Buried In the Healthcare.gov Source: "No Expectation of Privacy"

realized writes "The Obamacare website Healthcare.gov has a hidden terms of service that is not shown to people when they sign up. The hidden terms, only viewable if you 'view source' on the site, says that the user has 'no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system.' Sadly, the taxpayer-funded website still does not work for most people, so it's hard to confirm – though when it's fixed in two months, we should finally be able to see it." Note: As the article points out, that phrasing is "not visible to users and obviously not intended as part of the terms and conditions." So users shouldn't worry that they've actually, accidentally agreed to any terms more onerous than the ones they can read on the signup page, but it's an interesting inclusion. What's the last EULA you read thoroughly?

Comments

How do we get Congress to sign up?

[WillAdams]

I want legislation limiting their healthcare and other benefits to those which are available to the general public.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[jerpyro]

Sadly, I think a lot of people want a lot of things from Congress right now.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[the eric conspiracy]

Congress is ALREADY required by the ACA to use the plans available from the exchange.

Whomever tells you they have an exemption is a fucking liar.

What is now on the table is whether or not Congress (including the staffers who are not particularly well paid) will get a subsidy like everyone else who has employer covered healthcare insurance does.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[CQDX]

This should be the the Republican's argument. Obamacare should be the law for EVERYONE from the President on down. No exceptions. Then we'd see are real effort to get a healthcare system that actually works. And the same should go for income taxes. Every representative should be required to do their own taxes (not hire a CPA) and each should be subject to an audit once each elected term. I guarantee that the tax code would be greatly simplified AND fewer politicians would become career politicians.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[sycodon]

The latest House proposal for increasing the debt limit specifies that the Pres and Congress must use Obamacare. Not sure if that means eliminating the outrageous 75% subsidy or not. I'm sure the Dems will reject.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. Maybe the top of the 1%, but most making millions will still spend mere thousands to avoid huge costs such as hospitalizations, surgery and cancer treatments. It is a small but worthwhile investment for them. Congress gets top of the line healthcare on your dime, though.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[SJHillman]

It seems all the nonsense about Congress being exempt is nonsense. Congress is no more exempt than you or I am (assuming you're an American citizen). However, they do already have health insurance through their employer (the federal government) just like I have insurance from my employer, so I don't need to deal with the exchanges if I don't want to either. Spewing false facts would hurt the Republicans case more than help it... probably why they're not mentioning it. It's even possible some congressional aide did the 2 minute Google search required to find a few reliable sources to verify it.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[mjr167]

Not only that, vote against anyone with a R or D by their name

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Alan Shutko]

Congress and federal employees have an employer-sponsored health plan just like millions of other Americans. The ACA is not intended to replace employer-sponsored plans. Why should Congress lose theirs when nobody else is?

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[harvestsun]

Insurance is, by definition, payment to mitigate risk. If one has the ability to back up that risk, as the 1% do, it is on average better to not get insurance. A bit of a gamble, yes, but the upper class gamble with their money all the time. Although I'm not rich, I still forego insurance whenever possible (such as the "extra insurance" offered for rental cars, which is absurdly high).

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[omnichad]

Or an M.D.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[SJHillman]

It's kind of misleading to say "nobody else is". I know plenty of people who have already had their plans canceled or changed as a direct result of Obamacare; many more have already been warned of sharp premium increases by their insurance company due to Obamacare requirements, which may force some people to cancel plans they can no longer afford.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[cdrudge]

What is now on the table is whether or not Congress (including the staffers who are not particularly well paid) will get a subsidy like everyone else who has employer covered healthcare insurance does.

Republicans tried to embarrass the Democrats by requiring Congress members and and their staff to go to the exchanges. Democrats embraced the proposal except it created the dilemma where the Federal Government has no means to make contributions towards exchange-purchased insurance, and since the government offers insurance but the individuals are required to go to the exchanges, they don't technically qualify for the subsidy either. They shot themselves in the foot with the requirement (not that it's a bad requirement) and they're just trying to figure out how to pay for the benefit they already received.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Jon_S]

This.

Ironically, if the employer mandate wasn't delayed a year (still don't know what was up with that), it would seem to me that Congress could have been fined for dropping coverage for their employees upon the ACA go-live.

Congress is the only employer that is actually required by the ACA to drop their existing coverage of their workers and require them to purchase their own insurance (and contrary to popular belief, you don't have to purchase your insurance on the exchanges; that was just supposed to make it easier - although so far that isn't the case - and would be the only way you get the subsidies if you were eligible for them)

All other employers (above 50 employees) are *required* to provide health insurance to their employees (although enforcement has been delayed a year). So yes, Congress got "exempted", but not in the way the ACA-haters are making it out to be. The "exemption" was actually put in by Charles Grassley, a republican, because he thought that this would kill the bill. However, congress actually said "sure, whatever, we don't have a problem going through the exchanges just like all the people who don't have coverage now". The "exemption" actually requires these employees to get their insurance through the exchanges (or on their own if they want), rather than to just stay on their employer's group plan like most other full time workers in the country.

The only remaining debate is whether to take the money that Congress was previously kicking in as a contribution to their employees' group health care and add it onto their employees' paychecks instead, which seems fair to me.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[cdrudge]

Ironically ACA specifically requires Congress and their staff to go to the exchanges to get their insurance. But since their employer provides insurance as well, it created a quagmire because the law says that they wouldn't qualify for subsidized insurance since the employer has a plan...that they can't get.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Salgak1]

I'd like a few things FOR Congress. Tar and Feathers come to mind, for starters. . . .

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[JeffOwl]

Not me. I don't want a lot. I just want them to do their jobs.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Anonymous Coward]

and you left out about the staffers getting a 73% subsidy. Bias much?
And just wait, ALL HEALTH CARE WILL BE ON YOUR PAYCHECK.
You will be paying with after tax dollars eventually. Why the fck else would our W2's need amendment.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[ComaVN]

If one has the ability to back up that risk, (...) it is on average better to not get insurance.

I don't get why this concept is so hard for people to understand.

Like people taking out insurance for canceling a holiday trip. If you have paid up front for your vacation, then pretty much by definition you can afford to lose that money without ill effects worse than "I won't get to go on holiday this time"

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[sumdumass]

Not quite risk mitigation any more. The pre existing condition clause of the ACA means ypu can wait for the risk to become reality then mitigate costs. That is why it is neccesary to enslave everyone by penalty.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[the eric conspiracy]

I really doubt they have better insurance than I do. Mine is a pretty fucking good Cadillac plan.

And yes they DO have to use the plans in the exchange.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/14/ted-cruz/sen-ted-cruz-says-obama-just-granted-all-congress-/

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[fahrbot-bot]

Insurance is, by definition, payment to mitigate risk. If one has the ability to back up that risk, as the 1% do, it is on average better to not get insurance.

This may be a good strategy for some (most?) types of insurance, like the rental car collision damage insurance you mentioned, but perhaps not for health insurance. Some health care costs can be quite high, far exceeding the price of the premiums, and having/using insurance can get you a much better rate on most of that, lowering your total expense.

For example, my wife died of a brain tumor (Glioblastoma Multiforme) in 2006. The list (non-insurance) price for her chemotherapy medicine, Temodar was $11,000 (not a typo) for a one-month supply (one bottle of pills); her HMO co-pay was $40 (forty) - my BC/BS co-pay would have been 10%. She would have needed 4 months, had she lived longer.

The list price for the treatment she actually received in the 7 weeks from diagnosis to death was about $300,000, but I only paid about $500 - her premiums were far less than the list price of her treatment.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Archangel Michael]

We had a healthcare system that worked fine for everyone that could afford it. But that wasn't good enough for Liberals, so they created a new system that doesn't work for anyone, except those that cannot afford it. This is the problem with Liberals and Leftists. They have no idea what the unintended consequences are, only focusing on the poor people while ignoring the 60% of the people in the middle, screwing them every which way they can. They talk a good game, and people believe the "Yes We Can" sloganeering, which is why they keep getting elected.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[sumdumass]

My understanding of the exemption argument is that obama and congress will be subsidizing the healthcare of congress and staffers indepentent of the law's income qualifications through executive order and a slushfund.

That would certainly seem like a special exemption to me. The rest of the citizens who have to purchase healthcare do not get government subsidies unless their income is low enough.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Samantha Wright]

Are you sure? The harder they fail at fixing the current mess, the harder it'll be for them to get hired afterwards. Nothing disillusions the supporters of a broken system like its colossal, unmitigated, blatant failure.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[roccomaglio]

I'd like a few things FOR Congress. Tar and Feathers come to mind, for starters. . . .

This website was created by the Affordable Care Act, which is commonly known as Obamacare. It is considered Obama's signature legislative achievement. How are you blaming Congress, yet ignoring President Obama's involvement?

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are getting a subsidy like most everyone else who has employer-provided health insurance gets a subsidy. For example, lucky for me, my subsidy is 100%.

It's just that since their employer is legally forbidden from providing them health insurance, they have to get their subsidy in this way.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Curunir_wolf]

However, they do already have health insurance through their employer (the federal government) just like I have insurance from my employer,

Except they have much better (platinum) coverage, and they don't kick in ANY part of the premium. You do.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Roman Coder]

Think he was speaking towards the current shutdown of the government, moreso than the ACA.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Aqualung812]

I'm very sorry about your wife's death. I'm not sure how I would cope with that.

