Guess What?

HealthCare.gov is still not working:

Despite my earnest intentions, my family and I are still not covered on the Washington, D.C. Obamacare exchange. I am beginning to despair that I will ever obtain insurance from the exchange.

To briefly recap my ordeal (you can read my previous piece here) I went to the D.C. Health Link web page in early November to sign up my family. It was not as straightforward as I anticipated: The first few times I tried to enter the names and vitals for my wife and children the web site either locked up or otherwise failed to store that information anywhere. Typing 4 names, birthdays, and social security numbers became a daily exercise for me. At least I have my family’s social security numbers memorized now.

Finally, after Thanksgiving, my name, ID, and family information were on file and I could proceed. I had to answer further questions about my family and then submit several pieces of evidence to show that I was, in fact, a D.C. resident, that my children did exist, and that my wife (a foreign national) was a legal resident.

I submitted that information, although the first 3 or 4 times the web page crashed and wouldn’t let me upload anything. Finally, however, I got my documents into the system and I was told they’d be verified soon and after that I’d be allowed to buy insurance.

Three weeks go by and I hear nothing, and when I log in to the exchange website it merely informs me that my information will soon be verified. I began calling the Health Link, who merely told me that they’re a little behind on the verifying but that they’d do it before January 1.

I knew better and called a broker who’s tasked with being a facilitator for people like me. She informed me that no one will verify my information unless we call. She starts calling and emailing on my behalf and she discovers they still do not have my family’s information on file.

She goes around and around and finally, on New Year’s Eve, they tell her that while I don’t have insurance yet and they haven’t been able to verify my information, I will be granted insurance for January, once they process my paperwork.

My facilitator and I again call regularly, to no avail, until I received a message on my answering machine on January 14 from D.C. Health Link: they have processed my information and I just need to call Carefirst by 6 p.m. the next day and I’ll be set.

So I call, and hold for an hour 45 minutes, and talk to a Carefirst agent, who informs me that D.C. Health Link had not, in fact, sent over the appropriate information, and that I was out of luck for January.

Port-side bloggers and pundits will, of course, remain silent regarding the continuing problems with HealthCare.gov, and with the registration process in general. But that doesn’t mean that the rest of us should be silent, especially given the fact that in nine short months, we will have midterm elections.

Comments

  1. This is a word-for-word re-post of an article published today in The Weekly Standard, written by conservative columnist Ike Brannon. It’s not polite (in fact it’s illegal, a violation of copyright laws) to do that without the author’s permission. You can link to the article, review it, write about your reactions to the article, and contribute your own related experiences without causing any problems. But this post is you pretending to BE the original author.

    I’ll assume you didn’t do this to intentionally steal his (and The Weekly Standard’s) intellectual property, but were re-posting because you share and agree with his views.

    • The notion that I am somehow “pretending to BE the original author,” or that I “stole” intellectual property is so ridiculous as to beggar belief. The excerpt is clearly indented to show that it is an excerpt, and no fool both (a) plagiarizes and (b) links to the source of his plagiarism in order to be found out.

  2. Huh? There is no confusion here, Mr. Yousefzadeh links to the original, the formatting makes clear what is excerpted, and he makes original comments before and after. The only potentially valid criticism is the length of the excerpt (9 of 14 paragraphs), but even so, there is no absolute standard for fair use.

Comments are closed.