Slashdot Mirror
Tech In the Hot Seat For Oct. 1st Obamacare Launch
bednarz writes "In four days, the health insurance marketplaces mandated by the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act are scheduled to open for business. Yet even before the sites launch, problems are emerging. Final security testing of the federal data hub isn't slated to happen until Sept. 30, one day before the rollout. Lawmakers have raised significant concerns about the ability of the system to protect personal health records and other private information. 'Lots and lots of late nights and weekends as people get ready for go-live,' says Patrick Howard, who leads Deloitte Consulting's public sector state health care practice."
How many times have you guys been told by a project manager that QA testing starts on Wednesday and Go-Live is on Friday? I had a meeting once where a manager said we needed to improve our planning so we weren't constantly doing bug fixing on Thursday and Friday morning, and was willing to put in place so many new procedures, workflows, and documentation but never give more time between the start of QA and product roll-out.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Yes, there is a point to this.
It may well be a long time before the Republicans have enough votes to get a repeal through the Senate. The way Demographics are headed, the Republican party of today will have to evolve significantly to stay relevant beyond this decade. And what Republicans fear about Obamacare more than anything else is that once it's implemented, people will decide that they like it, making it impossible for them to repeal it (much like Medicare and Social Security).
Nope. In a few years you'll see Tea Party demonstrations with placards like "Don't let government get its hands into my Obamacare!".
The Republicans can only get rid of it if it is unsuccessful, which is why they tried so hard to get rid of it before it was enacted. Even so, repealing it would take a Republican president and simple majority in both the house and senate, which is much harder.
Luckily for the Republicans they will always be able to find some metrics that show that it was a failure. Health care premiums will continue to rise no matter what until we serious talk about rationing care, so any health care plan written by either party will always leave room for complaints.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
if by "evolve" you mean "lean further libertarian instead of continuing to be basically the laziest Democrats ever", I agree with that part.
As far as the "decide that they like it" part, I'd say it will be more along the lines of "dislike it but fear the disappearance of what few scraps it throws them"
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Um, no, it's not fully hands off. The Medicare act is Federal legislation that sets certain criteria for how the Provinces run their healthcare systems. The Provinces are given some latitude, but key aspects must be respected by the Provinces.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Since it would be replaced with the option to die in the gutter I think axing is a bad move.
Considering that the feds in Canada fund the majority of our health care I'd suggest that they are very far from being "hands off". Just look at the legislation concerning the delivery of health care in Canada and you see what a dumb comment Mashiki is making.
Laziest democrats? Nixon was a socialist compared to todays republicans. If they leaned any further right they would fall over.
Barry Goldwater was a prophet. The religious right now owns the Republican party.
. . . the same wonks that gave us so many failed DMV systems haven't found work in this sector too.
You're joking right? It's the exact same people.
SAIC is already in on the action.
That's the company that scammed New York out of all that money.
So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
"Don't judge a philosophy by those who misapply it."
I'm sure that's a quote, but of whom I don't know.
I'm neither going to defend Nixon nor today's GOP. Neither deserves the defence. The few that deserve defence are the ones the GOP "leadership" (if you want to call it that) already hate.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
The idea of having affordable health care as opposed to being told sorry but you must just go die someplace as quietly as possible does tend to make it more than likely it will succeed. In year's time this will be old news and the GOPTP will be whining about something else, looking for another hostage to take to get their agenda passed.
Not their fault. They had to pass the legislation before they could know what was in it.
The healthcare act sets out "how" the system should be. And what min. level of care should be. Provinces decide "how" to do it. In the US, the ACA determines "how" states should do it, and even "how" to implement it. See the difference now?
Om, nomnomnom...
The problem for Ted Cruz in 2016 is that on his present course he looks as if he will be so successful in dismantling the US government that its unclear if there will even be a presidency in 2016. However, I'm sure in that case, he will probably just appoint himself as the rest of the country just stand back helplessly in horror.
Federal IT contracting also has the kickbacks and other BS that put's lot's of PHB's in the way of getting work done.