I would like to (delicately) point out what might have happened if you didn't have health insurance. Rather than paying $300,000, you and your wife would have had to come to terms that her time on Earth was now limited because you simply were not rich enough. Happens every day on this planet.
Instead of painful chemotherapy, she would have been taking less expensive drugs to manage her pain while the two of you (or your families) spent her last 7 weeks of life focusing on her & enjoying the time you had.

I've known many people that have gone down this same road of clinging to life in pain instead of coming to terms with death.

As someone that has gone through this, looking back, which do you think would be better?

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Trailer Trash]

The Republicans just pushed such a bill and it went down in flames. It would have (among other things) forced Congress and the President to use Obamacare.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Qzukk]

without ill effects worse than "I won't get to go on holiday this time"

The next sentence is "but with the payout from the insurance I'll go on vacation next time."

As opposed to "oh well, I didn't need that stupid money or some dumb holiday vacation."

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Mitchell314]

Or an I. Or L.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[paiute]

Rather than paying $300,000, you and your wife would have had to come to terms that her time on Earth was now limited because you simply were not rich enough. Happens every day on this planet.

...in the Third World and the United States.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Jon_S]

Exactly. I didn't leave anything out. I specifically said

The only remaining debate is whether to take the money that Congress was previously kicking in as a contribution to their employees' group health care and add it onto their employees' paychecks instead, which seems fair to me.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[nbritton]

I'm sorry to hear about your loss, It's fortunate that you did not have to become assistant manager at Los Pollos Hermanos. Seriously though, what happens to a spouses medical debts when they die? I'm presuming they can only go after joint debt, has anyone had to legally separate from their spouse to protect them from these costs?

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Anonymous Coward]

7 weeks? I wouldn't be surprised if the chemo helped her along to the great beyond.

Somebody paid the price of a large house... for exactly what? That's the cancer racket. They'll take everything you have for the hope of a few more days. And if not your money, then the money in your HMO pool.

And by the bye... I fail to see how Obamacare is going to fix *that*.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Mitchell314]

Because the concept is wrong, and missing another very important concept in economics, psychology, and even biology. Informally speaking, when a person (or thing) has a large, important investment or resources/time/energy, it is more significant to lose the same amount of resources than to gain it. Even if the person can recover from the losses. And before some smart-ass replies, no, this is not the fallacy of sunk costs.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Dishevel]

Obama did not write it. He has no idea what is in it.

Congress had to pass it before they could figure out what it meant. This was written by lobbyists and bureaucrats each piece designed to make money for some individual company with no regard to what it means on the whole.

Every congress critter that votes on any piece of legislation that they do not understand should be thrown of of their position. After they are raped and killed. Any law that can not be understood by someone without a law degree in 20 minutes should be null and void. Complicated laws are always wrong.

And fuck every piece of shit that has said "Their ought to be a law" in the last 50 years.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Frobnicator]

We had a similar situation with a family member and cancer. He lived for a year, and we estimate the actual medical costs involved approached the millions of dollars. That isn't our only story. One of my nephews was born almost 3 months prematurely and had major developmental problems; he is now in his mid 20's living a fairly normal life in spite of seizures and a few other physical side effects. My brother described how is lifetime medical costs paid by insurance is well over fifty million dollars over my nephew's life.

I don't know how much of that money is due to companies raising their rates to the maximum that insurance will pay out, or how much of it is due to the actual expenses of the products and services. And I don't really care.

The US is among the last first-world countries in the world where quality of health care is dependent on your own personal wealth, or the roulette-wheel of your employer. It is a shame.

Looking over history, much of how insurance benefits have developed were good. The US was one of the first to help people pay for medical costs, but back then it was through company-provided medical care rather than insurance as medical care was harder to come by. Smaller companies paid into the big companies for medical services, and that evolved into medical insurance systems. At the time it was a very good thing, because while people could afford routine care they often couldn't afford advanced care. Advance a few decades and most modern nations have advanced it a step further, moving from individual profit-driven businesses running healthcare over to a tax-based service. Their costs are generally much lower and the services are generally equal or superior. Not always, but generally.

The insurance programs in place now are certainly much better than not having anything in place, no disputing that. But there are better options that allow universal health care.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Krojack]

A job most of them can't even do in the first place?

The only thing they can all agree on and very quickly is to give themselves a pay raise.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[bensode]

The medical debts that were accumulated under my insurance plan come in my name up to my wife's passing (not OP but similar circumstances). It is my understanding, as explained to me, I'm the policy holder so they come to me as joint liability. I haven't tested any of this in court yet and they still show up under my credit report. At some point in the near future I am going to need to get this all put together.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Frobnicator]

Are you sure? The harder they fail at fixing the current mess, the harder it'll be for them to get hired afterwards. Nothing disillusions the supporters of a broken system like its colossal, unmitigated, blatant failure.

In total agreement.

Both sides are constantly blaming the other for the deadlock in Congress. They haven't passed a budget since April 2009. That is one of the things the Constitution requires them to do, and they haven't done their job in almost five years.

Both sides blame the other. And both sides are right. It is like the expression "No individual raindrop believes it caused the flood."

Just like the raindrops, it isn't an individual drip that caused it, it is ALL of them together. Even the ones that are trying to make it better, they still bear some responsibility for the problems. Because ALL of them are responsible, ALL of them should be fired. Many people say "Not my congresspeople, they represent my views!" No. All of them contributed to the mess, ALL of them should go.

I don't want to see things fail. I would much prefer to be watching a colossal success and the establishment of policies that the entire world holds up as monuments to human achievement. Instead we are watching doomsday debt clocks, there are discussions about global economic collapse, and millions of people wonder about losing their livelihood. I don't like watching things fail, but if they do fail, I hope it fails in such a way that people will again seize control of government, rather than letting government seize them. The best failures are the ones that lead to change and future success.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Deadstick]

(such as the "extra insurance" offered for rental cars, which is absurdly high).

Not only high but usually redundant, because a decent policy on your own car usually covers you in rentals. YMMV.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[omnichad]

The MD wanted to give medicare to everyone

You got me there. I think the individual mandate was such a horrible trampling on the Constitution that I foresee it being used as precedence for all sorts of nasty future laws. I'm all for public healthcare, but not being forced to make a private purchase.

When Obamacare was voted in, I was in a financial state (lots of debt) where I was making enough money (gross pay) that my fines for not buying insurance would be fairly steep but I couldn't afford either insurance or even the fine. I realize that if public healthcare were voted in my taxes might go up a similar amount, but possibly not - because everyone would be paying into that. Even the ones who have their own private insurance now.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[lgw]

Health insurance isn't really insurance though (more's the pity), it's the powerful negotiator at the pricing table. Without it, you pay about triple.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[bigpat]

ACA is full of bad requirements... That said. If a large employer doesn't offer health insurance, which is essentially what the law is saying about Congress and the White House since they would not be offered insurance, then they would go into the individual market and then based on income would either qualify or not qualify for subsidies. Seems pretty simple to me.

Usually a large employer would be required to offer plans or pay a penalty, so really the only difference here between how this would work with Congress versus another large employer is that it would be redundant and wouldn't make sense for the government to pay itself the penalty for not offering a health insurance plan.

Sure, Congress and the White House would have to pay higher salaries to their employees to retain people, but it seems like the benefit of transparency outweighs what would likely just be an offsetting cost of providing money for people to buy their own insurance. Really, this does have the effect of making Congress and the White House live with the worst case of Obamacare... as an individual having to see the full cost of insurance premiums when your employer opts out of providing subsidies or provides the bare minimum of subsidies.

People's experience with Obamacare is going to differ greatly based on circumstances, having the people that make and administer the law experience the worst case of a non-compliant employer putting their people on the individual market seems to me only fair.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Bartles]

I buy excellent individual insurance now. My application to enroll on the exchange was just rejected, and I was told I need to enroll in medicaid, because my income is too low at 174% of the poverty line. I just got some quotes for insurance purchased off the exchange and my cost will increas 300%-500%, making buying insurance impossible for me to afford. So everyone is not going to be paying taxes into that. In fact I just got moved from the taxpayer to the dependent category. This law will be a disaster.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[dosilegecko]

Your views on this government really align with mine, I thought I was the only one who thought this way. There should be no such thing as career politicians. They are exactly what is wrong with this country. Obamacare is also a train wreck for small businesses. I have seen this first hand.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Valdrax]

I would like to (delicately) point out what might have happened if you didn't have health insurance. ...

I would like to (delicately) ask, "Who do you think you are to question the way another family dealt with the painful loss of a loved one and to imply (delicately) that they went about it all wrong by insensitively prolonging her pain?"

The condescension dripping off this post is just galling, as is the implication that people might be better off without healthcare for taking away the option of fighting to live as long as possible. That isn't your decision to make for anyone but yourself.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Bartles]

And yet, before Obama became president, we didn't seem to have problems passing budgets. At what point is pragmatism going to reemerge? At some point people will recognize that there's a common denominator underlying all these problems.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Bartles]

What I'm seeing from these stories, is that healthcare currently is anything but dependent on the wealth of the patient. That 20 something kid received medical care in the 10's of millions of dollars range. Do you really think there are many places in the world where he would have received that level of care?

