individuals and small businesses looking to purchase coverage.

"I want to thank April Todd-Malmlov for her hard work and leadership in moving MNsure from a mere idea to a marketplace with the lowest health insurance rates in the country," Rep. Joe Atkins, DFL-Inver Grove Heights, said in a statement.

Before becoming the state's health exchange director, Todd-Malmlov served as state health economist in the Minnesota Department of Health and held three positions at Minnetonka-based UnitedHealth Group, which is one of the nation's largest health insurance companies. Todd-Malmlov has a master's degree in public health from the University of Minnesota and a bachelor's degree from Beloit College.

Leitz has been overseeing Minnesota's Medicaid health insurance program, which provides coverage for more than 700,000 enrollees, including people with low incomes and disabilities. Previously, he served as director of public policy for Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota and held several positions in the Minnesota Department of Health.

Earlier this year, Leitz was caught up in controversy at the Department of Human Services after an audit questioned his role in securing better payment rates for the University of Minnesota's Amplatz Children's Hospital. After the audit, a legal opinion commissioned by DHS concluded that the Minneapolis hospital should not have been exempt from Medicaid payment cuts that took effect for other medical centers in 2011.

Leitz will face a number of challenges as MNsure continues to have trouble sending information about enrollees to health insurance companies. Health plans warned earlier this month that the problems could prevent some people from having coverage Jan. 1.

On Monday, MNsure disclosed that it is asking 1,000 applicants to start over in order to obtain accurate calculations for their tax credits. The agency also acknowledged that because of a technology quirk, the MNsure call center has been automatically dropping calls after people wait an hour for help.

Leitz and Beutner, the MNsure board chairman, have scheduled a Wednesday news conference to address questions about the leadership change.

[saxitoxin]

More Bad News for the Poor: the New Medicaid is Just a Loan ... and Obama is Looking for a Return on his Investment

Unlike in Europe's single-payer system, in Obama's single-payer system (expanded ACA Medicaid) you're just taking out a loan. As you're being fed with a tube through your dick, an accountant will be tracking how much this costs. Once you're dead, Obama is then authorized under the ACA to seize all your assets and sell them at auction to pay off your healthcare loan. And, like all good moneylenders, Obama will charge you interest to keep you alive on a ventilator in a dingy room stacked 4-high with the dead and dying. Compassionate healthcare - Obama style!

She was shocked: Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses.

The way Prins saw it, that meant health insurance via Medicaid is hardly “free." It’s a loan, one whose payback requirements aren’t well advertised.

As Prins began searching for answers, she found that even those trained to help people sign up for insurance under the ACA weren’t aware of this provision, nor were some government officials.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ ... ryxml.html

[jj3044]

More Bad News for the Poor: the New Medicaid is Just a Loan ... and Obama is Looking for a Return on his Investment

Unlike in Europe's single-payer system, in Obama's single-payer system (expanded ACA Medicaid) you're just taking out a loan. As you're being fed with a tube through your dick, an accountant will be tracking how much this costs. Once you're dead, Obama is then authorized under the ACA to seize all your assets and sell them at auction to pay off your healthcare loan. And, like all good moneylenders, Obama will charge you interest to keep you alive on a ventilator in a dingy room stacked 4-high with the dead and dying. Compassionate healthcare - Obama style!

She was shocked: Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses.

The way Prins saw it, that meant health insurance via Medicaid is hardly “free." It’s a loan, one whose payback requirements aren’t well advertised.

As Prins began searching for answers, she found that even those trained to help people sign up for insurance under the ACA weren’t aware of this provision, nor were some government officials.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ ... ryxml.html

Certainly a terrible state law in Washington (the state), and a good thing it was brought to light since it seems that the state legislators are working to change it.

I knew I would get a laugh somewhere though... and that is you blaming this on the ACA, or Obama. Neither had anything to do with this rule since it is on the state level...

[saxitoxin]

More Bad News for the Poor: the New Medicaid is Just a Loan ... and Obama is Looking for a Return on his Investment

Unlike in Europe's single-payer system, in Obama's single-payer system (expanded ACA Medicaid) you're just taking out a loan. As you're being fed with a tube through your dick, an accountant will be tracking how much this costs. Once you're dead, Obama is then authorized under the ACA to seize all your assets and sell them at auction to pay off your healthcare loan. And, like all good moneylenders, Obama will charge you interest to keep you alive on a ventilator in a dingy room stacked 4-high with the dead and dying. Compassionate healthcare - Obama style!

She was shocked: Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses.