Assuming a Republican could even get elected after the party trashes the economy (yet again), it wouldn't be easy to unwind ACA. For one thing, they have time to fix the technical glitches. They'd have a shot at fixing the programmatic glitches if the Republicans would stop acting like spoiled brats. Every entitlement has always required programmatic fixes, this will be no different. And those fixes would happen were the Republicans not hell bent on screwing Obama. I don't recall the Republicans being so worried about the economy or the health care system before the ACA. Now all of a sudden they've had a come to Jesus meeting.
And their budget objections have nothing to do with the budget. They simply do not like what the Federal government does...especially supporting Science. Science prevents them from making shit up and spewing it out over the media...ok, so it doesn't stop them, but at least it clear they are full of shit.
I know, but Obama approved and took ownership of the name, so it is often reported as obamacare even by neutral and pro-democrat sources now, planting the name much more firmly.
Had it been left only as the term used by the extreme right-wing mouth breathers as a term of derision it would be more likely to fade away, especially if the act itself gains popularity in the future.
Yes, the Provinces decide how, but the parameters are not all that wide, and because the system is in considerable aspects Federally proscribed, you don't see that much variance between Provinces. And, in fact, the Feds have on occasion flexed their muscle and have sent warning shots to provinces who have traveled too far off the line.
Here's the facts. I am a resident of British Columbia. I pay about $127 per month in Medical Services Premiums. For that I won't be given a bill at any hospital or any doctor if I have a medical issue. If I need a scan or some other diagnostic test, I will not be billed. Furthermore, if I end up needing healthcare in Prince Edward Island, I will still be protected.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
you obviously don't know what you're talking about. $92 a year? Bullshit. For me it will cost an addition $8,000 dollars for health insurance, PLUS the cost of my diabetic wife's insulin, needle, test strips, etc have all doubled in price. For a grand total of almost $14,000 a year. I don't know where you got your $92 quote but it's WAAAAAAAY off. btw, I make less than 100k a year.
As for the second part, people in this country don't get turned away because they're poor, they get medicare or medicaid (depending on age).
Here's the facts. I am a resident of British Columbia. I pay about $127 per month in Medical Services Premiums. For that I won't be given a bill at any hospital or any doctor if I have a medical issue. If I need a scan or some other diagnostic test, I will not be billed. Furthermore, if I end up needing healthcare in Prince Edward Island, I will still be protected.
Shoot, that sounds fantastic! Why can't we get something like that here in the U.S.?
For all of those if us concerned about the privacy/sanctity of our medical information, it doesn't exist *now*. If you are treated under any private health insurance plan, all of the diagnoses and treatments are fed into a database (http://www.mib.com/facts_about_mib.html) that all the insurance companies share to protect themselves against people applying for insurance and "forgetting" about a pre-existing condition. Next time you have a few minutes, pull out the mice-type on your health insurance plan and read up on how they can collect and share that information.
Actually they're quite wide. Go and read the healthcare act then look at the provinces. In fact those "warning shots" have been at Quebec most of the time, because they simply dump the money direct into general revenue, then take it back out. In order to claim that the money came directly from their own general fund. Aka useless BS Quebec type stuff.
And to highlight difference, in Ontario I pay nothing. I don't pay for any tests or diagnostics out of pocket. I pay for notes from my doctor, and that's it. And if I end up in another province, I still won't be billed--because OHIP will cover it.
Om, nomnomnom...
The "tea party" isn't a philosophy. It's a bunch of idiots and corporate patsies. At one point it had an underlying philosophy which, while fundamentally flawed, was at least consistent. Now it's just a bunch of reactionary Obama haters.
I was under the impression that "Obamacare" is one of the first things that's going to be axed as soon as the USA gets its next Republican president... which is inevitable at some point in the future, given a two-party system.
Not at all clear-- the president can neither pass nor repeal legislation. Even a Republican president would have to work through Congress to do so, and unless both chambers are also Republican, this may be difficult.