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Bartles]

politifact ceased to be reliable a long time ago. It's a mistake to judge a website by it's url.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[lgw]

You're not legally allowed to get an employer subsidy for a plan bought on an exchange. Congress and staff will be buying plans on the exchange next year, but are (illegally) still getting the subsidies (they also get exceptions reserved for companies smaller than 50 employees). Of course, they could just change the law to make special exception for themselves, but then everyone would be talking about it. Hopefully more people will notice this and be talking about it anyway.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Bartles]

A member of congress makes $174k a year. They are not eligible for subsidies. At least they wouldn't be if they weren't a member of congress making the same amount.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Bartles]

You can put me in that group. My application for enrollment on the exchange was rejected on Sunday. I did some quote checking on ehealthinsurance.com and my insurnace will increase 300%-500% next year. I'm not sure what I"m going to do. Btw, my application was rejected because my income was too low.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Bartles]

It went down in flames in the senate, and a veto was promised if it were to pass. It passed in the House.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[nightsky30]

Obama did not write it. He has no idea what is in it.

And yet he signed the bill. I think every person that had some part in the passing of that bill is equally responsible. There should be more responsibility, integrity, and intelligence in the creation of new laws.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[kommakazi]

The ACA actually requires Congress to sign up for healthcare via the exchanges.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[kommakazi]

You're already required to buy auto insurance.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[SJHillman]

It was in response to his first statement that this is the argument that Republicans should be using. My whole point was the Republicans shouldn't use it as their argument because it's largely untrue. Why not spend a few minutes working on elementary reading comprehension skills?

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Aqualung812]

First, I'm asking, not telling. If it were me or my wife, I'd likely do the exact same thing they they did.
I've not gone through this. I've heard others that have say they wish they would have let go instead of fight it. I was curious if he felt the same way.

Second, to answer "who do you think you are": As someone who pays for insurance but has not had such an expense, I'm one of the people that paid for her procedure.

It is very hard to have these conversations, but they are needed.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[AllenABQ]

Your question about the employer mandate being delayed in answered in the article below. It also explains the impact. Specifically RAND Corporation conducted a study on the issue. Only about 1000 companies, or 0.02% of all companies that must comply with the ACA will take advantage of the delay in the employer mandate to 2015.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/10/obamacare_obama_mandate_delay.html

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[LordLimecat]

Obama signed it. Its his constitutional responsibility to know whats in it.

Sorry, Im not buying that he rallied for it and signed it but had no idea what was in it.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, before Obama became president, we didn't seem to have problems passing budgets. At what point is pragmatism going to reemerge? At some point people will recognize that there's a common denominator underlying all these problems.

The Republicans? If you recall the Republicans did the same thing they are doing now when Clinton was president. Since Reagan their M.O. has been to spend and borrow recklessly while they have control of the White House and oppose everything when the Dems have the White House.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[QRDeNameland]

Not if you don't drive. That's an important distinction from mandated health insurance.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[kommakazi]

Then pay the tax for not getting insurance and please don't go to the hospital when you're sick or injured unless you have cash up front.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Even more to the point, only if you drive on public roads (don't need insurance to drive on private roads). Furthermore, at least here in California you can legally self-insure and not buy car insurance. That option isn't available in Obamacare - even if you're insanely wealthy like Gates, Brin, or Zuckerberg and can easily afford to pay for your own medical care - you can't. You have to buy insurance regardless of ability to pay for your own costs.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Here's your list of Senators to tar-and-feather. And here's your list of Representatives to treat likewise. Not to mention the President who signed it into law. A good portion of Congress opposed the law - but partisanship ruled the day (in fact, the only bipartisan thing about Obamacare was in OPPOSITION to it, not in favor).

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[mopower70]

You do realize that ALL Federal employees have access to benefits that are not available to the general public, right? Kinda like I don't have access to your company's pension or 401(k) plans.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[omnichad]

And that's exactly what a lot of Americans who don't abuse the system were already doing. Until I got group insurance from my employer, I couldn't even afford to insure and I wasn't able to go to a doctor for 5 years or so. An exception or two when I needed antibiotics and could afford to or had to rack up credit card debt - otherwise I couldn't afford health maintenance in any form at all.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Are you sure? The harder they fail at fixing the current mess, the harder it'll be for them to get hired afterwards. Nothing disillusions the supporters of a broken system like its colossal, unmitigated, blatant failure.

In total agreement.

Both sides are constantly blaming the other for the deadlock in Congress. They haven't passed a budget since April 2009. That is one of the things the Constitution requires them to do, and they haven't done their job in almost five years.

Actually, a budget was passed in the middle of FY2011, and again in FY2012 and FY2013 There were no budgets in FY2009 and FY2010 - years that coincide with Democrat control of Congress.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[thoth]

We had a healthcare system that worked fine for everyone that could afford it.

Your definition of "worked fine" is strange - denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, medical bankruptcies even for those covered....

They have no idea what the unintended consequences are.

This isn't even two weeks old, quit the drama crybaby routine. Universal healthcare works in every other advanced country, and in the U.S. as well (Medicare, VA).

What exactly are you fighting for - the right to be ripped of by insurance?

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Health insurance isn't really insurance though (more's the pity), it's the powerful negotiator at the pricing table. Without it, you pay about triple.

I was always able to negotiate lower costs of dental care and routine physicals, when I self-insured. Pay cash, work out a deal, and it was lower cost than what insurance would cost. Did that for 10 years without much of an issue - just carried catastrophic health insurance with a $10,000 deductible that covered 100% above that level (which sounds extreme, but actually ends up being a better deal than the new Obamacare plans I have to choose from).

My doctors were always willing to bargain for cash-up-front - saved them a lot of costs and headache and waiting on payment for 60-90 days from the insurance company. Cash-up-front does wonders in more than just buying cars and homes...

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Rather than paying $300,000, you and your wife would have had to come to terms that her time on Earth was now limited because you simply were not rich enough. Happens every day on this planet.

...in the Third World and the United States.

You can include Canada and the UK in that list as well...

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[newbie_fantod]

...her chemotherapy medicine, Temodar was $11,000 (not a typo) for a one-month supply (one bottle of pills)

The people setting the $11,000 price on a single bottle of pills will be able to afford good healthcare. I don't think the government is the main problem here.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[gangien]

despite what so much of /. and the internet seems to think, there's a difference between a theory that we evolved from monkeys and whether organisms evolve. He has quite clearly stated his stance.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Digital Vomit]

Sorry, but you're going to have to clarify your comment here because of Poe's Law.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Dishevel]

I am not saying that Obama is not a piece of shit. Just that the horrible piece of nation destroying crap with his name on it it not fully his fault.

There is a lot of blame to go around. It starts with the citizens that want things given to them.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[cayenne8]

You're already required to buy auto insurance.

Not if you don't own a car, or choose not to drive it on public roadways (you can build your own race track on private land and drive all you want w/o insurance..or any other privately owned land).

In some states...you don't have to buy insurance even if on public roads, if you can put up into an account an amount of money (I forget the exact term)...like into escrow or something for emergencies, but it is private savings, nothing you have to purchase from a company.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Dishevel]

Constitutional responsibility is running real short in all levels of government.

On the other hand it seems that Constitutional guarantees includes everything but a lifetime supply of Twinkies.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[QRDeNameland]

Then pay the tax for not getting insurance and please don't go to the hospital when you're sick or injured unless you have cash up front.

First of all, although I'm a US citizen, I live in Canada, so I have no particular stake in this. I'm just pointing out the logical and legal deficiency in equating requiring someone to purchase auto insurance (which can be avoided if you don't drive) and requiring someone to purchase health insurance (which you can't avoid at all).

I'm not saying the mandate is evil per se, but it *is* unprecedented. And as someone who has experienced both the US and Canadian healthcare systems, and fully acknowledges that the Canadian system has its issues, Obamacare does seem like an unnecessarily intrusive clusterfuck, mostly for reasons to appease the insurance industry and having little to do with improving the quality or cost/benefit balance of US healthcare. Frankly, I'm glad to not have to deal with it.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[lgw]

Yeah, but that's all cheap care anyhow. It's the care you get when you're incapacitated and can't negotiate where you get ganked. However, that catastrophic plan provider would be doing a lot to help you in that case.

Obamacare seems destined to destroy actual health insurance (plans like yours, AKA "major medical") in favor of plans for people with no savings, which is a shame really. Why can't we have both?

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[fahrbot-bot]

... if you didn't have health insurance. Rather than paying $300,000, you and your wife would have had to come to terms that her time on Earth was now limited because you simply were not rich enough.

I knew the moment I heard the diagnosis of GBM that she was going to die - median survival with standard treatment is 15 months, w/o treatment 4.5 months and I don't think anyone has lived past 2 years. Her tumor was basically inoperable because of location w/o serious quality of life detriment, which shortened her survival a lot - that was her decision and I understood her reasons. Ultimately, money was not a factor in this case - or these cases.

