However, the website is promised to function properly by Nov. 30.At a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, on Tuesday, Marilyn Tavenner, who runs the agency most directly involved in implementing the health care law, said that nearly 700,000 applications have been submitted at federal and state marketplaces in the law's first month of operation.
She said technicians are making improvements that have already made the website faster.
She encouraged consumers to log onto the site and check it out, and said the administration had estimated that enrollments will total 800,000 by the end of November.
There appears to be a difference between "applications submitted" and "enrollments". If they have 700,000 applications from the first month; one would presume that those 700,000 would actually be enrolled by Nov. 15. Does that mean that only an additional 100,000 will "apply" between Oct. 30-Nov 15? That will also be a huge undertaking if the leaked memo of 6 enrollees is even close to accurate.
Does the 800,000 include the numbers who have been processed through the state exchanges + Federal exchange? Did the applicants through the state exchanges actually get "enrolled"? Or maybe they are also still among the 700,000 "applications"?
Then, they will have until 2/15 (3 mos.) to enroll another 6 million to be able to sustain the program. Or will they need more than the projected 7 million to offset the unanticipated numbers who are enrolling for Medicaid?
If they are temporarily "waiving" actually verifying Medicaid eligibility (ostensibly to be "fixed" later), then the enrollment issues would likely not be ironed out for quite some time. What will it take to "fix" removing those ineligible individuals from Medicaid and having them enroll for ACA? How much will it cost to implement that? How many who are found to be ineligible will find themselves uninsured?
It will be interesting to note how many of the enrollments are for Medicaid and how many for insurance that is actually paid for by the enrollees. Reports thus far would indicate that Medicaid enrollments are much more numerous than anticipated.
While we can look at the website issue as being "just a website", the costs of the bungled website can balloon due to the fact that the website failings will have other additional longer-term repercussions.
Math challenged: The WH, through Carney, considers 5% of the population who might become uninsured (15 million w/private insurance) as "insignificant"; yet they tore the whole system apart to "fix" a problem of 30 million uninsured (10% of the population). In the end, it might be that all this havoc was wreaked on 300 million to fix 10%, and the final number of remaining uninsured could remain little changed.
This should become much worse when the employer mandate kicks in as many of the plans there are likely to find that they don't meet O-care "essential" standards.
Interesting aside, not much publicized. As Obama blames the insurance companies for raising their rates, and calls them greedy ... there has also been a tax imposed on health insurors. They would naturally have to raise rates just to compensate for the additional tax.
It never matters exactly upon whom a tax is levied, the end result is always that the individual consumer will pay it. If the govt runs an industry, the consumers pay for it directly by higher taxes. If the industry is in the private sector, the consumers pay higher prices. If the private sector cannot raise prices, then they close up. If the product/service is an important one, then the govt might step in to "save" that industry. In the case of health care/insurance, Reid, Hillary, Obama have openly said that the goal is exactly that: single-payer.
Is it really any better for the govt to make health care decisions than insurance companies? If corporations are greedy, have we seen any lack of greed (for both money and power) in our politicians or bureaucrats? The worse situation, though, is that at least occasionally a private sector corporation is held accountable for its unfair practices. Bureaucrats, we are finding, are simply "retired", or worse, "re-assigned".