Not bad!

I'm told to call a TollFree number to sign up, but that number says it's too busy and to call back. It's been that way for two months.
I called the navigator person at Country Doctor and left a message, and haven't gotten a call back. The email address given in the voicemail I can't decipher and all iterations I've tried have bounced.

They should hire me to answer the phone.

Yes, @2, in many ways it is a total fucking disaster. People are getting signed up in spite of the website. EXCEPT FOR UNDEAD AYN RAND WHO SIGNED UP FINE!

I actually got signed up, but it required making enough noise that a manager from the Spokane office called me directly. And I'm low hanging fruit. I have never gotten through to the number and have hit half a dozen unexplained errors on the website which require calling the number.

I think the best way to get a callback is to call the governor's office at 360-902-4111. They can get you on a list. If you really want to be an asshole, like me, you can call the company running the call center. Tell them "fletc3her" sent you! http://www.faneuil.com/newbusiness.php

@3, thank you for your suggestions.

I sent in a paper application in the mail months ago. It was *never* processed.

I called the hotline with long waiting times and went through the same application with them over the phone *three* separate times, because of mistakes they made and even an accidental deletion of the application.

After overcoming error codes, the application was finally accepted, although too late to be eligible for January coverage.

But guess what? I still can't sign in to the website to select a plan, because the user ID is somehow not associated with the application the way it should be. The Technical Dept was notified of that over a week ago but has not done anything.

I called back last night, and after over a dozen tries finally got through to an operator who put me on hold after 7pm. The recording said my estimated hold time would be "88 minutes" (but they're only open until 8pm...

Finally I talked to someone again today and they said the technical department should eventually get around to looking into it, but they have no idea how long that might take. I'm supposed to give them a call in about a week if it hasn't been resolved, and that will put me right about at the deadline for getting February coverage...

From my experience so far it's been beyond disastrous. Can we haz singlepayer instead?

There could be a story in how badly Deloitte handled the website, how badly Faneuil is running the Spokane call center, how terrible the oversight by the Washington Health Benefit Exchange has been, and how the Governor and all the political leadership of the state is busy patting themselves on the back about the situation.

How much is the WHBE spending on its ridiculous ads and outreach when it knows that every citizen it reaches is going to run into the same non-functional website and non-existent customer service that is flummoxing people who have been trying to get their applications straightened since last year?

Has Deloitte been granted final payment for their work? What steps are they taking to fix the problems with the site? Are we paying for that work or are they covering it under basic fitness to purpose warranty? Has Faneuil been reprimanded for failing to answer phone calls in a timely fashion? Who at the WHBE is responsible for this cluster fuck?

If only there were some journalists around... Nah, easier to print press releases about Sasquatch.

@7 Amusingly to fix my problem the manager at the call center, who was very nice, attempted to recreate my application and then had a tech recreate it instead. They invalidated the earlier applications by tweaking some of the data so eligibility would be denied. So now in my account I have three applications, my first which is borked, a second which thinks I live out-of-state and is invalid, and a third which, hallelujah seems to work. Though I still get errors if I try to navigate around anything that touches the earlier two applications.

And this is my fourth login on the site. One small business login which went nowhere since there are no small business plans in Washington (story idea! why not?). One login that got totally borked. Another login I just couldn't reset the password on. And, fourth times the charm. Truly a joy.

Among the features of the site: No feedback about application status. No way to navigate through the application other than back/next for page after page. Values that can only be set through end-of-application troubleshooting and lose their values if you page past where they are set. Difficulty handling naturalized citizens. Difficulty handling dependents. General government-ese phrasing of questions.

Undead Ayn Rand had a great experience.

The original website designers, shall we call the "Dewey-Cheatem & Howe" ? were probably heavily subsidized by the republican party. It has mitch mcconells fingerprints all over it.

@8,

That's some bush league shit. Does it use frames?

