The ACA/ Obamacare Website Fiasco Thread

Take a look at LASIK. It's an elective surgery. Medicare doesn't cover it. You can get it done for anywhere between $500 and $2000, depending on where you go (although the places hawking the $499 procedure probably have hidden fees). The prices haven't fluctuated all that much. Another one to look at it plastic surgery. Medicare doesn't cover that, either (although there could be certain circumstances where it might). Prices haven't skyrocketed in that market, either. Now compare that to how much the cost of a wellness exam, gynecological exam, etc. has gone up over the years. If it wasn't for the fact that corporations are in bed with politicians, I'd say let health care hit the free market.

I know that comparing the market for electronics and health care is apples and oranges, to say the least, but you don't see the price of new technology skyrocketing every year. Something gets released, then it gets cheaper as time passes. Why it works for electronics and not health care is beyond me.
 
Let's be clear on something. There is a difference between cost of health coverage (read: insurance) and the cost of health care (read: delivery of services).

With that distinction in mind, none of these quasi-single payer approaches (ie Obamacare or any similar proposal) do anything to address the delivery cost of heath care. This is the real issue. However, no one at the decision making level is really interested in having an honest conversation about the true drivers behind the increase in health care delivery.

Drivers include but are not limited to:
  • Consumers being insulated from the direct cost of care
  • Defensive care on the part of physicians
  • Technology that is expensive and often diagnostic in nature; only marginally improves the ability to treat disease/improve health
  • Government failure to define common data collection formats; inconsistent individual state-specific requirements
  • Supply of health care resources; region to region, urban to rural
  • And the largest contributor that goes unaddressed...demographics. We have a rapidly aging population. People are living longer and as a result utilizing more services
These are simply facts that need to be addressed in order to come up with effective solutions. Simply having a government sponsored insurance system does not move the needle in any meaningful way and, as evidence indicates, likely exacerbates issues.
 
Last edited:
cback0220 said:
I'm not saying it is cheaper. I don't think healthcare/insurance is affordable at all, for almost any middle income family.

I have insurance through my wife's university, because she is on a fellowship she gets pretty good insurance, I pay 400 dollars a month to be on her low deductible plan, which is a significant portion of our monthly(GI bill for me+ fellowship stipend for her which is exactly the same as GI bill) you can add up what we make and what percentage of our income goes to health insurance/care. Health insurance is and has been expensive as fuck for a long time, nothing will change that except lowering the cost of care.
Click to expand...

Which brings me back to my point, how do you say a 100-300% increase is a lowering of costs?

The President spent years telling us our costs would go down, now documents are surfacing saying the administration minions knew 30-80% of the people would LOSE their coverage, and have to buy a higher priced policy.

Come back in 18 months and tell us what your premium is after the employer mandate goes into effect.

You want a lower cost, tort reform, that lowers the cost of Malpractice Insurance.
 
Chopstick said:
I personally know several people that had very good policies at what they considered to be fair prices losing their coverage. Wait until the employer mandate kicks in next year. This very same scenario is going to happen with the group policies offered by employers.
Click to expand...

My employer absorbed over 100K in costs to implement this stupid fucking plan's requirements. "This year there are no changes to individual contributions" Family coverage contributions have gone up. I expect many companies to cancel employee insurance coverage, possibly to include my own.

cback0220 said:
You personally know several people with low deductible plans that are losing them? That's surprising. As the ultimate goal of the ACA is to get people into plans with low deductibles.
Click to expand...

I personally know of 3 people so far. And 5 people whose company has cancelled employee coverage. It is not surprising at all, I believe the ultimate goal is a single payer system. If they can collapse health care coverage as we (used to?) know it, it will happen.

There is a reason so many people travel to the US when they need the best health care possible. I see that changing some day too.
 
comrade-z said:
Came across this as part of my morning reading. This does not address all of the issues being brought up, but it does address a few. The guy's credentials are pretty high up there, but it is an opinion piece. It is still worth the read even so, and I am probably not alone in wanting to see a study done on the issues the author brought up.

