Quantcast
Utah

Ogden man bypasses Affordable Care Act website bug

Comments

Return To Article
  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 9:28 p.m.

    "...if you log in using a special kind of Web browser in a special mode..." and Jupiter is aligned with Mars, and you hold the 'rabbit ears' on top of the T.V. with one hand and hold a screw driver in the other...

    Wow. What a system. You have to 'Jail Break' the Health Care website to get signed up. I wonder what loop hole one can use to get out of this law completely.

  • Daniel Leifker San Francisco, CA
    Oct. 21, 2013 9:48 p.m.

    The web site is not the problem. The problem is the law itself and its unintended consequences of raising medical insurance costs for ordinary people who have worked hard and played by the rules. And if you're still advocating for single-payer health care from this government, remember that managing health care for 317 million Americans is at least 100 times harder than building a web site. After this disaster, I wouldn't trust the government to build a page on Facebook with kitten photos.

  • Vegas POV Las Vegas, NV
    Oct. 21, 2013 10:11 p.m.

    For those who care, health care premium raised from $5040 to $8140. Cost of healthcare + deductible is raised from $7040 to $9140.

  • The.Canuck Tooele, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 10:14 p.m.

    This Chrome incognito trick doesn't work.

    I get an error at security question prompts and still can't create a login after two weeks of trying.

    And yes affordable health care mean more expensive premiums. My work insurance is going up by almost double.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 10:29 p.m.

    @Vegas POW
    "For those who care, health care premium raised from $5040 to $8140."

    Considering the legal limits to how much premiums can be as a percentage of income, I'd love to know how you could possibly have an income high enough for the Obamacare percentage to come to that... while simultaneously not having employer health insurance.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Oct. 21, 2013 10:51 p.m.

    I sincerely hope that this does not get back to HHS.
    Obama Care needs to fail on every front.

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 1:53 a.m.

    Atl,
    That is a good question. I would also like to know how everything else that was promised about this new program has been a bold faced lie.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 22, 2013 5:58 a.m.

    "I sincerely hope that this does not get back to HHS.
    Obama Care needs to fail on every front."

    Gee. And I would have thought that the best outcome would be for the ACA to succeed.

    Silly me.

    What is really sad is that people would rather it fail so they can score political points.
    Shouldn't we all hope that it succeeds and ultimately brings down the total cost?

    (and no, you, me or the experts are not smart enough to know the answer to that yet)

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    Oct. 22, 2013 6:02 a.m.

    There are several states like Washington where you can sign up through their own website. Ours is Washington State.gov. I had no problem applying and signing up. I look forward to getting help with my medical needs.

  • EastCoastAcorn Ridgefield, CT
    Oct. 22, 2013 6:19 a.m.

    Apparently Randall doesn't understand that under ObamaCare he will spend an additional $3600 in annual ObamaCare "taxes" (monthly premium increased by $300) in order to save $1500 in annual healthcare deductible. So his net healthcare spending will rise by $2100. Those numbers don't add up very well. I prefer to keep my old healthcare coverage.

  • bigv56 Cottonwood, CA
    Oct. 22, 2013 6:54 a.m.

    Wow health care costs are lower. Only 300 dollrs more a month. My daughters went from 400 to 1200 per month uncle Barry just wants to help us. With friends like this....

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    The headline sets readers up for the usual nail the ACA ect., ect., ect..

    Scanning the piece readers find...

    "...Bennett said before signing up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, he was paying a $420 monthly premium with a $2,000 annual deductible. Now he’ll be paying a $720 premium and a $500 deductible, but his family also will be getting maternity and dental coverage — something the Bennetts couldn't get before...".

    Ok...so it is a nail the ACA...but, wait...

    "...his family also will be getting maternity and dental coverage-something the Bennetts couldn't get before...".

    This is beginning to read like a nail the ACA piece gone bad...

    “...The process to even get insurance before was so difficult that surprisingly, even with all the bugs, I still find HealthCare.gov more simple,” Bennett said. “So for us this is a huge win, because we’re paying what we think is fair. And yes it’s more than before, but we actually have coverage that we like now...”.

    Not good...not good at all...

    Demonizing the ACA has been so much fun...

    Why report a success story?

  • Dante Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 7:26 a.m.

    Many Americans hope that Obamacare succeeds more than the devastating socialized medicine programs in Europe and Canada. They blissfully trust that somehow Obamacare will ultimately bring down the total cost of healthcare, despite the fact that no government-managed program of any kind--certainly not health care--has ever proved more efficient or reduced costs vis-a-vis the private sector. So long as they individually get help from Uncle Sugar with their medical needs, they have no concern that the country as a whole goes bankrupt into the dustbin of history.

  • PTM ,
    Oct. 22, 2013 7:54 a.m.

    @Dante

    The private sector hasn't been able to provide coverage for all 350 million of us. A large segment of the 43 million are without coverage because they can't afford the price. So much for right pricing. Another segment are excluded because of existing conditions, that's reducing the company's risk and your premiums. And the other segment are the 'I don't need health insurance, oops until I need it' segment. Two out of three are on the insurance companies. So no, the private sector doesn't have a product that is affordable and available to all. If they did the ACA would have come into existence.