The problem is young people, who can't afford hundreds a month for these plans, are realizing it's cheaper to just pay the tax penalty at the end of the year. It's not that they don't know about Obamacare or that they don't have access to the website or any other lame excuse, it's that they don't like the way this is turning out.

If this was a public option plan that was voluntary, as in you could take it, pay a little, or not and be on your own, that would be one thing. But Obamacare is the government telling people they have to buy something from a corporation (healthcare) or pay a fine. WTF?

All the Live Nation, web adds, Justin Bieber endorsements or gods know what else won't make young people by the droves sign up for Obamacare because they just don't want it and I don't blame them.

If this was like Chile, where everyone pays a small tax and everyone is covered by single payer, that at least would make sense. But Obamacare is a scam created by corporate America and imposed on the people by a corporate owned president. Fortunately young people realize that.

Live Nation? The company whose chairman, John Malone, is on the board of the Cato Institute? They're an Obamacare outreach partner?

I suspect a strongly worded letter from the RNC -- like the one that convinced the NFL to drop out of a similar partnership -- is in the mail.

@11, and the super-intelligent and perceptive young people who realize that will be seeking medical care from ERs, and the rest of us will pay for that in higher premiums. Thank god for those young people.

"But Obamacare is a scam created by corporate America and imposed on the people by a corporate owned president. Fortunately young people realize that."

I think it's simply wonderful that we apparently have THE spokesperson for "young people" here on our very own slog!

Perhaps, dear collectivism_sucks, you could go back to the other "young people" and suggest they get off their myspaces and netscapes and agitate for something better? Or is that something they outsource to mom and dad?

For all it's issues, I repeatedly tell my conservative, Obama-hating or government-fearing friends and colleagues that they should be doing everything they can to get the ACA to work well. Obamacare is likely the last chance private health insurance has to be the primary insurers of most Americans. If it fails the alternative won't be going back to the pre-ACA system, but it will be further expansion of Medicaid (or Medicare) to cover the uninsured which IS socialized insurance.

The Republicans need to stop their Obama-hating and start loving the ACA and make it work or their worst nightmares really will happen.

I have to agree with fletc3her here regarding the barriers that have been created to access and complete an application.

I was really surprised when I heard that if an applicant had been a declared a dependent on a household member's 2012 and/or 2013 federal tax return, the applicant is required to provide ALL their household members' social security number, etc. when completing the ap. This is in spite of an applicant being an independent, non-dependent filer on their own 2014 federal taxes.

I think this is invasive and troubling and I cannot comprehend why that kind of information is needed to provide coverage for insurance coverage during calendar year 2014 that is subject to 2014 reported earnings (as stated in a 2014 federal tax return due April 2015) by the applicant.

The obvious and profound privacy concerns aside, what happens to the person who cannot provide the private information of other household members on their ap? It becomes impossible to complete the ap and no health insurance.

Certainly someone on the WA Exchange board realized this was going to cause problems and would likely curtail enrollment. Unfortunately the WA Exchange board is missing in action and not available to take any questions from the public; the website FAQ's are worthless; it is nearly impossible to get thru the 1-800 info line and the if you do, the information is confused and contradictory, and the state insurance commissioner's office and governor's office declare they have no over site and quickly distance themselves from the WA Exchange.

It's a mess, and nobody gives a shit. I don't think spending money on a music festival is a smart use of that money. The WA Exchange needs to use those funds to review and amend policy that will remove those walls that stop people from applying...and have their f-up'd 1-800 helpline available and functional to us during the hours when the majority of us are NOT at work.

@13
Actually, that is not the case at all. When I was without formal health insurance for eight years I went to a local clinic run by immigrants with three licenses doctors and some nurses and paid cash because their prices were very reasonable.
The idea that "is you don't have corporate healthcare, you're using emergency rooms only" is a fallacy.
And it isn't people who choose not to pay for expensive coverage that make premiums go up, it's a combination of government regulations and corporate greed that make premiums go up.