In any case, though, the reason that Republicans are trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act so urgently is that they believe that once it is in place, people will like it so much that it will be impossible to repeal. So if this is true, then no.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
What do you mean by demographics? The Us population is getting older, which is traditionally more Republican demographics. Oh, you mean the huge influx of Latinos. Right, I understand now. Only, in their own countries Latinos tend to elect fairly conservative governments so once the Democrat deception regarding the immigration issue stops working, things might change.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
>> Lots and lots of late nights and weekends as people get ready for go-live
Translation: "We've been sandbagging hours with folks in India and newbies right out of college for months. Now we may need to actually pull some of our senior guys off sales and deep-end pissed-off customer calls and see if they remember how to program again."
As for the second part, people in this country don't get turned away because they're poor, they get medicare or medicaid (depending on age).
Some do. Some don't. Some have too much money for medicaid, but not enough to pay for a big hospital bill. Some charge hospital bills on their credit cards, and then go bankrupt when they can't pay them (sticking you and me with the bill). Some can't get credit cards, and use the Emergency Room for health care. Some just die.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917
"Reuters) - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Here's the facts. I am a resident of British Columbia. I pay about $127 per month in Medical Services Premiums. For that I won't be given a bill at any hospital or any doctor if I have a medical issue. If I need a scan or some other diagnostic test, I will not be billed. Furthermore, if I end up needing healthcare in Prince Edward Island, I will still be protected.
Shoot, that sounds fantastic! Why can't we get something like that here in the U.S.?
Because we got FREEDOMS!!!!
So you think because it has "affordable" in the name, that it actually is affordable. Don't you know of the tradition of that bills in congress are given names that are exactly opposite of the bill's effects?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Religious right most definitely does not own the Republican party. It has moved more to the right fiscally, but it has become less religious.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Here's the facts. I am a resident of British Columbia. I pay about $127 per month in Medical Services Premiums. For that I won't be given a bill at any hospital or any doctor if I have a medical issue. If I need a scan or some other diagnostic test, I will not be billed. Furthermore, if I end up needing healthcare in Prince Edward Island, I will still be protected.
Shoot, that sounds fantastic! Why can't we get something like that here in the U.S.?
Because we got FREEDOMS!!!!
Especially the freedom to bend over and take it...
Yeah, totally, just like the entire progressive movement died after that total failure of government largesse, Social Security. People old enough to remember Social Security all agree on how terrible it was. Nobody liked it because it was a government takeover of medicine, just like the conservatives said when it was passed. Nobody ever again got to see the doctor of their choice, just like the conservatives said when it was passed. It was unaffordable and bankrupted the country, just like conservatives said when it was passed. It was very unpopular, was never expanded, and people cheered when it finally died a short time later.
Yeah, totally.
Before clicking on any health care related article in Forbes, you need to ask yourself "am I about to read something written by Avik Roy?" If so, just stop. He spews crap. Now, I have not actually clicked on your link yet, but I am about to. And we will see if my powers of prediction are at all accurate.
In Canada:
A married couple with no children pay, on average, $11,381 in government healthcare premiums.
Those premiums cover 70% of healthcare costs.
The other 30% of costs are paid out of pocket.
89% of the time, the time for an appointment is less than 90 days.
11%of the time, you have to wait more than 3 months.
For any doctor other than a GP, the average wait time is longer than 30 days.
Patients are not permitted to pay for faster service.
Patients are not permitted to pay for higher quality care.
Patients may pay for services not covered by the government program.
In the US, costs are similar, but slightly higher. Wait times are measured in hours, not weeks. If you're not satisfied with one doctor, you can get a second opinion from another doctor.
The US system is of course not perfect. It does have (had?) a lot of advantages over the Canadian system.
And what, you don't think the US system has a ton of horror stories. My run-in with serious illness was my wife's thyroid cancer, and the only real delay was because the initial symptoms aped salivary gland blockage. Within days that that specialist figured out that it was a probable tumor (initially they thought a carotid body tumor), we were driving to Victoria to see an ENT (ear-nose-throat specialist) whose specialization was cancerous tumors. She had surgery a few weeks later, which identified it as a thyroid tumor, and the big delay for removing the thyroid gland (total thyroidectomy) was that she had to heal sufficiently from the initial surgery.