  • PTM ,
    Oct. 22, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    Oops, correction to the last sentence in my post.

    If they did the ACA would not have come into existence.

  • Leo Femedlers El Paso, TX
    Oct. 22, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    I was listening to a good friend give a talk in Church this past Sunday. The topic was tithing. He is a CPA and mentioned in his talk that he has had opportunity to review the US tax code. He said it was voluminous and hard to understand. He then compared that to the law of tithing and contrasted the differences. I then thought how successful and prosperous the church has been under the law of tithing. I mentioned that thought to my friend after the meeting was over. He thought for a moment and said "Yes, I think one of the biggest differences is that tithe payers have ownership." Hmm...

    I agree and have seen that "ownership" in my life and in the lives of others. When individuals and familys have ownership in an organization they and the organization they are associated with tend to perform much better.

    Any program designed to dole goods and services without providing opportunities for ownership will not be effective in reaching its goals. I do not expect the ACA to provide any of the benefits that were stated as selling points.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    If something seems too good to be true...
    Someone is going to pay more. Period.
    You can't absorb the uninsured and the cost of preexisting condition and the cost of lifetime caps...and expect it to cost LESS.
    Insurance companies have been doing managed care for decades now, paying flat rates, asking questions about the necessity of procedures, requiring second opinions and tracking down fraud for 30 years. Do you really think the federal government can do a better job at streamlining?
    Something's gotta give. The middle class will take the brunt of the burden.
    Anyone who thinks ACA is going to do all it promises and not cost us more money is simply out-of-touch with reality. The introductory offers will go up to pay the cost of care.
    And care will be harder to get with millions more using the medical infrastructure in the USA.

  • Chickenhawks Kuna, ID
    Oct. 22, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    I don't get his reasoning for liking the new insurance. His premium increased by 300 per month. His annual premium went from 5040 per year to 8640 per year. He is paying 3600 more per year for his plan. I don't get it! That is 36,000 over 10 years folks! WHAT A DEAL THIS IS!!!!! Go Crazy Barry the Insurance Salesman!

  • Reasonable Person Layton, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    Chickenhawk: you missed the part about now having maternity coverage.

  • slcjimmy SLC, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    @ Reasonable Person....Chickenhawk (Really?) misses more then just the part concerning maternity coverage. (Hanitty didn't go over this in last night's show!) Green Eggs & ham anyone?

  • Chickenhawks Kuna, ID
    Oct. 22, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    Reasonable Person, the baby would be paid for with the savings. Any emergency that occurs during the delivery would be covered by their normal health insurance. Why not put that money away yourself and save a ton of money.

  • Kellie Orem, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    The ACA website was rigged so no one could get on. Look at how easy it was for this guy to figure it out. He found out that he has to pay almost double which just happened to work out for him but the rest of America is going to go nuts, just in time before the next shut down occurs so Americans will see the truth and fix it.

  • Something to think about Ogden, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    I love all the comments that are presented as fact. Most of us have no real clue what the impact will be. Complain in a year when the reality of the law becomes known.

    It would be nice if the DNEWs edited these comments for 'facts' not just 'hate, etc...'

  • Chickenhawks Kuna, ID
    Oct. 22, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    slcjimmy: What does math have to do with green eggs and ham. A baby can be paid for by the savings, I've done it.

  • madsjim83 Layton, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    I understand his move to shift the future cost of a deductible to a monthly premium. That is smart consumership. The only problem is that if he can afford $720 a month, then I suspect he could have found basic maternity coverage without the need for government subsidies and credits. Millions of people have made it happen before.

    Through the subsidies and credits offered through the healthcare exchanges, we as taxpayers are now paying for his hope of having a child in 2014. This is irresponsible governance. It is not the taxpayers job to make him feel better if his wife happens to get pregnant. Why not save the $720 premium each month (that he clearly is able to pay NOW) in a short term bank CD and use it if he needs it? That way he keeps it in his control A healthy child can be delivered for approximately $7,000 to $8,000 out of pocket. If he is worried he could buy a cheap catastrophic health plan to cover themselves.

    People refuse to be smart healthcare consumers. Yes, I want the ACA to fail. The sooner it does, the quicker meaningful healthcare reform happens.

  • kiddsport Fairview, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    Inexpensive dental insurance and maternity riders would be available had the Democrat congress allowed input from the other side of the aisle. The GOP plan called for purchases across state lines, allowing buyers to tailor their coverage to their specific needs.
    If this gentleman has four children in ten years, he's paying $9,000 per delivery and he gets a smaller selection of doctors. I'm sure his selection is already diminished and the future will see more and more doctors dropping out of practice. How much is that worth?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Oct. 22, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    Please do not equate tithing with ANY other system of financing. On its face, tithing looks terribly regressive, as 10 percent of a poor person's income counts a lot more to him than 10 percent of a rich person's income does to the rich person. But people forget the blessings that come from the principle of the "widow's mite." The poor man who gives more also gets more blessings. I believe that because I have experienced it. IOW, tithing is NO argument for a flat tax. God and the government do not have the same capabilities.