[url]http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/10/30-truth-about-obamacare-coverage-aaron[/URL]
Click to expand...
http://www.brookings.edu/research/o...n=BrookingsFB1031&utm_content=BrookingsFB1031

Ummm, that is a very partisan piece. Take a look at what the author states are the issues Bear in mind that the insurance market is based on risk. They figure the odds on what they will have to pay over the total population of a group and then the premiums represent the cost of paying that amount + profit. For the record, the official statistics on the net profit (EBITDA) of insurers show a 3.4% profit. As an industry, the insurance industry ranks 88th. [url]http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/02/health-insurance-companies-rank-88-by.html That's a blog post, but he links the original data. If I only made 3.4% net profit, I'd be out of business today and working for someone else.

- Denying care for preexisting conditions, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently;
100% risk of paying for it. These have to either be included or premiums have to incorporate the cost of treatment, which can't be done under current regulations. Taking these conditions would represent a complete loss that would have to be defrayed by higher premiums to the rest of the policy holders (which is one reason why Obamacare will continue to see unreasonable premiums)

  • Charging higher premiums to women of child-bearing age than to men of the same age;
The risk of a man having health care costs related to child bearing is pretty damned low compared to that of a woman. The higher premiums reflect this. If they level the premiums, then men like me are paying part of the premium for the risk of women having children. The other way this can be handled inside the law is to raise the men's premiums to the same level as women, resulting in additional profit as there will be no likelihood of a payout.

  • Charging 65-year-olds rates that are as much six or eight times higher than they charge 25-year-olds;
again, the risk of a 25 year old having medical issues is at least 6 to 8 times lower than a 65 year old. The premiums should reflect this. BTW, 65 year olds are under medicare, which has nothing to do with individual insurance rates. The whole premise of Obamacare is that they are going to have to pay for health insurance specifically so that the money from the young and healthy end up paying the bill for the rest.

  • Cutting benefits entirely when annual or lifetime treatment costs exceed specified amounts;
This one is simple, the insurance company has to have a way to say what their maximum exposure is. If they don't have a maximum exposure, then they have to raise premiums to accommodate lifetime costs. If a person wants to accept the risk of an illness costing more than the cap, they should pay less money. Let's face it, if I have a condition that costs more than $50M (my current cap) to treat, I have other things to worry about.

  • Omitting coverage of particular services that are basic and important, such as rehabilitation after serious injury; and
Who decides which services are basic or important? They (Obamacare) are forcing me to carry insurance that covers my maternity care, although the odds of me ever having a baby are exactly 0

  • Cancelling coverage when a customer presented very large bills and was expected to have very high bills in the future.
Again, higher risk to the company, higher premiums or a requirement to raise premiums across the board to pay for this person's treatments. - For the record, I don't think they should be able to cancel coverage after the fact.

Blizzard hit it right on the head. Fix the problems with services. It's not the coverage that is broken.[/URL]
 
I agree with you that not all the questions/points the author brought up are on the mark - the main thing I came away with it was wondering about the statistics of who has to now switch their coverage, broken down by the reasons instigating the switch. Never thought of it as comprehensive or non-partisan - as stated when I posted it, its an opinion piece after all. Just figured I would post it because well, some parts were interesting, the author's idea was pretty cleanly displayed (aesthetic issue, but still nice), and it was related to what was being said here.
 
Blizzard said:
Let's be clear on something. There is a difference between cost of health coverage (read: insurance) and the cost of health care (read: delivery of services)...Simply having a government sponsored insurance system does not move the needle in any meaningful way and, as evidence indicates, likely exacerbates issues.
Click to expand...

When in doubt, YOUTUBE!



It's all good!
 