Yes, there are delays and rationing, but really that happens in any system. In the US, in many places, rationing is basically defined by the size of your wallet. In Canada and other countries with universal systems, it's defined by utilization.
The public health system saved my wife's life, and other than her need to take thyroid replacement hormone for the rest of her life, she has fully recovered. Furthermore, I was laid off right in the middle of this nightmare, and the end result was that there was no bankruptcy or loss of our house.
I'll take the odd delay in treatment over no service at all or going bankrupt to save my loved ones' lives. If you like the American system so damned much, I urge you to move there.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The government figures say a married couple with no children pay on average $11,381 in government healthcare premiums, and pay $3,414 for medication and other expenses.
Adding those two official numbers, that's $14,795 per year, or $1,232.94 per month for two people.
Two hours for an X-Ray sounds short for the US. Note that all those people who can't afford health care wait until they're really sick and then the clog up the emergency rooms. Which means that if you have a broken bone you sit and wait while the person next to you is coughing from the flu.
Also you'll be able to get care for that back in the future. In the US this won't happen if you can't afford insurance, you'll get emergency care only followed by a string of bill collectors calling to threaten you. The US system only works so far as you've got stable employment at a medium sized company or larger. If you're a food services worker then forget it, you will probalby never be offered health insurance or be able to afford it and just have to hope that your spouse gets insurance on the job.
These "freedoms" and more are available... but they come at a price.
For instance? No problem...
The county where I live offers an anus-puckering discount on poor families wanting to buy a home (imagine this - being offered a decent home in a neighborhood full of $250k homes for a mere $27k at 0% interest. No, that's not a typo.) Only thing is, the county gets to stop by and make sure you're still poor during the 5-year 'mortgage' period, else the rates and total price rises accordingly. Oh, and CPS gets to check in on your kids any time they want, among other governmental visits that would otherwise demand a warrant.
Groceries? No problem, present an appropriate sob story and proof that you lack income, and most states will lavish you with an EBT card. 'course, unless you get creative about how you dodge it, there's an approved list of foods you can and cannot buy.
Car payments? Well, most metro areas do subsidize free mass transit if you make less than a certain income level... but really - it's mass transit. That means you're stuck with living within walking distance of it, and no further.
How does this relate to healthcare? Well, there are folks already demanding that people be forced to wear health activity monitors if they want that subsidized health-care... but you're forced to buy the subsidized plan if you cannot otherwise afford it on your own, so guess what happens if you have the misfortune to be impoverished? Yup - the government now owns your health.
Long story short, the "freedom"s are there, but the dependencies and (IMHO) conditions you subject yourself to in order to receive them are, well... about to become rather dehumanizing.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
You'd take the US system because you have enough money to participate in it. Healthcare is ALWAYS rationed. Currently we ration it based on who can pay the most. I'd rather it be rationed based on who needs care most urgently. Societies that choose this method always pay less as percentage of their GDP on healthcare, and get better healthcare outcomes than the US system.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Investigate (from reliable sources ) how health care works in countries that have it, and you really must learn the meaning of the word "socialist" or you'll wear it out. Before long it won't even be a boo-word for your troops. anymore.
And what portion of the total federal budget is taken up by SS today?
Negative 85.6 billion dollars.
Social Security has a net surplus right now. That will over the course of the next couple decades as the boomers retire, but that can be fixed by (for example) allowing the tax ceiling to be adjusted with inflation.
It's funny that you would claim our ideology thrives on misinformation and lies. Perhaps you're doing a bit of projecting?
What website are you looking at? Specifically.... this does not correspond with anything that I've read for BC, Alberta, or Ontario.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You're lying. Or perhaps just regurgitating lies you heard on Fox or AM radio. Not a big difference, either way.
Here's an official Senate report showing that removing the tax cap would ensure the solvency of Social Security for over 75 years (the maximum duration in their calculations).
Do you see how I keep citing numbers and figures? I'm able to do that because I'm telling the truth.
