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."
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.
Sometimes, but given who "in house" would be in this case, they might be better off with a group of enthusiastic 13-year-olds.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
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.
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...
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.
Or the rules wasn't implemented correctly, and the clients lacked the proper tests so it managed to get through till production*.
* assuming there were testing routines in their process**
** assuming there was a process
-- --
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
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/
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.
Been trying to warn folks for years that the smokers were the canaries in the coal mine but nobody listened. Look at your history folks, government ALWAYS gets bigger, NEVER smaller. Look at places like NYC telling you how big of a soda you are allowed to have and talks of sugar taxes and fat taxes, all under the "its because of healthcare" bullshit excuse.
This is one of the most wasteful governments in world history folks, we are paying for illegals, we are paying billions to third world thugs to benefit this or that big business, paying paying Uber Millionaires like David Letterman not to grow crops on the acres he bought as a tax writeoff, hell we recently got to pay close to 3 million dollars for EPA to fix a simple malware infection WITH A SHOTGUN...look it up, I'm NOT shitting you, their answer to a simple malware infection was to pay nearly a million to a "consulting" firm and when the consulting firm couldn't wave a magic wand and give them a guarantee that they could make the PCs 100% clean without a wipe they took a sledge to the PCs, the printers, even the fucking monitors...your tax dollars at work folks.
So you better start standing the fuck up for the smokers, because just as they use the "terrorist" and "pedo" magic words to pass laws they end up using to Big bro your ass so too are they using smokers to pass laws they will later use to tell you how many slices of pizza you are allowed to have or they'll tax the fuck out of you, because of "healthcare" of course. Remember the rule folks, ALWAYS bigger,NEVER smaller.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
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
Been trying to warn folks for years that the smokers were the canaries in the coal mine but nobody listened. Look at your history folks, government ALWAYS gets bigger, NEVER smaller. Look at places like NYC telling you how big of a soda you are allowed to have and talks of sugar taxes and fat taxes, all under the "its because of healthcare" bullshit excuse.
This isn't unique to the government. When I was at my previous fortune-100 employer, they penalized smokers as well (actually what they did was raise the rates for everyone, but gave non-smokers a "discount"). It's not that uncommon. Additionally some places will hand out "fitness incentives" (i.e. penalize overweight people).
... 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?
I'd not heard about the new smoking thing, forcing smokers to pay an extra penalty.
Why was smoking specifically targeted? Hell, with the ongoing climb in obesity, the increasing incidents of type II diabetes and related complications will soon FAR outweigh problems we have with smokers.
Are we going to penalize (by monetary means) those that have the wrong BMI (not a good scale I know, since it looks really bad for those that are super fit)?
Are we going to tie the IRS and healthcare into the grocery store customer tracking system to see you're buying fattening, high calorie low nutrient foods?
Will they trace how much booze, beer and wine you buy at the grocery store (or wherever you buy it in your state)?
Where do we stop having the govt STOP trying to tell you how to live, and fining you for your CHOICE in lifestyle?
I guess maybe it is easy to pick on the smokers first, but seriously, what about when they start also charging for more common behaviors that are really driving up health costs for the future? How will that go over?
Is this really something the government should be doing at all? Doesn't sound like freedom to me, if the govt is trying to drive human behavior with govt. enforced sanctions.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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
Why was smoking specifically targeted? Hell, with the ongoing climb in obesity, the increasing incidents of type II diabetes and related complications will soon FAR outweigh problems we have with smokers.
It's all political BS. Lifetime healthcare costs for smokers are similar to non-smokers. Smokers tend to die younger, and lung cancer is an average-cost way to die.
As soon as a government tries to reduce costs for healthcare, it will start passing all sorts of intrusive laws using that justification. I can't stand that sort of totalitarianism for any reason, but totalitarianism to save money is particularly vile.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
To be fair though it could be the law itself that is the problem.
The law may be in conflict with itself. The code just shows it.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Obama has been targetting smokers since the beginning. He is an "ex"-smoker, you see so everyone should quit.
When I moved to the states a few years back now, I smoked Djarum. Two months before I moved, Obama + Phillip Morris (Marlboro I believe) Lobbied to ban "flavoured" cigarettes, well except for menthol. The legislation isn't supposed to make sense, it's just supposed to make money.
Phillip Morris with Obama's assistance got all flavoured cigarettes banned in the states. Then Phillip Morris after basically killing the market for many companies in the states (Clove cigarettes, etc) began selling "clove" Marlboro's to indonesia and other Indo-European countries.