The way Prins saw it, that meant health insurance via Medicaid is hardly “free." It’s a loan, one whose payback requirements aren’t well advertised.

As Prins began searching for answers, she found that even those trained to help people sign up for insurance under the ACA weren’t aware of this provision, nor were some government officials.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ ... ryxml.html

Certainly a terrible state law in Washington (the state), and a good thing it was brought to light since it seems that the state legislators are working to change it.

I knew I would get a laugh somewhere though... and that is you blaming this on the ACA, or Obama. Neither had anything to do with this rule since it is on the state level...

And yet Washington was one of the states you said Obamacare was working. So, in other words, it's not working in Red states, it's not working in Blue states, it's not working anywhere.

[jj3044]

More Bad News for the Poor: the New Medicaid is Just a Loan ... and Obama is Looking for a Return on his Investment

Unlike in Europe's single-payer system, in Obama's single-payer system (expanded ACA Medicaid) you're just taking out a loan. As you're being fed with a tube through your dick, an accountant will be tracking how much this costs. Once you're dead, Obama is then authorized under the ACA to seize all your assets and sell them at auction to pay off your healthcare loan. And, like all good moneylenders, Obama will charge you interest to keep you alive on a ventilator in a dingy room stacked 4-high with the dead and dying. Compassionate healthcare - Obama style!

She was shocked: Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses.

The way Prins saw it, that meant health insurance via Medicaid is hardly “free." It’s a loan, one whose payback requirements aren’t well advertised.

As Prins began searching for answers, she found that even those trained to help people sign up for insurance under the ACA weren’t aware of this provision, nor were some government officials.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ ... ryxml.html

Certainly a terrible state law in Washington (the state), and a good thing it was brought to light since it seems that the state legislators are working to change it.

I knew I would get a laugh somewhere though... and that is you blaming this on the ACA, or Obama. Neither had anything to do with this rule since it is on the state level...

And yet Washington was one of the states you said Obamacare was working. So, in other words, it's not working in Red states, it's not working in Blue states, it's not working anywhere.

And it IS in those states. Costs, on average, are lower, and more people will be covered than before.

Now, as for crazy state laws, that still has absolutely nothing to do with the ACA, Obama, or my previous point. That law in Washington would have been there with or without the ACA. With the expansion in Medicaid coverage, the ACA helped bring to light this crazy law, and it is now being targeted to be repealed. So, how exactly, did the ACA make the situation WORSE in Washington??

[Phatscotty]

The states doing the best with healthcare are the ones who refused to set up an Obamacare exchange.

Per the states that did set up an exchange, the ones that are doing the best are the ones who did the absolute minimum to comply with the ACA. (According to NPR experts on the radio)

[jj3044]

The states doing the best with healthcare are the ones who refused to set up an Obamacare exchange.

Per the states that did set up an exchange, the ones that are doing the best are the ones who did the absolute minimum to comply with the ACA. (According to NPR experts on the radio)

That's incorrect.

In fact, the five states that saw the most enrollments per capita didn’t use the federal exchange at all. Vermont, Connecticut, Kentucky, California and Washington all operate their own state-based exchanges—

First link in Google... really it isn't that hard to fact check... http://www.ibamag.com/news/obamacare-enrollment-the-best-and-worst-states-by-the-numbers-16493.aspx

And if you don't like this site, there are many others saying the same...

[Phatscotty]

The states doing the best with healthcare are the ones who refused to set up an Obamacare exchange.

Per the states that did set up an exchange, the ones that are doing the best are the ones who did the absolute minimum to comply with the ACA. (According to NPR experts on the radio)

That's incorrect.

In fact, the five states that saw the most enrollments per capita didn’t use the federal exchange at all. Vermont, Connecticut, Kentucky, California and Washington all operate their own state-based exchanges—

First link in Google... really it isn't that hard to fact check... http://www.ibamag.com/news/obamacare-enrollment-the-best-and-worst-states-by-the-numbers-16493.aspx

And if you don't like this site, there are many others saying the same...

then NPR is wrong and I wasted an entire hour listening to some guy make total sense to me!

Thanks for the links though I'll get mine too and we'll sword fight with our links

[Night Strike]

If Obamacare is the law of the land that can't be changed, why has Obama yet again acted like a dictator and change the law on his own desires? This time he said people with canceled insurance plans can buy catastrophic plans that the law states are illegal to have.

[saxitoxin]

That law in Washington would have been there with or without the ACA.

That law in Washington has been on the books for years without issue. It only became a problem with the ACA's system-demolishing approach, as the article said "collision of state rules with the ACA."