I was really surprised when I heard that if an applicant had been a declared a dependent on a household member's 2012 and/or 2013 federal tax return, the applicant is required to provide ALL their household members' social security number, etc. when completing the ap. This is in spite of an applicant being an independent, non-dependent filer on their own 2014 federal taxes.

Ummm, considering it will be over a year before those 2014 taxes are filed, I think it's to be expected that they'd care if someone was a dependent in their soon-to-be-filed 2013 return.

@18
Why? Insurance is applied and paid for coverage in 2014. The IRS will review (provided they have been funded to do it) your tax filing status for 2014 and determine if you (your SSN) were declared as a dependent on someone else's return in 2014. If you are an independent (non-dependent) filer n 2014, your tax filing status in 2012 and/or 2013 is of absolutely no relevance.

Try to get someone at the WA Exchange, insurance commissioner's office or governor's office to explain
this. Read the ACA. There appears to be nothing. It is policy created out of thin air, and it's likely preventing young people from signing up because you are asking them to possibly invade other people's privacy.

It's odd that so many people have been covered, and yet all that's heard here is the lonnnnnnnnng stories about people who've had problems.

@17, those clinics you went to for 8 years are so stacked up with patients now, and so underfunded, you probably would not be terribly happy with them. In the arena of provision of medical care, referring back any farther than two years is not relevant.

@21
No, the clinic is probably still doing well, that is if Obamacare doesn't shut them down. It was a private practice run by immigrants, and pretty cheap because many of those immigrants pay with cash because they are undocumented and can't get insurance.
All I'm saying is that Obamacare is madness. I don't agree with single payer healthcare, but at least it makes sense. Obamacare is the worst of socialism and corporate greed creating one ugly love child.

@22 No shit the ACA is a half-baked compromise. Set your goddamn wayback machine for four years, and re-remember just how much of a struggle it was to line up enough Republican votes for it to pass.

Now try to imagine lining up enough Republican votes in the House to pass single-payer or expansion of Medicare back in 2009. Hell, set your Wayback machine for the Clinton years and re-remember how Hillary was vilified by the Republicans for proposing a single-payer system back then.

Single-payer as a first step absolutely would not have happened. And people have been making this point now for years and you just aren't paying attention. The ACA is a necessary step on the way to single payer. Nobody is happy with how difficult the exchanges are. But this is what it is going to take.

Just be glad we aren't in a state that refused the Federal Medicare money.

I'm one of these "young invincibles" whose prior coverage through GroupHealth apparently wasn't enough. Because I'm just over 30, I wasn't allowed to keep my catastrophic-plus plan. Now I'm paying $60 more per month for a higher deductible and negligible increased preventive health. This IS a total fucking disaster for someone working in a low-paying, high-stress public interest job.

#17: You're not very bright are you? Is a community clinic going to take of you when you need surgery, or cancer treatment, or a major operation? Are you actually saying young people shouldn't be insured because small neighborhood clinics will take care of them, even in cases of catastrophic illness? What happens if they are diagnosed with cancer? Or an autoimminue disorder? Or are seriously injured? Or have ongoing mental health needs? You're either daft or a douche. I can't figure out which. I'm guessing with your Cato Institute-approved moniker, probably the latter.

#24: The thing you have to realize is most people don't actually understand how anything works. They sincerely believe that presidents can do whatever they want, and somehow draw upon dictatorial authority to bypass Congress, ignoring the complete intransigence of the Republicans at the time or the fact that even congressional democrats were protesting the public option. Could Obama have fought harder for a public option? He could have and should of, but it's delusional to believe it would have survived Congress at that stage in the game. Single-payer at the time was never in the cards, and it requires a counter-factual leap of faith to say otherwise. What people need to do now is continue the fight, and push for a public option, using the affordability issue to force the subject. I think with the foundation of the ACA, it's doable, but will require a of activism and lobbying from public health groups. We're many years away from a full, really working UHC system.

So for a guy who loves to play games with numbers Goldstein is singularly incurious how the enrollment numbers break down.