Not that Canada is all that much better, they tax cigarettes about 200%. But at least you can still buy them if you feel like it.
Now if you've seen Djarum or other "flavoured" brands in the last 3+ years. They got around the ban by renaming them "Cigarello's" using cigar paper (thicker) and increasing the diameter by about an 1/8 of an inch or so.
I remember no such thing. I DO, however, remember hoping at the time that smoking WOULD get banned, at least in public places, as it is a fucking disgrace that we allow self-harm bordering on criminal stupidity.
I also quite vividly remember the NSA and other alphabet agencies spying on people being a "known secret" for as long as I've been alive. You clearly don't remember Carnivore, Echelon, TIA etc. but that's ok. In 5 years we'll have another big reveal and people like you will get to pretend the victim once again. It's the only thing you people do well anymore anyway.
It's the insurance companies implementing the smoker vs. non-smoker policies, not the government. The government's just putting some limits on how much they can jack up the rates for smokers.
But those who do die from lung cancer tend to stop paying premiums.
They also usually stop requiring care before they get too old, and really start costing a ton to maintain.
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?
, what you're neglecting to account for is that there were caps on maximum benefits that the insurance companies could pay out, and I'm pretty sure that smokers are more likely to hit them than non-smokers are.
Why would you believe that? If you're going to die of cancer, lung cancer is one of the cheap ones. And it's not like emphysema is all that expensive as an ongoing condition. It's a horrible condition, and the reason I'll never smoke, but tit's not the kind of condition you can throw money at.
Is there any reasoning behind the claim that smokers cost more beyond the fact that they're annoying to be around?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Private insurance wants to fine smokers since they get those kinds of diseases before they qualify for medicare.
Private insurance also wants to not pay for the cost of your heart disease or breast cancer because you didn't mention on your application that you took something for acne when you were 14. No joke - it's called recission, and one of the few good things that Obamacare supposedly does is ban it.
The problem with Obamacare is that it relies on private for-profit insurance companies, and actually lets them have some of the things they want. No other country does that. Look at some of the comments here from people in other countries - they're astounded at this crap. In every other country for-profit insurers do not pay for basic medical care, and insurers must charge the same rate to everybody. As for cost, they pay at least 1/3 less!
Those kinds of savings are hard to pass up.
What kind of savings? That article doesn't address lifetime medical care costs. AFAIK they're higher for the obese, but nowhere near as high as you'd infer from that article.
Worried about costs? First fix the fact that we pay 50% (%/GDP - even higher at exchange rate or PPP) more than any other country, and receive no more treatment for it. Then we can worry about making everybody skinny.
Speaking of skinny, even though percentage wise they're a much smaller problem, for the sake of consistency and cost savings we should charge anorexics and bulimics more. Those lead to serious health problems, and can be avoided by simply eating more or not forcing yourself to puke.
Ok, smoking, over and under weight. What's next? Ah, motorcycles and xtreme sports. We can monitor that based of purchases of the appropriate equipment. Speaking of monitoring, since you should have to show proof of age anyway, how much alcohol a person buys should be easy to keep tabs on, and excess alcohol consumption can be very medically expensive. Illegal drugs will require random testing, but people are used to that anyway. Just do it on everyone. The real problem is to keep tabs on how much exercise everyone gets, which can be a bigger issue than non-extreme obesity. I propose a telemetry system. Some folks will complain it can't monitor you in remote areas, but if we place the burden of proof on the individual then they'll have an incentive to prove they were jogging on that country road. What's next?
The expense cap stuff isn't smoking specific.
And you seem to be ignoring the fact that everybody dies of something, and most people have several long-tern degenerative conditions when they die. It's hard to get your head around when you're in your 20s or 30s, but as you age your body is just going to start breaking in ways that can't be fixed - you just have to manage the symptoms as best you can. Beyond a certain age, problems like heart disease, high blood pressure, and stroke are normal. If you reach 80, you'll be lucky not to be taking your own weight in pills each week.
By far the dominant factor in lifetime healthcare costs for most people is how many years you live past 70. Smoking and heavy drinking are two ways to significantly decrease life expectancy, and thus total lifetime cost. If your very costly final years come at 65-70 instead of 80-85, you'll pay far less in a lifetime, and those final five years for a smoker just aren't above average.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.