The ObamaCare enrollment numbers are in,...

and parts of the idea perhaps should be properly evaluated.

But the current mess and it's implementation sucks.

They are counting those also who put something in "the cart" but have failed to actually finalize it as a purchase, either not being able, or backing down at that point without emptying the cart. If they collected a name they are counting it. I heard the actual number who completed the signup which includes the purchase I guess, is about a third of what they've claimed. Also the number given is not just the Obama website alone, but includes those from several state run websites which are functioning better. The failure of the federal website is actually more abysmal than many realize.

.....provide a breakdown of how many completed the signup, how many have gone through part of the process, etc.

And of course the number isn't limited to those who signed up on the website. Why should it be when there are multiple ways of signing up?

...there's ONE secure and safe way to apply for ObamaCare. The healthcare.gov website is fatally flawed from a security standpoint: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57611858/memo-warned-of-limitless-security-risks-for-healthcare.gov/

(Henry) Chao said he was unaware of a Sept. 3 government memo written by another senior official at CMS. It found two high-risk issues, which are redacted for security reasons. The memo said "the threat and risk potential (to the system) is limitless." The memo shows CMS gave deadlines of mid-2014 and early 2015 to address them.

If you watch the video clip, it mentions possible "misrouted data." Hmmm... remember all those complaints about partial applications being "lost"? I shudder to think they had been lifted by identity thieves instead.

As for phone applications: Do you really want to be giving that data over the phone?

Finally, we have personal applications handled by ObamaCare "navigators," who as Toni and have both posted, are NOT required to undergo a routine criminal backround check before being allowed to collect very significant personal data from applicants.

When you go to the ObamaCare website, you are confronted with a page that flatly states that you have "no expectation of privacy" when completing the application. Doesn't that make you all warm and fuzzy inside, Josh?

no SSL? Not even encrypted pdf forms to be filled out and sent back?

"When you go to the ObamaCare website, you are confronted with a page that flatly states that you have "no expectation of privacy" when completing the application."

...and there are no encrypted forms. As I noted above, the healthcare.gov site has major security flaws and simply can't be trusted. As I also noted, some of the vulnerabilities won';t be fixed until mid-2015.

As for the "no expectation of privacy": The fact is that any data submitted is automatically shared with any Federal government department which thinks it needs the data. The list of course begins with the IRS, but I'm sure it won't be the only department which decides it wants more and more information on the citizenry.

ObamaCare will create the largest, most comprehensive database on Americans ever compiled - a database that in the hands of this group of authoritarians in training - of BOTH parties, I might add - can only lead to bad outcomes for we, the people.

I do that all the time as a safer alternative to e-mail. Someone needs my personal info and asks for it in an e-mail. I ask if I can call them and give it to them that way instead.

What is the context of the "no expectation of privacy" notification? When do you see it? Have you run through the application process? During the hearings I saw more than one representative complain about questions on that website that are not actually there.

you appear to be pleased with has a vast majority of them getting onto the 'free' Medicaid rolls.......that means that none of them are paying into Obamacare and rather taking for free what taxpayers will have to pay for. So basically, Obamacare falls on its face and the States take the hit because BO lowered the eligibility requirements for Medicaid. I thought this was supposed to be the president who cares about the middle class? Seems to me that the only that's happening here is that the middle class are being 'lowered' into the poverty level in record numbers.

If they truly are eligible for Medicaid, then they definitely need it. That also removes it from the Obamacare into an existing program, which means those should actually be subtracted from Obamacare numbers since the Medicaid was already available. The best approach would have been expansion of Medicaid for those who couldn't afford private health insurance and then nobody who already had health insurance would face losing it like millions already have.

qualifies with SS as disabled, bad vertebrae damaged somehow, and bad knee, lessor problem.

Can't qualify for Medicaid because owns a house in New York, rented out because she's down in NC (renting a house) because her grown daughter here was helping her the first two years when she had difficulty even taking care of house and self.

If I understood right, she was told you can't qualify for Medicaid if you have as much as $2000 in equity in property. Didn't realize it was that low. Not sure if would count or not if she was still living in her house as primary residence.

And like so many, just got notice her insurance will be cancelled.

If you own it, and you live in it, it won't count against you, although I think there is also a limit on how much value the property can be. Her choice would be to sell that house, buy another of same exact or greater value where she's at now, which was allowed in past, maybe still is. The can't force you out of the home, but can count "income" from a home you rent. Flow of funds and banked funds is more determinant against you than total personal value of a home. Homes however then come under the Estate Recovery Act once the owner dies, which means anyone getting Medicaid at time of death who owns a home will have the govt as their first right to inherit, not their children. Look back is 3-5 years and often the 5 year if in the system once already.

Ways around it? Not many if you really need the Medicaid. If your health costs are less than what would use up your home sale value for the next 5 years, then exit Medicaid, then sell the home, transfer funds to children, wait the years out, then Medicaid again.

Planning ahead such as putting children as owners with a "life estate" in the property will protect the inheritance, but not necessarily control over the home if the person enters a nursing home later. That "life estate" value goes to the govt and they can then take over and "rent" the place out until the person on Medicaid in the nursing home dies.

Other options might be family trusts, but the govt sometimes goes after those in court. Some depends on the states at the time I tracked it, but even then the feds were planning on forcing states in regards to the Estate Recovery Act. I don't know if that decision to make recovery is still determined in each state. Florida at the time was fairly safe state against it if the property was below a certain value that most middle class homes would have been.

don't know what she's asking, owes, or appraisal. None of my business except what has been volunteered.

Don't know her well enough to be privy to more details.

Thought it had gone up again from 5 years to 7 years? My grandmother "sold" her house to kids and then lived over 20 years.

My information was valid about 2004-2006 since Mom died in 2004 and I kept up on it for a couple years afterwards in case it applied to Dad. He instead did a reverse mortgage so he would live on the money the final years and I didn't exercise the option to pay that off when the property values in Florida died, putting the reverse mortgage value higher than the property value and nstead left my step sister and her children in the home till foreclosure so she ended up with over a year residence at no cost to her.