Instead of painful chemotherapy, she would have been taking less expensive drugs to manage her pain while the two of you (or your families) spent her last 7 weeks of life focusing on her & enjoying the time you had.

Her radiotherapy and Temodar weren't painful, but the medicine made her nauseous for a while after taking it, though that got better, and her headaches (from the swelling) were mitigated well with Solu-Medrol. We had always spent most of our 20.5 years together well and did most things together. The last 7 weeks were just more special because we knew our time together was coming to an end.

I promised her that she would never be left alone and never be in any pain. In the end, I kept those, and all my other, promises to her. You can read about her at the URL below and a short creative non-fiction story about us under the "Remember" link.

As someone that has gone through this, looking back, which do you think would be better?

It would have been better had she lived. Remember Sue...

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[fahrbot-bot]

I've heard others that have say they wish they would have let go instead of fight it. I was curious if he felt the same way.

I didn't take your post as condescending or mean-spirited, just uninformed about such illnesses, their treatments and the treatment process - as I imagine are most people who haven't gone through this.

She died after just 7 weeks, barely after recovering from her initial incident and finishing diagnostic tests (biopsy and scans) to confirm GBM and rule it out as a secondary tumor (that might be "curable"). The "fight" had actually just begun. She still had 1/2 her radiotherapy and (likely) 3.5 months of Temodar to complete. Still, we knew her treatment was most likely palliative from the start.

Her tumor was right next to her brain stem and trying to resect it would have caused paralysis on almost the entire left side of her body. Furthermore, GBMs are diffuse not lump type tumors, so trying to remove them is like trying to remove a mound of salt from within the center of a full sugar bowl w/o removing any of the sugar - oh, and leave even one salt crystal behind and it start all over again... It was the swelling of or around the tumor that herniated her brain stem and put her into a coma for 7 days until she died - she signed a DNR and donated her body to science - I have done / will do the same.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[profplump]

You can self-insure for medical insurance in most states as well. Self-inusrance is nothing new and the ACA doesn't change its availability. Contact your state's insurance commissioner for details. (And stop posting misinformation once you've done the research).

I'd also be happy to give you a waiver if you agree never to use any of the public health services that would otherwise be available. Exactly how you'll guarantee that you'll never be injured or stricken ill (or that when you are you'll only accept care from non-publicly-funded facilities and services) is a bit beyond me, but if you can work that out I'll write my congress critters and ask them to remove you from the individual mandate post haste.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[wooferhound]

Boycott Obamacare ...

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Frobnicator]

Are you sure? The harder they fail at fixing the current mess, the harder it'll be for them to get hired afterwards. Nothing disillusions the supporters of a broken system like its colossal, unmitigated, blatant failure.

In total agreement.

Both sides are constantly blaming the other for the deadlock in Congress. They haven't passed a budget since April 2009. That is one of the things the Constitution requires them to do, and they haven't done their job in almost five years.

Actually, a budget was passed in the middle of FY2011, and again in FY2012 and FY2013 There were no budgets in FY2009 and FY2010 - years that coincide with Democrat control of Congress.

The budget year starts October 1st each eyar. The 2011 appropriations (they never did fully complete the budget) were put together in 7 emergency spending resolutions followed by a semi-budget that was passed six months late. The 2012 budget was similarly a bunch of emergency resolutions, the first was 18 days late lasting until December 16, then December 23rd, etc... The 2013 budget was yet another "continuing resolution", and another, and a December 31st debacle where they didn't compromise on the funding until 2:00 AM on January 1st, and passed the final resolution on March 20th, just five months late.

Sorry, but passing the annual budget six months into the fiscal year is NOT doing their job, and isn't really "passing a budget". Both of the parties are responsible for this garbage.

A perverse part of me hopes the government will implode badly enough that they all get replaced.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Aqualung812]

Thank you.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[omnichad]

I already have group insurance now - how can I "boycott it" and show support for all the people that can't afford either insurance or the fine?

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[sycodon]

Obama didn't even look at it...Rejected.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Monsuco]

I want legislation limiting their healthcare and other benefits to those which are available to the general public.

That's actually become a good chunk of what the shutdown fight is over. Republicans originally wanted to essentially kill Obamacare via the budget (a total pipe dream for them). They basically gave up on this. Now they're basically asking for two things. They've been calling for a repeal of a tax on medical devices (something a lot of Congressional Democrats have, in the past, also called for) and they're demanding that Members of Congress and their staff purchase healthcare off of the Obamacare exchanges.

The Democrats have countered by claiming that Congress & staff already have to purchase off the exchanges. That's *sorta* true. They do have to purchase off the exchanges but they get a stipend most Americans don't get. If they were to pay out of pocket, they'd get far less bang for their buck when buying healthcare. There have been claims that were such a program to be implemented Congress might suffer from a "brain drain" because staff would quit if the benefits weren't as good. From the looks of things, if we're talking about a brain drain in Congress I would say that ship sailed long ago.

There's also been a lot of squabbling over whether to even begin negotiating. House Republicans have called for a sit-down between the two chambers to come up with some sort of compromise. Senate Democrats have declared that compromise has no place in the legislative process. Occasionally President Obama has chimed in with the "democracy means do as I say" rhetoric. My guess is that we'll just see the can kicked down the road for the next 4 years or so.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Dishevel]

The law as written is over 300,000 words. Over 11 million words of regulations have been written for the law. Over all. As any real percentage of what is going on with this law. He has no clue. Neither do any of the senators or representatives who voted for it. What they know is a small percentage of the law as it was when they voted on it. Changed by executive fiat and 11 million words of regulations pertaining to it.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[avandesande]

You could probably buy it for a lot less in another country. The monopoly enforcement of the US drug companies is outrageous.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Archangel Michael]

Universal Health Care doesn't work everywhere. I have relatives in France, and while HealthCare there IS Universal, it is Universally Bad. Most people try to avoid the system as much as possible because of how bad it is. AND it is going bankrupt.

... national insurance system has been running deficits since 1985 — it currently stands at $13.5 billion.

http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader/2007/06/29/is-french-health-care-really-better/

Of course, if all you read is HuffPo you have a different view of the world.

And actually, my view is that Insurance should be for CATASTROPHIC care, like Car Insurance. Meaning you take care of the Oil, WiperBlades, Brakes, regular Maint stuff, and only use insurance for accidents. Doctor Visits, Prescriptions, basic tests, minor expenses should not be covered by insurance. ONCE the marketplace is engaged again, you'll see competition lower the price and improve over all quality, by giving people the means to find what works best for them.

I'd also like to see universal pricing by Health Care providers, such as Hospitals and Clinics. One price for everyone, no discounts for being in one insurance rather than another. The idea of "negotiated pricing" is a huge part of the problem.

I would love to see Emergency Rooms be able to turn people away if they were deemed to not be an "emergency", and sent to a clinic / free health care center. I recently had an "accident" (to be covered by insurance, see above) with my eye. I sat in the Emergency room for two hours because wait caused by people in there because of "flu like symptoms" and the like.

Finally, I would love to see incentives by government rather than demands. We are slowly turning into a state where government runs people, rather than the other way around. Remember, this Republic was supposed to be Of, By and For the People but lately it seems to exist for itself.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Uberbah]

Obama did not write it. He has no idea what is in it.

Right. That's why he negotiated away the public option in secret to the for-profit hospital lobby a year before signing the actual bill. Or making the same deal with the same lobbyist that he slammed in a campaign ad when he was running for president. Because he was just a Helpless Bystander.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Uberbah]

The list price for the treatment she actually received in the 7 weeks from diagnosis to death was about $300,000, but I only paid about $500 - her premiums were far less than the list price of her treatment.

Sorry to hear about your wife. But that sounds like excellent employer-provided insurance, but the ACA doesn't provide for good insurance, much less excellent. The 'most affordable' plan, Bronze, caps your out-of pocket expenses at over $6000. Which is better than $300k, but more than enough to bankrupt many families.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Because it's not fair that some have saved money and earned a good amount, and they have options those who have done neither don't have? Remember, we're dealing with a President who doesn't really care about results, but more about what's "fair", even if it costs money to do it.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[LynnwoodRooster]

I don't think there is a PPACA exception for individuals to self-insure; companies can self-insure but individuals, TTBOMK cannot.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[ffflala]

Any law that can not be understood by someone without a law degree in 20 minutes should be null and void. Complicated laws are always wrong.

I hear this complaint a lot. I can certainly understand the frustration behind it. The problem is that the conclusion --"the law should always be simple!"-- is just plain wrong.

A lot of the basics of law are pretty straightforward. After all, you don't need a law degree to understand that killing, stealing, raping, arson, etc are against the law. The reason why law can get so complex is because the world is a complex place, humans are complex creatures, and it is apparently in our nature to continuously look for exceptions, workarounds, and other ways to hack the law for fun and profit. Take billions of us, hundreds of thousands of different types of organizations, interests, and activities, throw in the inevitability of entropy, and things naturally become very complex indeed.

You might as well complain that medicine, human history, or even the universe itself should be simpler.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Magius_AR]

The only remaining debate is whether to take the money that Congress was previously kicking in as a contribution to their employees' group health care and add it onto their employees' paychecks instead, which seems fair to me.