NEW - Obama: "People Without Health Insurance Don't Have to Get It"

Obama now says people who had their health insurance canceled because of him can legally live without any healthcare, as though he's giving them a gift. All those millions of people want health insurance and see the logical value proposition in being insured. They didn't want Obama to cancel their health insurance policies. This is their new reality - people who have been responsibly insured for years now just have to roll the dice and pray they don't get sick.

In 2014, millions of Americans who previously had access to healthcare will now have to die on the street corner in agony, like pigs, or declare bankruptcy just to have the flu treated. Why does Obama hate working families having access to healthcare?

[saxitoxin]

House Democratic Staffers: Obamacare is "Simply Unacceptable"

Veteran House Democratic aides are sick over the insurance prices they’ll pay under Obamacare, and they’re scrambling to find a cure.

“In a shock to the system, the older staff in my office have now found out their personal health insurance costs (even with the government contribution) have gone up 3-4 times what they were paying before,” Minh Ta, chief of staff to Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), wrote to fellow Democratic chiefs of staff in an email message obtained by POLITICO. “Simply unacceptable.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/o ... z2o3C6EMEh

[patches70]

Haha! That's pretty funny. According to the Obamacarephiles, the ACA is better than what we had before. It's good enough for the common folk but for the underlings of our political elite? No Way!

By God how does Obama think the Kleptocracy keeps going? Does he think that Congress can thieve by themselves without decent staffers to help rob the nation? Looks like there is a staff infection in DC. Congressmen's staff are infected with the "I'm not paying for other people" syndrome that has been previously only attributed to Republicans, racists, rich and Tea Party members.

Go figure.

[jj3044]

That law in Washington would have been there with or without the ACA.

That law in Washington has been on the books for years without issue. It only became a problem with the ACA's system-demolishing approach, as the article said "collision of state rules with the ACA."

NEW - Obama: "People Without Health Insurance Don't Have to Get It"

Obama now says people who had their health insurance canceled because of him can legally live without any healthcare, as though he's giving them a gift. All those millions of people want health insurance and see the logical value proposition in being insured. They didn't want Obama to cancel their health insurance policies. This is their new reality - people who have been responsibly insured for years now just have to roll the dice and pray they don't get sick.

In 2014, millions of Americans who previously had access to healthcare will now have to die on the street corner in agony, like pigs, or declare bankruptcy just to have the flu treated. Why does Obama hate working families having access to healthcare?

You still are not making any relevant point... You are complaining bout that state law in Washington, and how bad the ACA is, using that law as reasoning. I point out that the state law was in effect before the ACA, and has nothing to do with the ACA.

Then you claim that millions of Americans are now going to go without health insurance just because the insurers canceled the policy, and that is because of the ACA. Let's get the facts straight. The ACA put minimum essential benefits in place for insurance plans. Some insurers chose to cancel existing plans that didn't conform, because it was easier to administer in the new world of insurance. I hate to break it to you, but plans get canceled ALL THE TIME and people need to choose a new plan.

Now, has Obama done a good job implementing the law? Hell no! I still think the premise is solid, but his administration has screwed quite a bit up, giving the law a bad rap.

House Democratic Staffers: Obamacare is "Simply Unacceptable"

Veteran House Democratic aides are sick over the insurance prices they’ll pay under Obamacare, and they’re scrambling to find a cure.

“In a shock to the system, the older staff in my office have now found out their personal health insurance costs (even with the government contribution) have gone up 3-4 times what they were paying before,” Minh Ta, chief of staff to Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), wrote to fellow Democratic chiefs of staff in an email message obtained by POLITICO. “Simply unacceptable.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/o ... z2o3C6EMEh

This is really interesting to me... the article states that the insurance premiums they are going to pay through the public exchange is higher than the heavily subsidized Federal Employee benefit plan...lol, I wonder why.

[Night Strike]

Then you claim that millions of Americans are now going to go without health insurance just because the insurers canceled the policy, and that is because of the ACA. Let's get the facts straight. The ACA put minimum essential benefits in place for insurance plans. Some insurers chose to cancel existing plans that didn't conform, because it was easier to administer in the new world of insurance. I hate to break it to you, but plans get canceled ALL THE TIME and people need to choose a new plan.

So because insurance policies are canceled in the private sector, it's completely okay that government laws and regulations forced more policies to be canceled despite direct promises that people could keep their current plans if they chose to? jj, you're really coming off as nothing more than a shill for the administration, ala player.