The upshot is that less than 20% of those enrolling are the ones who make this fantasy based bs that is Obamacare 'work.' By it's own terms Obamacare needs non subsidized healthy newly insured. All the folks who are expensive and who have their premiums paid by me and others who work for a living, they signed up for sure. Healthy young people or those like me who can afford the premiums, yeah they're not interested.

And that won't change for the simple reason liberals can't ever seem to wrap their tiny little minds around- people don't act in the interests of strangers if it costs them hardship. They don't, they never have and there's no good reason to believe they ever will.

@28: A persuasive case for single-payer. Thank you.

#29: It is funny how a lot of conservatives have a way of arguing their own way into a corner. He does make a delightful case for an even more comprehensive UHC system.

It's also funny how the ACA was designed by conservatives, and now they're forced to attack the bad ideas of their own thought leaders. It wasn't small-brained liberals that came up with it, it was the Heritage Foundation. The great thing about being a hyper-partisan drone though is that you just change your whole opinion along with your party to respond to whatever the other side is doing, so what was once a good idea is now a bad idea. The Heritage Foundation, btw, has conveniently disowned their own idea.

@28: "people don't act in the interests of strangers if it costs them hardship. They don't, they never have and there's no good reason to believe they ever will."

Whatever happened to "the government shouldn't provide for the destitute, private charity can do that job"? Are you perhaps saying that people don't actually put themselves out for the sake of those less fortunate than themselves?

@31

Apparently the word 'stranger' confuses you.

Private charity is usually local- a shelter for homeless people, a food bank, money helping the destitute funneled through a church or secular charity. That is, some local problem whose solution is desirable to me is solved via my VOLUNTARY giving. Comparing this to federal theft of my money and compulsion to buy a thing I neither want nor need is frankly stupid.

Asking people to care about the welfare of a New York or Pennsylvania housewife from their home in Seattle or Montana? That simply is too abstract, particularly if it means giving up a personal luxury or necessity to do so. Asking a young or healthy person to buy something they don't need so that others who do need it can afford it? Picking their pockets using the IRS as mugger to pay for the premiums you're already being forced to pay yourself? That's not only ignorant of the most basic human impulses, it's outright immoral.

@24
The ACA was not a "half baked compromise to get Republicans on board." At the time of the vote, the Dems had a super majority. Only one Republican in the house and senate voted for it and its biggest opponent was Dennis Kucinich who saw corporate care for what it was.
It is just one more piece of proof that the Dems are just as owned by corporate America as the Republicans.

@ 26

If I need major surgery, I would rather take it from a single payer system than from a corporate program that the government says I have to pay into. But I guess that is also "Cato institute talking points"...

@32: Actually, the second-highest form of charity is that which is given in such a way that neither the donor nor the recipient know the other's identity. (The highest form, obviously, is providing someone with the means to provide for themself.) It is a small-minded and petty man who only cares about the poor people in his neighborhood.
Maybe I'm a better person than you, but I don't need to regularly see someone huddled in an alleyway to want to help them. As long as there is needless suffering, no matter how far detached from me, it is my moral obligation to do what I can should any opportunity arise.

Also, your characterization of taxation as theft doesn't hold water. The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states that Congress has the power to collect taxes on income. The specific tax code is written by our elected representatives, as is the budget on which the tax money is spent. Please explain where in this system you have been slighted. Don't like democracy or majority rule? Take it up with the courts or get the hell out.

@28: "people don't act in the interests of strangers if it costs them hardship. They don't, they never have and there's no good reason to believe they ever will."

Strange. I thought that teachers had made exactly that their daily job. Doctors, too ; the ones who go abroad with NGOs, not the ones who roll in dough and bankrupt social security.

Bonus since you're the religiosity type : what you're saying is that "there are no christians, there never were christians and there never will be christians". Cause Christ said : "treat the next one as well as yourself". And who is the next person, but a stranger.