Fair??? Countless other employers drastically altered the insurance options available to their employees as well as the share of the premiums they were willing to cover as a direct result of ACA. Namely, those of us that work for other employers lost significant chunks of our "benefits". Why the hell should Congress maintain theirs when they're the ones that passed the damn thing? I certainly didn't see a paycheck increase after they stripped my plan and doubled my premiums.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[sumdumass]

The law says the have to participate in the exchanges. If you want to raise thier salaries, then do it instead of trying to backdoor something in. The rest of the country that lost their employee insurance because of implementations of this law do not have the government paying the difference when they have to use the exchanges. You or i will not have the government making up the forced costs we have to endure if we either pay the penalty or get insurance through the exchanges. Or do you think the millions of people having to pay something they previously did not wasn't a cut in pay too?

The entire idea behind putting the requirment that congress and its staff uses the exchanges was go subject electef officials to the same damn laws the rest of the country is subject to. The only flaw i can see is you thinking government is special and do not need to be under the same set of laws the oppressed subjects of that government have to follow.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[ComaVN]

The money you pay in this kind of insurance is ALWAYS more than the expected cost for an individual (ie. the chance they actually have to pay you times the average cost of a canceled holiday)

That's how insurance companies make money. If it was any different, they'd go broke.

So, the payout is basically your own money, and on average, you'd have more money if you had just saved it.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[mcgrew]

You got me there. I think the individual mandate was such a horrible trampling on the Constitution that I foresee it being used as precedence for all sorts of nasty future laws. I'm all for public healthcare, but not being forced to make a private purchase.

Agreed. ACA was a gift to the insurance companies, who are the single reason US health care is so expensive.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[david_thornley]

Depends on the situation. The expected value of the loss is always less than the total premiums (for any insurance company that has a prayer of staying in business), so it's pointless to buy insurance for a routine expense. (Such as my dental "insurance", which covers a lot of routine costs and will not cover really big dental expenses. I wouldn't pay for it myself; I'd rather pay my dentist on a routine basis and have coverage that kicks in for costs above $3K. As it is, it's basically extra compensation from my employer.)

For the ordinary annual vacation, you're best off not insuring it. If you've been planning and saving for a really expensive one, a once-in-a-lifetime thing, you may well want to insure that.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[david_thornley]

Yup, dependent on wealth and luck here in the US. I've got really good insurance (my 2012 heart attack got excellent care with minimal direct cost to me), and I'm pretty sure it would poop out well before $10M. I don't remember any insurance without some sort of lifetime cap, usually so high I'd likely rather be dead than undergo all that treatment.

If you're one of the tens of millions of people in the US without health insurance, you don't get that kind of treatment. If you get health insurance through employment, it depends on what your employer is willing to provide. If you're paying for yourself, I don't know if no-cap insurance is available, how expensive it is, or how easy it is for them to drop you after the first million or so. I suspect very few people are lucky enough to get a policy without some sort of cap and unlucky enough to need it.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're already required to buy auto insurance.

No, you are not. You can choose to not drive on PUBLIC roads. You can drive all day in an unlicensed and untitled car as long as it is on private land. Ever heard of a race car? And the "required" LIABILITY insurance is meant only to protect others from your mistakes while traveling on the shared public roads. There is no parallel between auto and health insurance.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[jwilso91]

The Democrats have countered by claiming that Congress & staff already have to purchase off the exchanges. That's *sorta* true. They do have to purchase off the exchanges but they get a stipend most Americans don't get. If they were to pay out of pocket, they'd get far less bang for their buck when buying healthcare. There have been claims that were such a program to be implemented Congress might suffer from a "brain drain" because staff would quit if the benefits weren't as good. From the looks of things, if we're talking about a brain drain in Congress I would say that ship sailed long ago.

Speaking as a US taxpayer... members of Congress and their staff made a choice to spend their career attached to the public teat. They should not have done so if they didn't like the taste.

Similarly, you could view the "shutdown" as an exercise in showing us, the public, who in government we could do without. Turns out to be almost all of them. A mass reduction in force is in order, beginning with those who have been going out of their way to make trouble for taxpayers. As the minions of government have been telling us for years, things are bad everywhere. Time to make them bad in Washington as well.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[ffflala]

Law is complex because the world is complex. Are you able to understand that concept in under 20 minutes, without a law degree?

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[nightsky30]

Are you sure? The harder they fail at fixing the current mess, the harder it'll be for them to get hired afterwards. Nothing disillusions the supporters of a broken system like its colossal, unmitigated, blatant failure.

In total agreement.

Both sides are constantly blaming the other for the deadlock in Congress. They haven't passed a budget since April 2009. That is one of the things the Constitution requires them to do, and they haven't done their job in almost five years.

Both sides blame the other. And both sides are right. It is like the expression "No individual raindrop believes it caused the flood."

Just like the raindrops, it isn't an individual drip that caused it, it is ALL of them together. Even the ones that are trying to make it better, they still bear some responsibility for the problems. Because ALL of them are responsible, ALL of them should be fired. Many people say "Not my congresspeople, they represent my views!" No. All of them contributed to the mess, ALL of them should go.

I don't want to see things fail. I would much prefer to be watching a colossal success and the establishment of policies that the entire world holds up as monuments to human achievement. Instead we are watching doomsday debt clocks, there are discussions about global economic collapse, and millions of people wonder about losing their livelihood. I don't like watching things fail, but if they do fail, I hope it fails in such a way that people will again seize control of government, rather than letting government seize them. The best failures are the ones that lead to change and future success.

Very well stated.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[phrackthat]

The Republicans? If you recall the Republicans did the same thing they are doing now when Clinton was president. Since Reagan their M.O. has been to spend and borrow recklessly while they have control of the White House and oppose everything when the Dems have the White House.

And Democrats do anything differently when Republicans occupy the White House? Oh yes, Democrats are pure and white as the driven snow while Rethuglicans are the spawn of Satan and servants of their corporate evil overlords.

Of course, Obamacare was not written by legislators (entirely Democrat in its support) but by insurance industry reps who stood to profit greatly on the back of the middle class and through forcing every every man, woman and child to purchase their product. The AARP supported Obamacare, against the wishes of their members, because the AARP would benefit from Obamacare to the tune of $2.8 billion.

As Pelosi said "We won't know what's in it until we pass it." Now we do, to our great sorrow: millions of jobs cut to part-time, full-time jobs that will never be created, billions in additional debt, the IRS having its nose in our medical histories, the middle class bearing massive insurance hikes in order to create new entitlements to pay for Democrat votes, the demolition of privacy in our medical care and stripping away choice from millions in their healthcare decisions.

For fuck's sake, the Democrats couldn't give a rat's ass about their constituents - they care only about power and serving the corporate interests that have supported them. Seriously -- you didn't clue into Obama's nature when he was asking people to report on their neighbors if they spoke out against Obamacare?

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[kermidge]

I'm retired and receive OASDI. Because that amount is so low, I also get a small SSI check. Lastly, because my income is so low, my state pays my Medicaid premium. Given how my life has worked out thus far, I know it was a close-run thing and I'm fortunate for what I do have. So thankfully I don't have to go through what I see other people having to deal with.

Point is that for grins I used the calculator at Kaiser - http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/ - and got a shock. Using my income, it turned out that my total premium was essentially equal to said income. I was too poor for subsidy. (Results are posted in my journal.)

WTF?

That's some crazy shit, man, number ten thousand. Whether the Prez intended to sell out to the oligarchs or has no balls I dunno; at this late stage it really doesn't matter, I suppose. I think he should have pushed for single-payer right from the start. Alternatives would have been to expand Medicare for all and fold in Medicaid via a method like the exchanges (w/o the craziness, of course) or to have said that what the House gets, all get, or vice versa.

And if this hidden no-privacy shit is so, then the ACA sucks beyond belief. Thing is, there are some likeable provisions - no turn-down for pre-existing conditions, emphasis on results - outcome based, with an eye towards prevention rather than crisis, publicly posted rates for procedures and tests from all providers, and the attempt at rational fee structure. One key fuckup was folding to Pharma.

And yes, for all that's right, ER for E stuff, clinics for the rest. Kicker is ensuring that clinics are available - I do note that some companies, Walgreen's for example, are getting into that and that should help. I've lived in too many places where you either could afford to go to a doctor or you went without. That situation leads to what are effectively a lot of walking wounded. Healthy (and happy) workers work better. Too many in power can't seem to get that simple thought into their heads - that, or they get their jollies from the pain of others.

Case in point: all those crying about "socialized" this and that the past forty years should take note of the study done by the GAO (or maybe it was OMB, my memory sucks) back during Nixon. It showed that the economic loss due to simple illness alone was more than three times the cost of the most expansive national plan ever proposed. If memory serves it's one of the arguments Nixon used in his effort to get a national health plan.

There's a lot of good people out there, living on a pretty decent planet despite all its dangers; it never ceases to amaze me that we spend our lives with so many getting fucked over by so few. From my own life and what I know of others' I know that life can be hard enough all by itself. We don't need assholes making it worse. (I apologize for all the profanity. It's no excuse, I'm just really browned off by all this... stuff. Selah.)