Democrat stooge here with my "snarky" replies. Please enjoy.
Every trick in the book is on the table with this thing. By hook, crook, nail, and claw... this thing is going down or it will be so horribly scrambled that the democrats will wish it did die.
I can't really respond to this one. I will agree that the law isn't without issue. A lot of us on the progressive side believe in universal health so this was not the bill that we wanted. The good thing is that it does allow states to opt out of the implementation so long as they can provide their own implementation. Vermont is actually doing this in providing universal care to all its residents, but if your state has better ideas, then you do have options.
Granted, opting out of the law isn't an option. I'm sorry for you feel that you don't need health insurance, but I will that I am glad that you will have it when you need to go the hospital.
Politically, the republicans were completely sidelined for this thing. Utterly emasculated.
This is a talking point I hear a lot and I'm sorry, but it just is not true. The original legislation was drafted by three democrats and three republicans. Baucus ultimately shut down the drafting because Grassley was intentionally dragging his feet. I watched all the open committee hearings as the law was being debated because I was about to quit my job and deeply concerned about my family not being insured. Yes, there were lots of ridiculous amendments that were voted down without discussion, but there were lots of republican amendments that were accepted as well. For example, John Ensign was deeply concerned about the implications of the mandate and his suggestions were incorporated into the law.
To survive as a political organization, the republicans need to so thoroughly annihilate this move that the democrats for generations to come remember it.
Repealing the health care law alone will not save the republican party. Changing demographics is the huge issue. Can you believe analysts are predicting Texas may go purple in the next ten years? Granted, these are democrat analysts and may be foolishly optimistic, but they are actually investing money into the state which says more to me than press releases.
Let me opt out and we have peace. That's all we've ever wanted in this venture. Let people vote with their feet. If its such a great program you wont' need to force people to join it. If you do need to force people then its not actually a great program you irredeemable lying aholes.
Unfortunately, when it comes to healthcare, we are all in the same boat. To really let you opt-out of the health care system would mean forcing health care providers to require proof-of-insurance or ability to pay before being treated. Lack of proof would mean no treatment. I just don't see any other way.
As a long time slashdot user to another slashdot user, hang in there.
You must be too young to have 1st-hand experience in this bit of history.
First, Nixon was very far to the left in the Republican party (he implemented wage & price controls and created the EPA while hugging Communist China and trying to make nuclear arms deals with Russia that favored the Russians) but he got the support of the GOP base because [1] he had a history of fierce anti-communist action earlier in his career and [2] in each election cycle he cozied up to the social conservative base... not very hard to do given that BOTH parties used to be primarily Christian, with Democrats having somewhat higher penetration onto the Jewish communities. NOBODY in national politics back then would publicly embrace ANYTHING homo-, or drug-, or abortion- or athist-related.
Barry Goldwater was not a prophet, nor was he a conservative... the man was very Ron Paul in his views (i.e. a Libertarian) though not the same in his public persona. Barry had the strong support of a certain political block in his earlier races, and when they came back to him years later to beg him to run for president as a standard-bearer for conservatives within the Republican party he felt morally obliged to do it... which is why he ran that race (and his lack of desire to actually win was probably part of the problem with that campaign). The young conservatives at that time begged Barry to run because the establishment GOP was pushing the usual Rinos (not called that back then) like Mitt Romney's dad and the Rockefellers, none of whom were for smaller, constitutional government.
The modern GOP is FAR to the left of the GOP of 1980 (many modern Republicans have gone Libertarian on social issues like abortion, gay stuff, and half the current Republicans in the senate just voted to fund Obamacare...) you just think the GOP has moved right because the modern Democrats have moved so far left so fast that the gap between parties has grown very wide. Just 8 years ago, EVERY Democrat running for President was opposed to "gay marriage"... Democrat President Bill Clinton signed DOMA and "Don't Ask Don't Tell" military policies. During the 1980s Democrats used to scream and hollar and stomp about deficits and they repeatedly demanded Reagan negotiate with them on debt cieling limits... now they yell that the limits do not matter and they are printing money faster than anybody in history ever has...