The Healthcare.gov Twitter feed is a sad timeline of a boatload of failure.
https://twitter.com/HealthCareGov

Tweets All / No replies



  1. 1:42 PM - 2 Nov 13 · Details
    " data-tweet-id="396739216014442496" data-feedback-key="stream_status_396739216014442496">
    HealthCare.gov ‏@HealthCareGov 26m
    http://HC.gov application and enrollment undergoing overnight maintenance starting about 9pm Sat 11-2.
    Expand Collapse



  2. 5:35 AM - 31 Oct 13 · Details
    " data-tweet-id="395891747944812545" data-feedback-key="stream_status_395891747944812545">
    HealthCare.gov ‏@HealthCareGov 31 Oct
    Outage over. http://HC.gov resuming normal operations.
    Expand Collapse



  3. 2:23 PM - 29 Oct 13 · Details
    " data-tweet-id="395299766583566336" data-feedback-key="stream_status_395299766583566336">
    HealthCare.gov ‏@HealthCareGov 29 Oct
    Paper applications are now available for download from http://HC.gov. You can find the application here: http://hlthc.re/PaperApp
    Expand Collapse



  4. 1:50 PM - 28 Oct 13 · Details
    " data-tweet-id="394929240778346497" data-feedback-key="stream_status_394929240778346497">
    HealthCare.gov ‏@HealthCareGov 28 Oct
    Outage at Terremark is over. http://HC.gov back up.
    Expand Collapse



  5. 3:17 PM - 27 Oct 13 · Details
    " data-tweet-id="394588669056528384" data-feedback-key="stream_status_394588669056528384">
    HealthCare.gov ‏@HealthCareGov 27 Oct
    http://HC.gov application and enrollment system down bc company that hosts site has an outage. Terremark working to fix.
    Expand Collapse



  6. 2:55 PM - 27 Oct 13 · Details
    " data-tweet-id="394583273470308352" data-feedback-key="stream_status_394583273470308352" data-retweeter="HealthCareGov" data-retweet-id="394587022947385344">
    Joanne Peters ‏@JoannePtrs 27 Oct
    http://Healthcare.gov application and enrollment system down bc company that hosts site has an outage. Terremark working to fix ASAP
Click to expand...
 
I was just looking at the various tallies on the internet of what the Healthcare.gov website alone has cost thus far. Figures vary from 350 million dollars to 500 million dollars. As I type this the US Census clock is at 316,995,902. If you think about it, the government could have skipped the website, made each of us a millionaire and still have money left over.

http://www.census.gov/popclock/
 
Chopstick said:
I was just looking at the various tallies on the internet of what the Healthcare.gov website alone has cost thus far. Figures vary from 350 million dollars to 500 million dollars. As I type this the US Census clock is at 316,995,902. If you think about it, the government could have skipped the website, made each of us a millionaire and still have money left over.

http://www.census.gov/popclock/
Click to expand...

Lol math not your strong suit? Maybe they could have given each of us a dollar or whatever 350M/316M is I think is is a long way from making us all millionaires.

ETA: it's $1.10 cents.
 
Last edited:
Chopstick said:
I was just looking at the various tallies on the internet of what the Healthcare.gov website alone has cost thus far. Figures vary from 350 million dollars to 500 million dollars. As I type this the US Census clock is at 316,995,902. If you think about it, the government could have skipped the website, made each of us a millionaire and still have money left over.

http://www.census.gov/popclock/
Click to expand...

That would take some extremely favorable return rates on investment.
 
Shouldnt drink Chianti and SS! :ROFLMAO: Or maybe if our Govt would stop throwing money at say Pakistan that might help too...

Anyway this pretty much illustrates what is happening to some of my friends right now. And I am sure this is will be the rest of us when the employer mandate kicks in.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/healt...n_ref_map={"10151752643983517":"facebook_cb"}

Since Stadler’s family’s income is too high to qualify for federal subsidies, he’s considering putting his kids on the policy his wife, a teacher, gets through her job. But that would be expensive, too. “The thing that gets me,” says Stadler, who voted for Obama in the 2012 presidential election, “is I thought Barack Obama was the only guy I could trust in Washington. He ended up lying to me because he said, if I like my insurance, I could keep it.”
Click to expand...

