Slashdot Mirror
Obamacare Software Glitch Will Limit Penalties Charged To Smokers
turbosaab writes "The Obama administration has quietly notified insurers that a computer system glitch will limit penalties that companies may charge smokers under the new healthcare law. The underlying reason for the limitation is another provision in the health care law that says insurers can't charge older customers more than three times what they charge the youngest adults in the pool. The government's computer system has been unable to accommodate the two. So younger smokers and older smokers must be charged the same penalty, or the system will kick it out. A fix will take at least a year to put in place."
but this is just lack of effort.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I'm hoping that this is because there's too many other things in the pipeline that are more critical to get done first, and not because, say, the system is so badly written that this one relatively minor looking task will take a year.....
If it's the latter, then I'm in the wrong business.
Finding God in a Dog
hey, you live in daddy's house, you live by daddy's rules.
skateboarders have a higher risk of injury, you will see a penalty.
gun owners? penalty.
rock climbers? penalty.
over BMI? penalty.
socialism. ideas so good, they have to be mandatory.
This is not socialism at all, that would be a lot better.
Go look at european healthcare systems, they do not charge extra for any of those things.
No, the sensible party doesn't stand a chance. We only elect Republicans and Democrats to the presidency these days.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
So Slashdotters object to government collecting their metadata, but sticking its nose into every health decision is A-OK?
ObamaCare has 100x the potential for abuse the NSA does.
Even apart from socialized medicine starving people to death.
The ones who always are and always will be. Has nothing to do with healthcare.
I invite you to travel the world, you will learn a lot.
With each new story on this or that problem with implementing some part of the Affordable Care Act, and given how the various parts of it interlocked to keep it from breaking down, I just get the impression that there's going to be chaos when it really gets going. Assuming that it's allowed to. At some point maybe everyone agrees that it's not implementable in its present form, like one of those gigantic software projects that crashes to the ground because it was ill-conceived to begin with and nobody can figure out how to make it work.
Lose-lose, actually. Because the profits you are talking about simply do not exist. So much so, health-insurers close the shop and simply withdraw from certain (highly progressive) states.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Then I invite you to look at Australia with a similar system and an economy not in the toilet.
better then the old system where you can pay in to plan for years and when you get real sick they drop you or say you hit the max pay out cap (easy to do when acetaminophen sold for $1.50 a tablet (you can buy 100 of those for the same price at Amazon); $77 for a box of sterile gauze pads (Amazon’s prices vary between $6 and $11); $18 for a single diabetes test strip (sold for 54 cents by Amazon); $108 for antibacterial Bacitracin ointment (Amazon’s prices vary between $2.50 and $6.50)
They sure as hell would like to. There's already talk of charging smokers and overweight people an additional premium. Not being a smoker and being just a tad overweight, I say HELL NO unless the people with an unhealthy lifestyle also get a larger cut on their state and private pension premiums. The BBC doc. "the cost of dying" ought to be mandatory viewing for anyone contemplating such penalties, as it has shown that the super healthy people are the most expensive overall, and only slightly below in health care costs as they will often suffer from similarly expensive ailments, just a bit later in life.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Yes, I too hope the next president will be from the Green party and postpone implementation of Obamacare in favor of implementing single payer. It's not going to happen, but it's nice to hope.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Hence the state of their economy with several members of the EU on the brink of bankruptcy.
Yet it's not the most socialist European countries that are going broke. The Nordic nations, for example, are doing just fine. It's Mediterranean Europe that is having trouble, and they've had fiscal problems for decades. Putting them in a single currency union with the likes of Germany was just asking for a disaster to happen.
You know, that doesn't sound like socialism at all.
In US political dialogue, "socialism" is just a vague term used to smear people or plans that you don't like. I suspect only a tiny minority of Americans could give a reasonably accurate definition.
Oddly, it has moved to fill the niches formerly occupied by both "communism" and "fascism".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Yeah, if you look at total lifetime costs smokers are saving everyone money. They die of horrible diseases that are cheap to deal with until they cause death.
In fact, the 3rd amendment is the only one that I'm aware of that they haven't tried to violently violate, yet.
Nope, they're working on that one too: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/08/family-booted-from-home-for-police-detail-suing-with-rare-use-third-amendment/
The more socialist countries in Europe are in much better financial condition than the rest, and had much less of a downturn than the U.S.
Being a capitalist doesn't have to make you dumb.
What does that have to do with socialism? That is a property of insurance in general. In fact, when these practices are absent, it is usually because of big government policies that prohibiting them.
Being a non-fan of big government solutions, I think charging people for the actual risk of insuring them is a step in the right direction, when it comes to risks that are a result of choices, because it can influence behavior.
I agree on this. Why have low penalties on young smokers and really high ones on older ones? To not give them any reason to quit when young and get really hooked and then throw in the high penalties?
Do what insurance is supposed to do - spread the risk and costs for the behavior so people who choose to do it when they are young are already helping to pay for the costs of their behavior when they get older. The costs they incur when they get old aren't solely cause by the smoking done when they are old.
Here's a chart showing how the exchanges are supposed to work. Just a system in which the public looks at different health plans from different providers would be complex enough, but note the links to the IRS, Treasury, Social Security, HHS, Homeland Security, and state Medicaid systems. This thing must be giving nightmares to even top IT pros.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Medicare, which begin in 1965, is roughly the same in complexity, and we survived it. The difference may be that Congress was willing to make adjustments back then, whereas now we have a polarized crew in DC and heading businesses.
Table-ized A.I.
There are sensible people in both parties. Vote for them in the primaries and we'll have two sensible parties. Fail to vote in the primaries, and you may as well not bother voting in the general election either.
