Glitch flubs prices on O-Care exchange

About 8,000 Washington state residents were told they qualified for more generous tax subsidies than they will actually receive when they enrolled for ObamaCare via their state's online marketplace. 

A technical glitch meant the Washington website sent the applicants' monthly income to a federal hub instead of their yearly income, according to a report in The Seattle Times.

Based on that incorrect information, consumers were told they qualified for higher tax credits and would pay less for their health insurance.

That led many enrollees in the Washington exchange to select generous insurance plans they likely won't be able to afford once their subsidies are reduced. 

Those 8,000 individuals likely will need to go through the entire application process again to see what plans at what prices they qualify for under the correct tax subsidy.

“We are still trying to figure out how this happened," exchange CEO Richard Onizuka told the paper.

The revelation is the latest in a string of technical mishaps to plague early enrollment in the ObamaCare exchanges. The federal website — which processes applications for residents of the 38 states who do not run their own portals, like Washington does — is still reporting errors and glitches. HealthCare.gov czar Jeffrey Zients told reporters on Friday the website was a “long way from where it needs to be.”

The 8,000 individuals who will have to go through the enrollment process again will also likely trigger additional concern over what appear to be lagging early enrollment figures.

Consulting firm Avalere Health estimated that fewer than 50,000 individuals had signed up for coverage on the exchanges of Washington and 11 other states. The 8,000 individuals affected by the technical error represent more than 15 percent of that total.

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading.....

Should there be early voting?

Early voting has begun in the 2012 election and some people, like our friend Matt Lewis, seem to think that’s a bad thing. Being opposed to extended voting opportunities is an idea which immediately sets off alarms for me, but it’s worth a moment to examine it as election day approaches.

Matt’s responding to an NBC News story which proclaims that nearly half the nation is already voting. Of course, that figure seems to include absentee ballots, which are not technically “early voting” since they won’t be recorded until election day. Also, there are plenty of people (especially our troops serving overseas) who have no other access to the ballot, so I would hope people aren’t protesting that.

But Matt is more focused on the places where the polls open days – if not weeks – in advance and in person voting is taking place. Follow the link for the full explanation of each, but here are the five points he’s making.

1. It doesn’t work
2. Voters are casting ballots before they have all the information
3. The cost — both to the taxpayer and the campaigns
4. Ballot integrity
5. Community

Item number one isn’t even worth a lengthy debate, in my opinion. The study in question relies on torturing the data with so many vague and glossy “variables” to arrive at a number – rather than just counting the number of votes cast – that it becomes a very murky soup. And the basic premise – that having more days with the ballots open somehow hinders voters – is counterintuitive on its face. They do make a point about it being “harder for the campaigns” to organize their get out the vote strategy, but that’s the problem of the campaigns, not the voters.

A part of me wants to sympathize with Matt on item number two, but this still comes down to a matter of personal responsibility. Something can always happen later. When do you get in on buying a new stock? On the first day or after it’s had time to ripen? Plus, these elections last so long now that you’ve doubtless got all the information you’re looking for prior to the final fifteen seconds before midnight on Monday. You pick when to vote and you live with your choice.

As to number four, ballot integrity, I have to scoff. Matt argues that most early voting is done by mail, “opening the door” to mischief of various sorts. Oregon and Washington vote exclusively by mail and somehow the specter of angry spouses throwing out votes has failed to materialize.

Via: Hot Air

Continue Reading...