  • Uncle Rico Sandy, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    Obama to Ogden Man ... "You didn't find that"

  • slcjimmy SLC, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    @ Chicken hawk....My reply to your question was filtered by D.N...Go figure!

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Oct. 22, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    To "PTM" actually, of the 43 million uninsured about 38% could afford insurance, but choose not to buy it. Another 57% qualified for state and federal insurance programs but chose not to sign up. So in reality on 5% or 2.5 million couldn't afford it. That is less than 1% of the nation. That means that between government programs and private insurance 99% of the people could have been covered if they wanted to be.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Oct. 22, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    It is a sad day in this country when it becomes news worthy for someone to actually navigate a mandatory government website which nearly all others have failed to do. We have been promised for the past several years on how much brighter and happier our lives would be because of the ACA -- and all those who worried that it wasn't all that it was promised to be have been condoned and laughed at. And now, it seems to be real news that someone has actually be able to wade through the mess. I fear this may be rare news in deed.

  • Utah Girl Vernal, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 3:01 p.m.

    There is no way we could afford to pay $720 a month for medical insurance! I only hope my husband's insurance at work doesn't increase a lot. I am 66 and would love to retire. My husband is 60 and has some health issues, but neither of us can think of retirement for several more years.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Oct. 22, 2013 3:23 p.m.

    Irony Guy

    What blessings does a poor person get for giving %10 of their already meager wages to an already rich corporation - other then having %10 less money. Be specific.

  • katy salt lake city, ut
    Oct. 22, 2013 5:55 p.m.

    It's good that many insurance premiums are less under Obamacare, but I don't understand how the government can make up the difference of the premiums. The government does not have any way to make money - they don't have any money except for the taxes the citizens pay.

    I also heard that millions of dollars was paid to Canadians to write the program for this health care program. I thought Silicone valley in Northern Calif. had the best and most experienced programers. Wouldn't it be better to keep money here in the USA so our people would have more jobs and pay more taxes here?

  • PTM ,
    Oct. 22, 2013 10:52 p.m.

    @RedshirtMIT

    'Another 57% qualified for state and federal insurance programs'. My comment was not primarily directed at those who chose not to purchase insurance (although that has an important impact), but at the private sector's ability to offer an affordable product to all Americans. The idea that a private company can provide affordable health insurance in a free market is not true. And by your numbers 57% of the uninsured couldn't afford private insurance. Either the state or federal government had to intervene. And in truth the most important ACA intervention is the one that requires most all to participate. Either that or let people die in the ER because they don't have insurance.

  • Kafantaris WARREN, OH
    Oct. 23, 2013 12:04 a.m.

    First we demonized it.
    Then we challenged it, with vengeance.
    It was deemed sound, so we needed to starve it.
    But it wouldn’t die and we finally had to strangle it -- by shutting down the government.
    It's till around, tattered and limping.
    And it's not working smoothly.
    Well there you have it: Proof positive it’s not any good.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Oct. 23, 2013 7:38 a.m.

    To "PTM" you also should realize that up to 50% of the cost of insurance is compliance with the mandates that come from government.

    Lets look at it this way. If it wasn't for government, the $8000/yr that a basic insurance policy costs right now, would cost $4000. Read "Email inShare.0The Cost of Health Insurance Mandates in Washington" at Washington Policy Center.

    How do you expect insurance companies to offer a cheaper product when the cost to comply with the mandates drives a significant portion of the cost?

  • PTM ,
    Oct. 23, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    @ Redshirt

    I read the article. As I read it, those mandates are there to set a threshold, so when people get health insurance, it covers a set number of services at a minimum. You can argue what those should be, but that is intent. And the article states the mandates 'cost' 20 to 50 percent. So your $4000 could just as well be $6400. But the implication that mandates cost, but don't provide value is false. Services are available for that increased cost. And I have no problem with insurance companies making a reasonable profit. The government has an inportant role to play. They may not do it perfectly, but then again health insurance companioes aren't perfect either.

  • thenoiz South Ogden, UT
    Oct. 23, 2013 3:07 p.m.

    You're all missing the bigger issue here!

    The guy is barefoot, wearing a suit jacket.

    Somehow I think it would be easier to build a time machine, go back to 1995, find a fax machine and then fax in my application for Obamacare.

  • Clydesdale Tooele, UT
    Oct. 25, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    Now I'll laugh when he finds out his identity was stolen. LOL

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Oct. 25, 2013 1:13 p.m.

    A message to liberals:

    Your beloved Obamacare website is broke.

    A government agency was tasked to create it.

    And a PRIVATE civilian found the fix.

    Still have confidence that the federal GOVERNMENT can effectively run this program?

    Do you see the parallels there? Indeed, how can you not?.....

  • Geneva Guy Geneva, IL
    Oct. 29, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    Randal: Ignore the trolls... I followed your recommendation and it worked for me. Thanks for sharing. The ACA required some ugly concessions to politically powerful drug and insurance companies and healthcare providers but millions of uninsured, underinsured and overcharged people will benefit. And, yes, we all need to share the cost inline with our capabilities.