Of course it's not a party but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a platform. This list is a good start seeing that most Tea Party groups endorse it and most Tea Party congressmen have signed up to it:
From http://contractfromamerica.org
1. Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)
2. Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nationâ(TM)s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)
3. Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)
4. Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 wordsâ"the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)
5. Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitutionâ(TM)s meaning. (63.37%)
6. Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)
7. Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isnâ(TM)t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)
8. Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)
9. Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)
10. Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2013. (53.38%)
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
If you like the American system so damned much, I urge you to move there.
For some reason when this topic comes up, we never seem to hear much about stories like this:
Report: Thousands fled Canada for health care in 2011
A Canadian study released Wednesday found that many provinces in our neighbor to the north have seen patients fleeing the country and opting for medical treatment in the United States.
The nonpartisan Fraser Institute reported that 46,159 Canadians sought medical treatment outside of Canada in 2011, as wait times increased 104 percent — more than double — compared with statistics from 1993.
Specialist physicians surveyed across 12 specialties and 10 provinces reported an average total wait time of 19 weeks between the time a general practitioner refers a patient and the time a specialist provides elective treatment — the longest they have ever recorded.
It's a misleading number. It comes from this study by the Fraser Institute. Basically, they said "the government spends X% of it's income on health care, therefore we can take X% of each citizen's tax bill as the amount that they paid for health care". This is perfectly reasonable on its own, but the GP cherry-picked the number for a married couple with no kids because they have the highest tax bill. This makes Canadian health care costs seem higher than they truly are.
If you do an apples to apples comparison, the Canadians have a clear advantage.
Single adult: $3780 in Canada, $5884 in US
Family of four: $11320 in Canada, $16351 in US
Canadian numbers are from the Fraser Institute study, US numbers are from this study by KFF.
My wife has been through several surgeries as well. I have health insurance through my employer that I pay about 300 dollars every two weeks for. I usually, due to her medical condition, spend about 4500 dollars out of pocket every year. It's a lot of money but it's better than losing my wife. We went through several doctors before we found what was wrong and frankly, if I was stuck with the idiots we started with she'd be dead. It's nice to pick and choose doctors as I've had to fire a few. The hard cold fact of the matter is that it costs a lot of money to keep people alive that would have died 100 years ago. I don't know about Canada's system, I only know the one I've been on for my 53 years and I know it's expensive but it works. The new one being foisted on us is pretty bad and likely to cost as much or more. I remember looking at the bastardized setup they cam up with and thinking that they might as well just socialize health care entirely. What they did has all the problems of both systems with none of the benefits. They passed it and now we're finding out what's in it.
I have health insurance, idiot. My health insurance was deemed illegal by obamacare.
I don't know your situation so I'm only speculating, but it sounds like your policy didn't provide basic coverage. You may not think so, but the law is actually doing you a service in case you end up in a real mess. I would be interested to hear some details about the policy and the process it was deemed illegal.
Premiums around the country are doubling to tripling due to this legislation
The law may have contributed to increased premiums as insurance companies can do no longer discriminate again their customers. But you're not seeing the whole story. Customers have been receiving refunds due to these increases since the law states that 80% of a premium must be used for health care. Over one billion dollars have been refunded in 2012 because of the 80/20 rule. Also, there's also inflation, so there's a whole lot of stuff going on. Just keep in mind that even if the law didn't pass, your premiums would still be going up.
You wanted something. And you didn't care who you hurt to get it. It didn't matter that you were pissing our rights. It didn't matter that it would hurt the economy. Nothing matters to you if you get what you want. I'd call that evil if weren't so oblivious that you didn't even realize it.
We obviously see things differently from one another. I'm interested in why you think expanded health coverage is "evil" and why you see it as a freedom issue. The truth of the matter is that every person will require health care at some point in their lives. By not electing to be covered, I'm paying for your freedom through higher premiums in the worst possible way.