I knew the health care system in the US was ridiculously expensive but that this is allowed... Even in the new healthcare system proposed by the neoliberal party in the Netherlands insurance companies have to offer the same price for the basic insurance for everybody. Taxing some more than others would cause uproar. Some are suggesting to let smokers pay more but the usual response that in that case it would also be fair to let them pay less for their retirement pension usually cuts that off.
Not exactly. It's not like people with heart and lung disease just keel over at age 55. They usually have a long, slow decline in health that is punctuated by expensive visits to some aspect of the healthcare system or other. And why pick on heart and lung disease? That's what MOST smokers die from. Lung cancer, although way more common in smokers than non smokers isn't what gets most puffers. And even lung cancer isn't a rapid roll off the carpet. Chemotherapy, surgery and supportive care still is pretty expensive.
So, no, sorry. Giving everyone a couple of packs of cigs per day isn't going to decrease health care expenses.
Please try again.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Italy and Greece are the two worst off. Anyone that picks either as an example is clearly biased and looking to point out weeknesses. England is closer to the middle. Not as strong as Germany, but with longer-term socialist leanings, so a nice long history of NIH and such. Does pretty well at it. France is doing on, though their immigration policies have led to some internal discord. And there are what, 20-something others? Social welfare is local and not mandated across. England is doing OK, even with the conservatives complaining about the EU forcing the UK to let in the Poles and such. NIH covers anyone in the EU, if properly registered and in the UK at the time. So people could travel from all over Europe for "free" care, but they don't. Given the free travel amongst all the states, are they really that bad when there isn't mass migration from the bad ones to the "good" ones? Germany *must* accept any Greeks that want in, so why aren't there lines of Greeks trying to get in?
Learn to love Alaska
... we should have what this guy's advocating:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
Who the hell was that guy? Why didn't we elect him?
Yeah, if you look at total lifetime costs smokers are saving everyone money. They die of horrible diseases that are cheap to deal with until they cause death.
Also, they pay a shit load of tax on their tobacco...
http://blog.nexusuk.org
The problem is not Obamacare. The problem is the disgusting, predatorial healthcare system in the US. The problem is that the US doesn't follow every other developed country in the world and treats healthcare as a privilege instead of a right. As such, the monopolies that run the healthcare system exploit the lack of competitive pressure since people in the hospital frequently can't "shop around" for better & cheaper service. This leads to the practice of charging patients literally 10x to 100x what things actually cost.
The fact that the US even has to deal with such an unethical, predatorial system to begin with--instead of just offering universal healthcare--is what failed, not Obamacare itself. In fact, even though Obamacare itself is flawed, I'm hoping that at least the constitutionally-validated mandate will eventually lead to the US offering universal healthcare, since the current system is unsustainable and people are now required to have coverage. No matter how bad Obamacare is, I think it's still a step forward. Consider if it hadn't been implemented... then in 5 more years we'd be right back to town hall meetings with constiuents (and Sarah Palin) screaming about death panels, etc. At least there's a chance to get to universal health care from Obamacare: the mandate is a good excuse to have a government option at least.
Obamacare is bound to go poorly because the US healthcare system is shit. There's nothing Obamacare could do to be "good". We just need to fix our system.
The problem is not Obamacare. The problem is the disgusting, predatorial healthcare system in the US. The problem is that the US doesn't follow every other developed country in the world and treats healthcare as a privilege instead of a right. As such, the monopolies that run the healthcare system exploit the lack of competitive pressure since people in the hospital frequently can't "shop around" for better & cheaper service. This leads to the practice of charging patients literally 10x to 100x what things actually cost.
I think you are slightly confused. You have it right when you are talking about the lack of competitive pressure increasing prices, but the solution is not to remove even more competitive pressure by switching to one plan to rule them all, which is essentially what Obamacare does. (You can have "competiting" plans, but they have to be the same, or you get hit for having a "cadillac plan".) The solution is to restore competitive pressure by implementing things like healthcare spending accounts (HSA) etc. which would place the consumer in the drivers seat for their own care. "... but doctor, is there a less expensive med that I can take?" (or test, or proceedure, etc.)
But this is where others start complaining that this leaves out the poor, etc. since they can't afford to contribute to a HSA. (I am afraid I don't have a good answer, except to say that Obamacare isn't shaping up to fix this issue either.)
Don't forget, there are people in Canada who come to the US to use our "shit" system, because they can't get care in a reasonable time-frame in their socialized healthcare system. It is well and good to have a "right" to healthcare, but if you have to wait in line for a year to treat something that is going to kill you in six months without treatment, it doesn't do you any good.
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
But why are we choosing to charge smokers more? I thought smoking was an addiction and we are supposed to offer health care regardless of pre-existing condition?
Are we going to charge single women or "slutty" women more for reproductive health care because, like, they shouldn't be "doing it"?
Are we going to charge fat persons more?
Are we going to charge people more if they admit to other drug dependencies?
Are we going to charge gay men more unless they can prove they are monogamous? Straight men more unless they can prove they are not "cheating"?
And how do we enforce this? If we catch you smoking and we cancel your health insurance? Put you in jail?
What about an occasional cigar smoker or someone who takes a drag when "a joint is passed around"?
Are the authorities going to stick a OBD-II dongle in your car to make sure you aren't driving too fast?
What about drinking and binge drinking? Are you going to get a rate break for abstaining, and does your rate go up if someone spots you taking a sip of champaign at a wedding?
The nordics are not socialist. They are social democrats with a mixed economy where the government assumes responsibility for some critical infrastructure while aggressively breaking up cartels and preventing (to some extent) collusion in an otherwise free market in order to keep the markets free.
Actually, the nordics are good examples of libertarian ideals.
Yes, of Left Libertarian ideals, but those are almost completely unknown, and probably anathema, to most American libertarians.