The official press release doesn't specify the exact date that HC.gov window shopping will be going online, but it appears to be "sometime overnight" according to HHS spokesman Aaron Albright:
Press release: Health Insurance Marketplace offers tool to help consumers review their plan options for 2015
Date: 2014-11-09
Title: Health Insurance Marketplace offers tool to help consumers review their plan options for 2015
For Immediate Release
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Contact: press@cms.hhs.gov
Health Insurance Marketplace offers tool to help consumers review their plan options for 2015
Consumers should visit the HealthCare.gov window shopping tool to learn about their plan choices. This year there are even more plans on the market than last year.
Note that the actual enrollment capability won't be available until after November 15th (actually, they're rolling it out in stages this year, which strikes me as very wise given the technical problems MD had last time around:
Nov. 15 -- The first HealthConnectNow! sign-up event will be held. About 25 sign-up events are being scheduled throughout Maryland -- four times the number held during the first open enrollment. Details about times, dates and locations will be announced in the coming weeks.
Nov. 16 -- The call center opens to take phone applications at 855-642-8572 (TTY 855-642- 8573).
Over at Eclectablog, my friend Amy Lynn Smith has posted an eloquent, politely-worded open letter to newly-reelected Republican Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.
Her point is simple: While progressives may hate much of what he's done in his first term, unlike so many of his ultra-right wing nutbag colleagues, Gov. Snyder has at least shown the occasional moment of decency. Setting up a state-run ACA exchange for Michigan to ward off the fallout from a harmful SCOTUS decision on the King vs. Burwell case would be another such opportunity, which would play directly off of his successful (if belated) push to expand Medicaid for almost half a million Michiganders.
In my latest special entry over at healthinsurance.org, I've written a follow-up to my post from Thursday in which I concluded that the current number of ACA exchange QHP enrollments has probably dropped from the 7.3 million peak it hit in August down to around 6.8 - 7.0 million.
Conservatives from FOX News and Reason immediately pounced on this, of course.
Things have been so crazy this week between the horrific midterm election results and today's unexpected SCOTUS/King/Halbig announcement that once again, my in box is crammed full, so here's some quick takes:
"I definitely feel we need to expand Medicaid in South Dakota, I think it'll help a lot of people who really struggle with their healthcare costs, I think it'll help strengthen individuals in our society, people who are on Medicaid aren't just people who aren't working or don't do something to contribute to society, they're hard working people who had bad things happen to them from health reasons," Matt Barker said.
"I know it's going to be biased, but I think for the most part I think it's good to help families who do need that assistance," Jake Gourley said.
"I think what we're starting to see in some of the states that have already expanded it that there are more benefits than costs to it, it would be foolish for us not to expand it," David Starks said.
Things have been so crazy this week between the horrific midterm election results and today's unexpected SCOTUS/King/Halbig announcement that once again, my in box is crammed full, so here's some quick takes:
First up: PolitiFact debunks one big ol' steaming pile of crap:
...A chain email claimed that more than 214,000 American doctors are "opting-out of Obamacare exchange plans." That is based on a survey of a select group of doctors and even the makers of the survey said it can’t be extrapolated for the entire country. Further, of the doctors responding to the survey, 42 percent said they weren’t participating in marketplace plans because they were never asked to, not because they were "opting out."
The estimate is the result of a flawed methodology and a misreading of survey data. We rate the claim False.
Back in early July, I made a simple proposition which could conceivably mitigate the otherwise severe damage to the Affordable Care Act (as well as to the lives of millions of Americans, the entire healthcare industry and, indirectly, the entire U.S. economy) in the event that the Supreme Court ultimately rules for the plaintiffs in the federal Halbig/King cases.
I called it the "Denny's Grand Slam" solution (alternately the "$360 Solution" or the "GoDaddy Solution"...take your pick), which basically involved states which are currently having enrollments run through the federal exchange set up a bare-bones "exchange" of their own by essentially filing some simple paperwork, registering a domain name for $9.95 with a basic splashpage and then repointing the whole damned thing right back to Healthcare.Gov for the actual enrollment process.
The Healthcare Twittersphere is all abuzz today with the surprising news that the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the King vs. Burwell case regarding Affordable Care Act tax credits for people who enroll thorugh the federal exchange (Healthcare.Gov). (The King case is sort of the kid brother to the Halbig vs. Burwell case, but they're essentially about the same issue).
All sorts of people on both sides of the issue who are much smarter than I about the legal aspects of this case are furiously posting their take on what's likely to happen after the SCOTUS issues their ruling, which I understand wouldn't happen until sometime next summer (they've agreed to take up the case, but I don't think they start hearing arguments for a few months, and then they bop it around for awhile before issuing their final ruling).
Of course, even if the SCOTUS does rule for the plaintiffs in the end, it's very likely that they'll include a note that basically tells Congress "You know, there's an easy way to fix this; just go over section 1401 with a dab of liquid paper and revise the sentence to read "...enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government" or whatever.
That would be a completely reasonable solution...if there was a snowball's chance in Hell that Congress would do so. Obviously the GOP would never let it go through (assuming that they hold the House and/or take over the Senate), so the clusterf*ck would ensue.
However, depending on what "established by" and "facilitates" are defined as (see section 1311 as referred to in the passage above), it seems to me that there's a different, equally simple (if utterly stupid) possible resolution which would cost no more than $358.20!