And if those insurers did not cancel those existing plans that didn't confirm, they would be breaking the law and be forced to pay massive penalties. I understand that you may not be aware of what has to be involved in complying with the law since Obama keeps making illegal changes to it himself, but the private sector doesn't have the ability to follow whatever the dictator tries to state is the law.....they have to follow the letter of the law.

[jj3044]

Then you claim that millions of Americans are now going to go without health insurance just because the insurers canceled the policy, and that is because of the ACA. Let's get the facts straight. The ACA put minimum essential benefits in place for insurance plans. Some insurers chose to cancel existing plans that didn't conform, because it was easier to administer in the new world of insurance. I hate to break it to you, but plans get canceled ALL THE TIME and people need to choose a new plan.

So because insurance policies are canceled in the private sector, it's completely okay that government laws and regulations forced more policies to be canceled despite direct promises that people could keep their current plans if they chose to? jj, you're really coming off as nothing more than a shill for the administration, ala player.

And if those insurers did not cancel those existing plans that didn't confirm, they would be breaking the law and be forced to pay massive penalties. I understand that you may not be aware of what has to be involved in complying with the law since Obama keeps making illegal changes to it himself, but the private sector doesn't have the ability to follow whatever the dictator tries to state is the law.....they have to follow the letter of the law.

You might find this hard to believe, but I 100% agree with most of your point (the second half). I don't like how he has handled the implementation (as I have stated many times). Also, he never should have made promises that he knew wouldn't be kept. But, he is a politician, and lying is all they know. He is no better or worse than all of the other politicians in power.

Now getting back to the ACA (which I agree should be held to the law as passed), cancellation of plans was a reasonable assumption, as insurers needed to change the benefit structure on the worst plan designs they offered. Does this mean it is a bad law? No. Any major change in healthcare, no matter which side of the isle it came from, would likely have caused some cancellation of plans.

At the end of the day, this law will be measured by how many more people are covered than before, and how much healthcare costs. If the new world of healthcare is able to "bend the trend" of ~9% per year on average that it was increasing by, then we may have a winner.

Let's wait and see (and it will probably take a couple of years to figure out, exactly). Remember, this is a long term strategy, and those typically do not see an immediate return on the investment.

[BigBallinStalin]

That law in Washington would have been there with or without the ACA.

That law in Washington has been on the books for years without issue. It only became a problem with the ACA's system-demolishing approach, as the article said "collision of state rules with the ACA."

NEW - Obama: "People Without Health Insurance Don't Have to Get It"

Obama now says people who had their health insurance canceled because of him can legally live without any healthcare, as though he's giving them a gift. All those millions of people want health insurance and see the logical value proposition in being insured. They didn't want Obama to cancel their health insurance policies. This is their new reality - people who have been responsibly insured for years now just have to roll the dice and pray they don't get sick.

In 2014, millions of Americans who previously had access to healthcare will now have to die on the street corner in agony, like pigs, or declare bankruptcy just to have the flu treated. Why does Obama hate working families having access to healthcare?

You still are not making any relevant point... You are complaining bout that state law in Washington, and how bad the ACA is, using that law as reasoning. I point out that the state law was in effect before the ACA, and has nothing to do with the ACA.

I like JJ's cause-and-effect analysis.

Millions of people were insured, and then they were priced out of insurance due to the ACA. I point out that millions of people were insured before the ACA, and has nothing to do with the ACA.

[jj3044]

That law in Washington would have been there with or without the ACA.

That law in Washington has been on the books for years without issue. It only became a problem with the ACA's system-demolishing approach, as the article said "collision of state rules with the ACA."

NEW - Obama: "People Without Health Insurance Don't Have to Get It"

Obama now says people who had their health insurance canceled because of him can legally live without any healthcare, as though he's giving them a gift. All those millions of people want health insurance and see the logical value proposition in being insured. They didn't want Obama to cancel their health insurance policies. This is their new reality - people who have been responsibly insured for years now just have to roll the dice and pray they don't get sick.

In 2014, millions of Americans who previously had access to healthcare will now have to die on the street corner in agony, like pigs, or declare bankruptcy just to have the flu treated. Why does Obama hate working families having access to healthcare?

You still are not making any relevant point... You are complaining bout that state law in Washington, and how bad the ACA is, using that law as reasoning. I point out that the state law was in effect before the ACA, and has nothing to do with the ACA.

I like JJ's cause-and-effect analysis.

Millions of people were insured, and then they were priced out of insurance due to the ACA. I point out that millions of people were insured before the ACA, and has nothing to do with the ACA.