Now as for the mandate ... that sucks. I think we can agree on that. I don't like the idea of government requiring me to purchase a product. I believe in universal coverage. It's the most pragmatic option. We get the most bang for our buck, if we pool our bucks together and buy insurance together as a group. And no one loses coverage.
But here's the thing ... as a nation ... we needed something to address health care spending. Have you looked at the rate of health care spending in our country before the law took effect? It was simply unsustainable. Because of the law, medicare spending is at its lowest in fifty years. That's a huge victory.
I wish Obama had made a push for universal care, then allowed Republicans to negotiate back to Romneycare (which is really what it is) so that Republicans would feel that like "they won" (remember, this is a republican plan once championed by the heritage folks). Now Republicans have nothing to offer outside of high risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions which some states don't even offer.
"You have to pass the bill to know what's in it." - Nancy Pelosi
And this representative from California was re-elected. Huh. Well as Ron White says "You can't fix stupid."
If you wanted to fix the US Healthcare system by making care affordable for all and allowing people with pre-existing conditions to get insured, then it wouldn't take 2700 pages of other crap that's in the legislative package. What we didn't get was:
1) No direct influence over rising expenditures for Medical Care. You have a system which doesn't abide by market forces and hospital administrators get paid millions of dollars in salaries and benefits. When you're seriously ill, you don't usually have the time to shop around so whatever they charge you (or your insurance) is what's charged. Sure, there's negotiations and maximums that insurance companies negotiate but that drives further business through insurance companies, forcing you to deal with them.
2) There was no discussion on tort reform so thousands of ambulance chasers can still sue the doctors and hospitals when your scars comes out a little bit strange. A big component to care is the necessary malpractice insurance which can cost upwards of $200,000 in some high cost states. Add that to office staff, paying the Nurse, the building costs and the medical coder to bill the insurance companies correctly and you can see easily why it costs a lot to see a doctor over a routine sniffle.
3) The Drug companies were let largely intact. There are a few costs they'll have to put up with but they're still expected to rake in Billions in profits under the ACA. Ask yourself why that pill you're taking is $5 and why, if it was allowed, you could get it for $.25. Sure the drug industry will claim that "these are inferior" but really it's a smokescreen.
4) The Single Payer system died. Nobody wanted to go against the big Insurance Firms and their lobbyists so we love big business in this country, so why not throw a few billion dollars their way. Well, they do now have to spend more on direct costs for Insurance which is good but allowing interstate competition and other market driven forces into the process would have been much better. That's what the exchanges are supposed to do but here we have the US Government trying to create markets rather than creating incentives with appropriate regulatory oversight for markets to flourish. Oh wait, considering the Financial Collapse, the Regulatory Process failed, so DC can't be trusted with that.
To be honest, you could have taken this 2700 pages, cut out the BS, the Pork like the "Exchanges" which Deloitte is now merrily feeding upon it seems and done away with it and had legislation that was no more than 10 pages long. Starting next year you'll hear more pigs in DC all lining up because the Feds have just blessed one industry with unlimited monopoly powers and you have to pay what they want to charge you. You have no choice, so invest in big Pharma, Hostpital chains and big medical concerns because they'll be raking it in even more.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Insurance is not really capable of being competitive in the same ways manufacturers are. Insurance companies are more like middle management who go between the employees doing the work and the bosses wanting the work done. The differences in costs and coverage between states is likely due to requirements imposed by the states and the risks inherent in the cultures of the people within those states. That being said, there is a little room for competition to create savings or better services. The ACA will get around much of the state regulatory issues which is why we are seeing a lot of states insurance costs actually increasing. But even though the ACA has provisions in it requiring insurance providers to refund the differences if their profit is a certain amount over the coverage paid out, those same insurance providers will still be required to collect and have the ability to pay out for a worst case scenario developed by their actuaries and approved by the government. That is where the real costs of insurance comes from- they are required to keep a certain amount of capitol liquid and available to cover their obligations. Competition cannot get around that.