Distrust of Obamacare and the people running it has been compounded by the malfunctioning web site and the sheer complexity of the law and its many requirements. Jeanne Patterson of Drexel Hill, Pa., will be losing coverage at the end of the year, and her insurance carrier told her she must choose another plan by Nov. 20 or she won’t be able to get coverage for 2014. The White House, meanwhile, has said it may take until Nov. 30 to fix the crash-prone federal web site. The ACA gives people who choose a plan through an exchange until Dec. 15 to purchase coverage that would take effect Jan. 1, but like many others, Patterson hasn’t been able to navigate the buggy site to find out what her options are.

Patterson, a 58-year-old unemployed insurance broker, pays $500 a month for insurance now, plus about $100 in co-pays for three brand-name medications used to treat chronic migraines. She might qualify for subsidies under the exchange that would help lower her premiums, but she worries that her out-of-pocket costs for drugs will skyrocket. “I had a really good plan,” she says. “My main problem now is uncertainty. It has me sick. I don’t know whether or not I’ll have health care and I don’t know what it will cost me.”
Click to expand...


Obama and his supporters have characterized many people who buy individual insurance policies as dupes who don’t realize they’re paying exorbitant prices for an inferior product. In his recent speech, for instance, Obama described such coverage as “cut-rate plans” offered by “bad-apple insurers” that “don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.”

But many of the 5-percenters Obama is referring to see a cruel irony the president may not be aware of. “They canceled my insurance, then said, ‘Hey go get yourself some insurance, and if you don’t, we’re going to fine you,’”says Nate Quarry, a 41-year-old former mixed martial arts fighter who lives outside of Portland, Ore., and whose insurance will expire at year-end. Quarry was happy with the $650-a-month plan that covered him and his daughter. He doesn’t qualify for subsidies, so he’s been looking for a new individual policy similar to the one he’s losing.

So far, the insurance companies he’s called and emailed don’t seem interested in covering him. “I feel like I’m standing on a used car lot saying I want to buy a car, and nobody’s looking at me,” Quarry says. “Is this really happening?” Once the dust settles from the turbulent Obamacare launch, maybe an insurance company will step forward to take his money.
Click to expand...
 
SOWT said:
It was a $634M no-bid contract, to a company whose VP was a classmate of Mrs Obama. A company that had serious issues when they tried to build a website for the Canadian Healthcare System.

Chicago Politics at it's best.
Click to expand...

I meant more the $1 -> $1mil math, but yeah - Assuming they get to keep it (they probably will, unfortunately), CGI Federal will have found one hell of an "investment" indeed. :mad:
 
SOWT said:
It was a $634M no-bid contract, to a company whose VP was a classmate of Mrs Obama. A company that had serious issues when they tried to build a website for the Canadian Healthcare System.

Chicago Politics at it's best.
Click to expand...

Good points but he was referring to making a million dollars off of a dollar. lol
 
compforce said:
and it starts...

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/02...sers-warn-of-security-risk-breach-of-privacy/
Click to expand...

I don't see this anywhere else yet, but assuming it is true, that is almost hilarious that that can happen....This is probably easy to fix, but the fact that it happened is a mind-blowing failure to comprehend and implement some of the most basic secure coding principles.

Simple fix: Chances are the databases all refer to a profile ID of some sort, since chances are they use a relational database, and a profile ID would be the simplest thing to both think of and implement as a primary key. Chances are also that the database for these letters and other files contains the relevant profile ID somewhere in the record for each letter (if it isn't, then adding the relevant profile ID as a foreign key would be a very simple process). Using the profile ID on files in the database to determine ownership of the files means all you have to do is compare the profile ID's of the file versus the profile to determine if the profile owns that file. About the only thing I assume is that they are using relational databases and not something weird like an XML database.

In short, this is stupid.
 

Similar threads

AWP
The Racing Thread
4 5 6
Replies
111
Views
4K
Topkick
Topkick
AWP
Computer Help
Replies
4
Views
125
RackMaster
RackMaster
R.Caerbannog
Distortion of History
2
Replies
32
Views
683
R.Caerbannog
R.Caerbannog
AWP
The Aging Crisis in America
Replies
8
Views
295
Dame
Dame
ni.ks9041990
VHP (Veterans History Project)
Replies
0
Views
80
ni.ks9041990
ni.ks9041990
Back
Top