You are changing the argument. The specific point that I was arguing with sax was regarding the terrible state law in Washington, not regarding the amount of people who had to choose a new plan because of the ACA.

If you wish to debate that point then we can, but it is not relevant to sax's claim that the Washington law is because of the ACA, which I debunked. Once I debunked his thesis, he then moved on to an entirely new topic, and didn't respond to my argument regarding the Washington law.

[Night Strike]

At the end of the day, this law will be measured by how many more people are covered than before, and how much healthcare costs. If the new world of healthcare is able to "bend the trend" of ~9% per year on average that it was increasing by, then we may have a winner.

It should also be measured by the amount of freedom people have to make their own choices without the government running their lives, but that's not a standard used by progressives, so I guess we will play your game.

We're currently at about -3.5 million people insured (assuming the government's numbers are real) with many premiums and deductibles doubling or tripling. The next wave of cancellations and price increases will hit next year when the illegally postponed employer mandate goes back into effect.

[Phatscotty]

If Obamacare is the law of the land that can't be changed, why has Obama yet again acted like a dictator and change the law on his own desires? This time he said people with canceled insurance plans can buy catastrophic plans that the law states are illegal to have.

Because he couldn't let Ted Cruz get all the credit. Ted Cruz forced Obama to repeat, over and over again "law can't be changed!!!" Then Obama changed it over and over again. I think the more time that goes by, the more brilliant the shutdown will reveal itself to be.

[PLAYER57832]

The states doing the best with healthcare are the ones who refused to set up an Obamacare exchange.


Per the states that did set up an exchange, the ones that are doing the best are the ones who did the absolute minimum to comply with the ACA. (According to NPR experts on the radio)

That's incorrect.

In fact, the five states that saw the most enrollments per capita didn’t use the federal exchange at all. Vermont, Connecticut, Kentucky, California and Washington all operate their own state-based exchanges—

First link in Google... really it isn't that hard to fact check... http://www.ibamag.com/news/obamacare-enrollment-the-best-and-worst-states-by-the-numbers-16493.aspx

And if you don't like this site, there are many others saying the same...

then NPR is wrong and I wasted an entire hour listening to some guy make total sense to me!

If you provided a link, we might be able to find where the error happened. Lacking that, i can say that while NPR has highlighted various problems with the website, etc, this bit about those complying the least doing the best is about opposite what I have heard.

Also, as bad as the websites are, as bad as some problems with the affordable healthcare act have come to be, you STILL keep ignoring the real point -- its STILL far better than what we had, even for most of those with 'cancelled policies' -- a group limited to individual purchasers. FURTHER, the biggest complaints already apply to employee insurance. Employer are already required to cover a whyole plethora of procedures, its that grouping that allows them to get the big discounts they historically enjoy.

AND, per the cost increases -- well, in over 30 years of buying insurance, I have yet to see a single real decrease in costs. Usually I see cuts in benefits AND increases in costs, both!!!

That is why folks are so frustrated with the politicians. Instead of saying "OK, we have a start, now let's work on improving things" -- they spend all their effort just attacking a bill that was voted upon and signed into law. You are as bad as those politicians, perhaps worse. You attack, but offer nothing that is really better AND workable.




Thanks for the links though I'll get mine too and we'll sword fight with our links[/quote]

[Night Strike]

Also, as bad as the websites are, as bad as some problems with the affordable healthcare act have come to be, you STILL keep ignoring the real point -- its STILL far better than what we had, even for most of those with 'cancelled policies' -- a group limited to individual purchasers.

Except that it's not better. And it will get even worse in 2014 when all the people who had their employer plans renewed early to avoid Obamacare have to now come into compliance.

[notyou2]

Also, as bad as the websites are, as bad as some problems with the affordable healthcare act have come to be, you STILL keep ignoring the real point -- its STILL far better than what we had, even for most of those with 'cancelled policies' -- a group limited to individual purchasers.

Except that it's not better. And it will get even worse in 2014 when all the people who had their employer plans renewed early to avoid Obamacare have to now come into compliance.

Suck it up cupcake.

[Night Strike]

Also, as bad as the websites are, as bad as some problems with the affordable healthcare act have come to be, you STILL keep ignoring the real point -- its STILL far better than what we had, even for most of those with 'cancelled policies' -- a group limited to individual purchasers.

Except that it's not better. And it will get even worse in 2014 when all the people who had their employer plans renewed early to avoid Obamacare have to now come into compliance.

Suck it up cupcake.

Why should we suck it up having a horrible law that leads to worse health care at higher prices that the President has illegally unilaterally changed 14 times even though it's "the law of the land"?