Insurance is also not health care. The main reason the health care is so expensive in the US is because the government became involved in it. In 1965, the US created medicare and was so overwhelmed by the costs of it, they created HMOs in an attempt to reduce their costs. They gave people with less of a medical education then your typical EMT, Paramedic or nurse the power to deny procedures in the name of cutting costs. Of course this morphed into a mandatory payment schedule where instead of paying the health care costs that are billed, they average the costs billed for an area and pay the average. This means that if one doc charged $10 for an office visit and another charges $30, the average is $20 and both doctors get reimbursed $20 for the visit. This is despite one office being in a rural town and the other being in a large city where overhead just for having the office might be 3 or 4 times as much as in the rural location. Now this cost billed can also be different than the costs billed to an insurance provider too. Well, what happened is that the medical industry who were getting more then expected, increased their rates to $20 and those getting less increased theirs to $60 so the average is now $40.
After a while, this proved to be way to expensive on the government side (granted, insurance providers at the same place might be charged $40 or less but the discounted rates were never part of the average) so the government started paying a percentage of the average. This meant that while the payment average should have been $40, they would only pay 80% meaning only $32 would be paid out. This was acceptable to some as long as they could bill the patient for the non-covered amounts. Well, that caused a lot of outrage and a law was passed saying they had to accept the payment as payment in full and couldn't go after the difference from the patient. People in the health care industry knew that if their costs were higher, the average would be higher and they would get what they wanted again, so they moved their costs up and the doc visit is now $120 or more. Rinse and repeat as this happened in some form close enough to this to call it accurate several times until the ACA was finally passed.
The Affordable Care Act simply doesn't have any mechanism to reduce costs of health care and by all indicators, it has increased the costs of most health insurance. It might even get worse because insurance companies cannot negotiate steep discounts for in network providers the same way as before. Cutting costs might be easier done if instead of average billing, we paid out a costs plus scheme (actual cost of providing the care plus a percentage of that as profit) on the government side. There will be no easy fix for the insurance side and it might get a lot worse.
By the time the next Republican gets elected President "Obamacare" will be so embedded it will be practically impossible to repeal it, just like it's politically impossible to axe Medicare. That's why they're so desperate to stop it from really getting started now.
Lol.. That's a real funny lie I hear all the time. There is no war on women or poor people. Its a difference in approach about certain things.
Poor people should get a hand up not a hand out. It is more expensive to get a job for the poor right now then it is to stay on welfare and milk the public tit. Of course welfare is the reason why minimum wage is being paid at almost every job in larger cities with large concentrations of poor people. It is the ultimate business subsidy where they do not have to pay their employees a living wage because the government will step in and make up the difference.
The so called war on women is little more then not wanting to use public funds taken from you and me to provide for someone's condoms and abortions.
It makes a good sound bite, it even makes lesser intelligent people believe it. But it is a lie.
Obviously you have never looked into the issues or spent any time dealing with the tea partiers.
Your description couldn't be farther from the truth. Obama has nothing to do with what they are pissed at other then him currently being the one trying to implement the stuff they are pissed at.
With the Affordable Care Act, you are now obligated to purchase something from a third party simply for being born in America or residing in it. Never before has anything like that ever happened in the US or any so called free country that I know of. After a few shootings, the democrats are trying to take constitutional rights (guns) away from people. Whether you support gun control of not, it doesn't stop shootings, just look at Chicago and DC. They have some of the strongest gun control laws and criminals still get guns and still kill people with them. Just last week, 13 people were shot in Chicago.
Decades from now, people will look back and ask where their freedom went. They will see your post and wonder why everyone thinks they are so smart when they aren't.
Quite now.. let him have his delusions for a bit longer. Companies are laying people off, refusing to offer spousal coverage if they work somewhere, reducing hours of employees to not be forced into providing coverage. Unions are complaining that it increases the costs of their coverage- most of which will have to pay the Cadillac health care taxes, but more importantly, this is going to be so expensive, Obama and the senate democrats worked out a deal where the government slushes money from one department to another in order to cover 75% of the insurance costs for congress and their staff from the exchange.
This is a mess of an ordeal and the only people who like it are the people who seem to think "Insurance" is "health care".