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[Bartles]

Thanks for sharing. I have put up a lot of other posts that go a little further in detail. I don't think we'd ever agree on single payer, but it looks like we both see this boondoggle for what it is.

Re:How do we get Congress to sign up?

[fuzzy2k]

Obama signed it. Its his constitutional responsibility to know whats in it.

Where in the constitution does it say the President shall be intimately familiar with all the details of every document pertaining to legislation that he signs?

He has other lawyers that augment his reading of onerously lengthy legislation, but I imagine he knows better than you what is in the ACA.

The article is about hidden text in a web page file, not the law. I think you misunderstood that.

This article is troll bait of the worst kind, non-news drawing out the haters and supporters of the objet d' Hate. The second paragraph says, in slightly different language, "this headline and paragraph are meaningless." I do not understand why it is posted in a public space. Personally, I'd be embarrassed to claim any ownership of the article up top.

Re: How do we get Congress to sign up?

[kermidge]

That's one of the things, it's come up in other discussions - one on drug laws and related issues: when reasonable people, even from a variety of diverging views, cast aside any ideological biases, arriving at potential good solutions is possible, simply because, IMO, it becomes more of an engineering and cost/benefit thing - thus straightforward problem solving. As you may know, getting people to that point is not always a trivial exercise. [grin]

Single-payer, once ideology is removed - usually the straw-man bugaboo of "socialized" - it's generally simple. The "devil is [not] in the details", it's in design: fitting the shapes and mechanics to a given populace with it's unique social, economic, and political structure. Even here, it's often more of matter of flavor than structure.

SP doesn't, or wouldn't, given good design, preclude or punish alternate personal choice. There are plenty of examples showing what works and what needs improvement. Let history guide rather than provide red-flag examples for demagogues.
Edge cases usually show hidden ideology or design flaws. Put the rest to fair arbitration with bias to helping the human get treatment w/o breaking him.
All the arguments against of which I'm aware fall away when clearly examined. But being nothing more than a 'concerned citizen' means I may have missed something. That's why we [need to] have good people doing fair, open, problem-solving, mindsets.

We don't have to agree, a priori; we need only seek making sure that we don't screw people trying to see a doctor and get treatment. Again, prevention beats crisis. It may sound stupid as all get out, but take a handful, a dozen people dedicated to real fix, given 'em research runners, stick 'em in a room for a couple of weeks with all the pizza and beer they need, problem solved. And for output, if nothing else try a few different things, region to region, demographic to demographic - in engineering there's room for experiment and prototyping. Whatever came out of that room would be a long sight better than the mess we have now.

But, as others have pointed out, getting to the point of being able to even have a real discussion (drugs, security, immigration, voting rights, national ID, surveillance, secret courts, budget, wars, neutral Internet, intellectual property, patents, prescription medicines, genetic research, TSA, trade agreements, outsourcing and offshoring, fracking, strip mining, etc.) has been... problematic. What I fear most now is that in many areas unless (was it John Brunner, "The Sheep Look Up") "the public" wakes up and presses for discussion, if they even see the need for it, we're screwed.

We've turned ourselves into a nation in economic thrall to a group of multi-nationals, a handful of banks, the interests of a few hundred who own half the country, and get all our commercial media - including news - through six companies.

But, anyway: cheers, and thank you; good luck to us all.

Data mining

[Anonymous Coward]

The gov finally caught on as most greedy corps do.

Re:Data mining

[Bartles]

The courts regularly rule that We The People don't have standing to challenge this stuff. We The People have been made irrelevant.

No surprise here

[Anonymous Coward]

Could is be that the people running this show are doing it purely out of self-interest, rather than "for the people" as the age-old saying goes?

Odious terms of service etc

[Anonymous Coward]

Last one I read was for Google Chrome. After reading it, I decided NOT to install Chrome. At age 75 I will NOT allow anyone to update my computer without my express permission.

Re:Odious terms of service etc

[somersault]

At age 75 I will NOT allow anyone to update my computer without my express permission.

What does age have to do with keeping your software up to date? You're actually just increasing the chances that your computer will get owned if you leave security updates on a manual update schedule.

Re:Odious terms of service etc

[somersault]

That's like refusing to get a fault in your airbag fixed just because it's YOUR car, stop trying to CONTROL me you evil bastards!

Re:Odious terms of service etc

[somersault]

Security updates are the closest you're going to get to a "life saving feature" on a computer, so.. yes.

Re:Odious terms of service etc

[Salgak1]

Actually, he's taking charge of his own risk management, examining patches and determining if they're applicable. I seem to recall a McAfee update a few years back, that incidentally "bricked" a sizeable number of XP boxen. . .

Re:Odious terms of service etc

[drinkypoo]

It's more like the brakes. The airbag is just for you. The brakes are important for both you and everyone else.

Re:Odious terms of service etc

[Valdrax]

For me, it was AT&T cell phone plan. I read it in detail because the service rep at the store where I purchased my replacement iPhone just clicked through it without my permission. When he couldn't go back a screen to look at it, I ended up with a print copy to review.

What came out was a shrink-wrapped 2"-thick mini-novel on (IIRC) roughly 6" x 4" paper. Boggled at the size of it, I sat down and started skimming the whole thing to see just what kinds of terms would take up such a stack -- and it wasn't because the thing was in multiple languages! It was largely endless repetition of mostly the same terms for different services & products as well as on behalf of various third parties. Totally wasted verbage as far as I could tell, but who knows what little poison needles they hid in that haystack that I just missed.

It was simply ridiculous. I ended up holding up the kiosk where I was being checked out for 45 minutes or more. It's unconscionable to expect a customer to actually have read that thing and for courts to act like it's reasonable to expect that they should.

(And no, it wouldn't have been a clever out to just say, "I didn't agree," as result of him clicking it. Continued use of the phone & plan as well as paying my bill would be more than enough to constitute acceptance.)

EULA Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Practically every EULA is just complicated legalese for one simple sentence: "Fuck you fucking fuckers!"

Re:EULA Translation

[ameyer17]

No, it's more like "We own you, bitch"

Re:EULA Translation

[AkkarAnadyr]

Well, it's in very small print, so as not to affect the sales.

Cut & Paste

[wherley]

This is boilerplate language from many Federal sites and would seem to be a template cut/paste thing. Examples:

https://logonsm.faa.gov/dotrso/certoptional/myfaa/

https://ampedc1.cms.gov/amserver/UI/Login

http://hsesacpt21.smdi.com/jsso/SSOLogin

https://fedstar.phmsa.dot.gov/FedSTAR/Default.aspx

etc.

Re:Cut & Paste

[0xdeadbeef]

You mean right-wingers have deliberately taken something out of context so they can have a three minute hate? I don't think that has ever happened before.

Re:Cut & Paste

[magarity]

Except that health information should be covered by HIPAA. Users should have expectation of total privacy of their data.

Re:Cut & Paste

[lgw]

Stereotype much? I first saw this on right-wing sites, were it was very clearly point out that this wasn't in the actual EULA and was just some copy-paste thing.

But sure, go on believing that the only reason people disagree with you is because they're stupid, that way you don't have to consider their arguments: saves time and all.

Re:Cut & Paste

[Bartles]

Actually, Roe V Wade determined that we have a constitutional right to privacy of our medical information. I can't wait for that case to make it to the SC.

Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number

[andy1307]

I know this is slashdot but stop digging. Here

Re:Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number

[P-niiice]

welp, fox news as "news source" hyuck hyuck

Re:Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number

[sycodon]

Because Infrastructure of a national program doesn't count towards the cost of that program?

So the website itself cost "only" 50 some million. In order to make it work, they needed hundreds of millions more. If Obamcare never passed, how much of that money would be spent?

Re:Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number

[Nidi62]

Because Infrastructure of a national program doesn't count towards the cost of that program?

So the website itself cost "only" 50 some million. In order to make it work, they needed hundreds of millions more.

So if it costs, say, $50 million to build a bridge, and the roads that the bridge connects (and therefore makes the bridge actually work and be useful) cost $1 billion over 50 years, the bridge construction is 50 years late and $1 billion over budget?

Re:Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

And this unused text string suggests the site is assembled from boilerplate, rather than a real custom, and thus expensive job.

I would expect well-tested boilerplate, by the way, to keep costs down. But it is government after all. We can do both! We don't have to choose! We can have cheap boilerplate and grotesquely expensive costs. We don't have to choose!!!

Re:Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number

[sycodon]

If you had no plans to build a bridge somewhere (say, Alaska) and the bridge costs $50 million, but in order to get people to the bridge so they can cross it, then yes, the costs of the additional roads, etc to "make it actually work" is included in the costs.

If there was no Obamacare, there would be no website and no need for all the extra costs to enable it.

In other words, the engine is part of the cost of the car even though it is separately itemized in the price.

Re:Stop pushing the bogus 643 million $ number

[SJHillman]

If those extra roads exist solely to service that bridge, then yes.

Its *not* $634M

[dieswaytoofast]

Even the source link points out that its not $634M (except, since it does so in a "Fair and Balanced" way, you can't really tell)
You can either actually read the article in gory detail, or better yet, go read this breakdown of the numbers.
TL;DR --> its around $55.7M (which is still a lot, but is - decidedly - not $634M)

Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about a comment in a webpage that has no legal standing, and quotes a right wing talking point that isn't true: http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/360892/no-healthcaregov-didnt-cost-634m-greg-pollowitz

Whew!

