HealthCare.gov Back-End Status: See You In September

theodp writes: "The consumer-facing parts of the Obamacare website may now work (most of the time) for people buying insurance, writes Politico, but beneath the surface, HealthCare.gov is still missing massive, critical pieces that are essential for key functions such as accurately paying insurers — and the deadline for finishing them keeps slipping. Without a fully built and operational system, federal officials can't determine how many of the 8 million Obamacare sign-ups announced last week will have actually paid their premiums. The Obama administration earlier this month indicated that insurers will continue to be paid through an 'interim' accounting process — pretty much a spreadsheet and some informed estimates — until at least September, when what is being called 'the mother of all reconciliations' will be conducted, which some fear could reveal the need for a massive correction and rate adjustments. Still, Oregon decided Friday to switch to Healthcare.gov from its own nothing-wrong-that-$78-million-couldn't-fix Cover Oregon online healthcare exchange."

Comments

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points

[clarkkent09]

They didn't give the number of those who lost insurance as a direct result of Obamacare and those who are very likely to lose insurance when the employer mandate kicks in. Obamacare is still very much a failure but it's being spun as a success in most dishonest ways by the administration and compliant media.

Just another

[meglon]

republican propaganda piece by the in house radical conservative trolls. When did /. become such a propaganda rag?

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points

[sphealey]

- - - - - but never says a word about how many paid for coverage if any have - - - - -

It is fascinating how the hard radical Right obtains talking points from centralized sources and then starts pumping them near simultaneously. Does it not occur to you that doing this is utterly obvious?

sPh

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal.

[fyngyrz]

Again, I call bullshit. PROVE you had a policy with more benefits, that cost less, than an ACA sponsored policy: insurance company, the policy you were covered under, your age and state and what you were paying. Let's see the data.

I'm self-employed and the ACA was *hands-down* a better deal for myself, it was better for my self-employed lady, and better for my one son who is self-employed. All with radically different health states and histories. I would be *astounded* if your claims were true, and if so, you should go right to the right wing news media, because brother, have they ever been looking for someone who makes the claims you do and can back them up. Everyone so far has turned out to be completely full of shit.