[sycodon]

Well, that makes it all OK then!

Re:Whew!

[Sockatume]

Inasmuch as it implicitly limits those terms' scope to the informational parts of the web site, and not its functional as a healthcare data repository, yes, it is reassuring.

Unintelligible EULA-Terms of Service

[BoRegardless]

You need to be a practicing contract lawyer in the field the EULA operates in to understand what they mean.

Last time I tried to read a EULA was on Microsoft's site. I read for maybe 15 minutes and hadn't finished more than a third of the document when MS's website cut me off for 'inactivity'.

EULA's are a joke from any typical user's standpoint.

Microsoft's attitude is part of the reason they get so little respect.

Re:Unintelligible EULA-Terms of Service

[i.r.id10t]

Of course, there are the simpler EULAs... like the GPLv2. Short, easy to read, not too much legalese, fairly easy to understand.

Re:Unintelligible EULA-Terms of Service

[SJHillman]

One of the beginner classes I had to take in college was on different OSes. We were required to read every OS EULA before we installed it. And we were quizzed on it.

I won't say it's amazing how much crap you agree to (I'm looking at you Notepad, with your fancy limiting the number of cores I can run you on), but it's amazing that someone took the time to come up with all of that crap.

Re:Unintelligible EULA-Terms of Service

[SJHillman]

That's the EULA equivalent of an include. Now go read your volume license agreement. It should also be noted that different versions of Notepad have different EULA terms. I believe it's XP (and possibly others) that includes mention of processor restrictions.

Sooo...

[Reverand Dave]

I thought that language is now a part of all american birth certificates. "Upon being pushed from an american vagina you have absolutely no expectation of privacy or actual security" or something like that.

Re:Sooo...

[drjoe1e6]

"Upon being pushed from an american vagina you have absolutely no expectation of privacy or actual security"

My kids were born via Cesarian, you insensitive clod!

Re:Sooo...

[Reverand Dave]

There's a footnote clause for that my man, no worries, the NSA has you covered!

Re:Sooo...

[Reverand Dave]

I'm just saying it's a pretty standard part of the TOS.

Re:Sooo...

[smittyoneeach]

It doesn't show, but, whenever they leave the family home, they go out the window--Steven Wright

let me translate that

[slashmydots]

"no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system" translated into HIPAA means "lol this website is completely illegal."

Re:let me translate that

[intermodal]

That was my first thought upon seeing this. This is a pure violation of HIPAA. If my company did this, we'd be sued into oblivion in no time, provided anyone bothered to read what they signed.

Re:let me translate that

[Bite The Pillow]

It is standard boilerplate, with the HIPAA violation commented out. No part of this is either illegal, or a story. This is the definition of a non story, and your willingness to believe anything bad about Obama specifically or government in general let you swallow this horseshit whole.
Please think before spewing more nonsense. And moderators, there is no +1 fits my preconceived notions". You have an obligation to minimally fact check.

Re:let me translate that

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Actually, I read:

"no reasonable expectation of privacy"

. . . as . . .

"no reasonable expectation of healthcare"

Re:let me translate that

[Bodhammer]

"no reasonable expectation of competence"

There, fixed that for ya...

Re:let me translate that

[Bartles]

This is correct. My application for enrollment in the federal exchange was rejected because my income was too low. Bet you didn't know that could happen. My choices to replace my current excellent insurance policy next year, are to enroll in Medicaid, or pay %300-%500 percent more than I do now, for inferior coverage. In other words, I'm going to be on Medicaid next year, as that is not a really a choice at all.

"If you like your insurance, it will soon be priced out of your reach and you will be forced to take Medicaid."

That's not the promise I remember.

It's commented out

[TheSpoom]

It's commented out, so users aren't agreeing to it. No court in the land would argue that users were in actuality agreeing to the HTML source of a click-through EULA. This is hyperbolic bullshit.

Re:It's commented out

[bobbied]

Agreed.. It's just boiler plate US government stuff that you see on most of their computers and websites. It's there to tell authorized users that they are subject to monitoring and have no expectation of privacy when you log into the machine.

This language is there to prevent users from claiming that their personal information was improperly monitored when they where on the government owned system. But of course, that situation really doesn't apply here, now does it?

Re:It's commented out

[smittyoneeach]

I saw "Hyperbolic BS" doing a five-year jam in the Oval Office.
Ticket price was beyond outrageous.

Ignore the whole damn thing

[fustakrakich]

It's cheaper, and you're better off just paying the fine, and wait until we get medicare for all.

Re:Ignore the whole damn thing

[SJHillman]

From what I've read, there's a big loophole in it so you don't have to pay the fine either:

"Oh, and the IRS has no authority to go after someone’s assets or wages in order to collect the penalty. It only has the authority to deduct the penalty from a person’s tax refund at year’s end. It won’t take long for people to figure out how to fix that problem by trying to ensure they have only enough withheld to meet their tax obligation. Those who are uninsured and successful at hitting the tax mark will face no effective penalty."

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/06/27/a-surprising-health-insurance-option-for-those-who-refuse-obamacare/

Re:Ignore the whole damn thing

[Dare nMc]

>you're better off just paying the fine
Only if the entire family are smokers, or they are making a 6 figure salary. You can check it out at http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/
A (non smoking) family making 50k will pay a maximum of $4500 per year. Single people will be half that. those making half that amount will be capped at 3% of salary.

Re:Ignore the whole damn thing

[bobbied]

It may be cheaper now, but I'm told that the fines/tax for not having valid coverage take quite a jump after 2016... Wonder why they picked THAT year.... Hmmm..

Re:Ignore the whole damn thing

[fustakrakich]

Even then, it's still cheaper for me, and cheaper for most if they count the time lost doing extra paperwork that should be the damn bureaucrat's responsibility.

Re:Ignore the whole damn thing

[bobbied]

Personally, I don't have a clue how you think this will be cheaper for anybody but the folks who qualify for the subsidies. Even then, buying coverage might be free, but they will still be paying deductibles and co-insurance costs well in excess of their ability to pay. Once folks realize that they are NOT going to get "free" healthcare, I got a feeling they won't like it. You included.

Re:Ignore the whole damn thing

[Rockoon]

It won’t take long for people to figure out how to fix that problem by trying to ensure they have only enough withheld to meet their tax obligation.

Well thats been me for over a decade now. I declare 3 exemptions on the federal when I actually "deserve" none, and at the end of the year I owe a few hundred bucks because of it. For a few years I tweaked in an addition flat withholding of $5, but then I realized something...

If I declared the 0 exemptions that I deserve I would be making thousands of dollars in over-payments, yet when I declare 3 exemptions that I don't deserve its only a few hundred in under-payments. Clearly there is something seriously wrong if most of the country is giving the government a large interest-free short-term loan every year.

...I decided that fuck them, they can wait until April 15th for their god damned money, and when I am successful not a single day fucking sooner.

closer to $500 million with salaries, servers

[raymorris]

$55 million original estimate for site development
$90 million paid to one company for site development
$500 million total site cost including servers, salaries, etc.

Re:closer to $500 million with salaries, servers

[dieswaytoofast]

Seems to be correct :-)

plausible deniability for developers

[xombo]

The contract was probably bid as protecting people's privacy and legal got to work right away regarding the terms of service.

But, the developers were probably never able to successfully implement, or were not given sufficient resources to implement, a truly secure system. This comment was probably included as a protest to cover their own asses when the contract goes sideways.

Plausible deniability? The client provided the terms of service.

designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[bigpat]

Interesting Forbes article on how healthcare.gov is designed to prevent people to see the full prices of the healthcare plans which is what is causing the upfront bottleneck. On the one hand it makes sense that you don't want to scare people off with high healthcare insurance prices until you know if they are eligible for subsidies, but on the other hand it means you probably have to verify the data entered against what are potentially hundreds of millions of records just to display a screen with prices for the plans.

Seems a better option would simply to take the persons word for it up front, let them see the prices displayed depending on the personal and family information they entered and then only do the background verification after they "checkout" and actually purchase a plan. That way they just get an email later on if there is a problem with anything they entered or if the prices change based on something determined based on the background check and credit check. Or if as news reports suggest they are going to have to go through an income verification process as part of the Senate compromise, then doing the credit check up front in "real time" is an extra step anyway. Could even make the insurance companies do the final eligibility check as part of their 15% commission.

Trying to process through hundreds of millions of records in less than tens of seconds is a stupid thing to try to do just to keep people from finding out what your prices really are even if you have hundreds of millions of dollars to blow through. They could have fully insured 100,000 more people for the money that has been wasted just on healthcare.gov.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[Bite The Pillow]

Getting an email sounds like no big deal. But how would someone react to checking out on any site, and then finding out the product isn't shipping? How about when hundreds of thousands complain about the same thing? Finally, how about when a government agency says you bought something you are required to buy, then says sorry no you didn't?

That would have directly impacted lots of people who don't have the luxury of posting stupid ideas on tech sites.

Even if we take the 635M number, you would have insurance for a single year. People would get checkups and tests and prescriptions and surgeries, then abandon insurance if possible, aka the problem that is being solved here. If it is cheaper to pay the fine and stay on other or no insurance, people will.

Not sure you thought what would happen after someone implements your ill conceived plan, because disaster would ensue.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[the eric conspiracy]

Oh give me a break.

This information is already available on multiple sources and on Healthcare.gov. I am fucking tired of these articles that have NOT been researched or are published with the intent of misleading people.

Plan information from Healtchare.gov without signing in:

https://www.healthcare.gov/find-premium-estimates/

https://data.healthcare.gov/dataset/QHP ... /ba45-xusy

Example of plan information from 3rd party sources:

http://www.valuepenguin.com/

The actual fact is that healthcare.gov. in the first two weeks of operation has made plan price comparisons FAR easier than it has ever been. This could be a major consumer positive event in healthcare.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[wile_e_wonka]

I'm pretty sure I'm not eligible for subsidies. But the system for figuring it out is a joke. It asks if I have any tax deductions such as student loan interest. So, I pulled out my tax return and put in practically every deduction. It isn't clear which deductions are eligible to be deducted.

Even so, between my income and my wife's I'm almost certainly not eligible for any subsidies based on the information I provided. So, for those of us whose self-input information indicates $0 subsidy, why not just let us see the price? It can't possibly be worse than my holy-fraking-expensive plan available through my employer.

So, I agree that they've set it up backward, and should take people's word on showing prices and just say "eligibility for reduced prices will be confirmed prior to purchase." But even with the current backward system, there is no reason that the unsubsidized prices shouldn't be shown for those of us whose information indicates that we aren't eligible for a subsidy.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[the eric conspiracy]

A lot of the states are using ehealthinsurance services for their exchanges.

You are right that the Feds should have done the same. I don't know if it would have saved money, but I bet it would have worked a lot better.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[nbritton]

I can't even get through the forced credit check, Experian asked me a bunch of questions and now I'm blocked from the site for answering their questions, regarding my personal details, wrong. I went to Experian and all they did was try and sell me stuff, I have no obvious way to go forward that doesn't entail giving money to Experian, this is outright extortion.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[bigpat]

That's why when presenting the Forbes article I said "On the one hand it makes sense that you don't want to scare people off with high healthcare insurance prices until you know if they are eligible for subsidies" I think Forbes is spinning the requirement a bit. Because it actually does make sense from a policy and usability standpoint to not scare off people that have low incomes by presenting them with the full unsubsidized prices. For instance if you lived in Ilinois and wanted a "Catastrophic" only plan which has high deductibles and very little regular health coverage and you were presented with the lowest cost family plan which is $556.30 per month. Then it really is better financially to just pay the fine and pocket save the money you otherwise would have spent on minimal health insurance. But if you do qualify for subsidies then at some price point it becomes a no-brainer to sign up for subsidized coverage rather than pay a monthly fine that would be equivalent to a good portion of a premium cost.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[bigpat]

According to every news report I have read the healthcare.org system is basically unusable for signing up for health insurance right now. Having a system that sends an email after the fact if post processing determines more information is needed or something couldn't be verified is better than having people walk away without completing the transaction because your processing is taking too damn long.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[Bartles]

In my experience, this article is absolutely correct. I applied for enrollment on Sunday hoping to see prices and subsidies. My application was rejected because my income was too low. I never did get to see prices. And it turns out the application process is a one shot deal. I can go through the appeal process, but as my income is too low, I can't afford the attorney that would be necessary.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[Bartles]

That is flatout bullshit. Go to ehealthinsurance.com and go through their quote process. It takes less than a minute before you start seeing prices. No go apply for enrollment in the exchange, which you obviously haven't done yet. If you start seeing prices within 4 hours, I will be shocked.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[bigpat]

And it turns out the application process is a one shot deal.

That would be a horrendous design. Another good reason to verify income later on rather than make it a one shot deal. So, what if your income changes in a couple weeks?? What then? If it is a one shot application and you can't revise your inputs then that means you might get a better paying job and suddenly be unable to sign up online for a plan without an appeal even though you might be subject to fines starting January 1st if you are not covered. Actually I really hope you are incorrect and this is just some bad documentation telling you incorrect information.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[the eric conspiracy]

I wish they would get rid of the stupid email confirmation process, or at least make it asynchronous. Otherwise the enrollment process on healthcare.gov is very quick now. They really have made a lot of progress fixing it.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[Bartles]

I actually founded a startup last year. The startup process is involved and capital heavy (but was planned for and is going according to plan). I happen to be living off the startup capital while the business gets off the ground. My personal income this year was essentially zero. The enrollment wizard asked me what my income would be for this month ($0) and to estimate my personal income for next year, and I told it my best guess would be about 20k, which is the bare minumum I need personally to say afloat (everything else stays in the business).

I'm kind of laughing in light of the slashdot article last week that said the ACA is good for people who want to leave their jobs to start a business. In my experience it has been an unmitigated disaster that puts me way worse off than I was before the law. I currently have an excellent health plan that I buy for $165 a month. When I have to renew next year, I will absolutely not be able to afford it as prices for the equivalent ACA compliant plan are %300-%500 of what I am currently paying. A bronze level plan purchased outside the exchange has a $5000 deductible and 40% coinsurance. My current plan has a $500 deduct, and 0% coinsurance and I have Rx coverage. To be honest I kind of feel like crying.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[Bartles]

I should also mention that the application process tells you to notify someone (no explanation of whom) if your income info changes. I have been back to the site, and can find no mechanism for reporting changes.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[Bartles]

That bronze level plan costs more than twice what I am currently paying.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[Bartles]

I actually applied for enrollment on Sunday. My application was rejected because my income was too low. I never did get to see plans or prices.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[Bartles]

You guys keep acting like subsidized insurance costs less than unsubsidized. Someone has to pay for the subsidies, and the insurance companies still get the full price. What exactly did this law do to control costs?

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[Bartles]

All of them do. The really interesting thing is when when you compare costs for a plan that starts in 2013 vs a similar plan that starts in 2014. The differences are shocking, and not in a good way. Ehealthinsurance.com makes this very easy to do.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[grep -v '.*' *]

You're (mostly) right .... then why isn't the first link on the .GOV landing page? And why the F!*K don't I see anyone promoting either link? I know you're not signing up and the prices are only estimates, but that's still a starting point.

BTW: your 2nd link is busted.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[rastoboy29]

Yes, exactly.  That being said, I'm quite disturbed that the credit reporting "agencies" are involved in this setup at all.  Isn't the IRS real enough?

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[malignant_minded]

Doesn't work for New York. You get told you have to https://nystateofhealth.ny.gov/ and cannot get any good estimates without completing the form. There is a downloadable Excel spreadsheet (wtf?) that has tries to give an estimate but it doesn't let you see plans platinum, gold, silver etc. The valuepenguin site works, ty but why do I have to learn about some obscure website just to find information?

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[NonSequor]

That bronze level plan costs more than twice what I am currently paying.

How old are you? If you're young that may explain what you're seeing.

Here's the deal. The individual insurance market has premiums that are heavily biased towards expected claims for sicker people, but if you look at how premiums vary by age and other underwriting characteristics, it's more proportional to how the average claims change with those characteristics.

For group insurance, there isn't as much bias towards the cost of sicker people. The contract bundles the healthy and the sick people together so healthy people opting out is less of an issue. But the demographic component of the cost is basically averaged across the group, plus there is rating based on the actual experience of the group.

The exchanges are basically a group insurance scheme. However, they do allow charging different premiums based on age. The ratio between the highest premium and the lowest premium is capped at 3 to 1, whereas before in the individual market, this was more like 6 to 1.

Monetarily, the law is going to be worst for people who are young, have good underwriting characteristics and who already have individual insurance. But you are also getting a guarantee that you will be able to buy insurance next year. You don't have that under your current plan. Also, that 3 to 1 cap will work in your favor over time. You are getting less per dollar for the upcoming year of coverage, but you are getting guarantees that extend far beyond that year of coverage.

If it were possible to buy an individual insurance policy with guaranteed renewal for life under the pre-ACA regime, I'm guessing it would have cost an awful lot more than that bronze plan since they would have to price in the possibility of you moving into a higher risk class later.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[Bartles]

I am 35 and healthy. Sure, I get that plans for younger healthy people will get more expensive. I don't agree with it, it goes against the spirit of the law. But the result of this, is to push me off of individual insurance altogether, and make me a dependent who will be 100% subsidized. I can afford my insurance easily right now, buying it next year is now a physical impossibility. Is this what the law was designed to do? If you like your insurance, we will make it so expensive you wont be able to afford it and and you'll be required by law to enroll in Medicaid? Is that what we were promised? This law just destroyed my ability to buy insurance altogether.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[NonSequor]

You realize that as someone who was satisfied with the individual health insurance market you are something of an oddity?

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[Bartles]

I see. I am now the sacrifice for the common good. It's becoming apparent to me that we will all have to sacrifice. When everybody has to sacrifice, can it still be for the common good?

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[NonSequor]

http://www.ahip.org/Individual-Health-Insurance-Survey-2009/

In 2008, 12.7% of all individual insurance applications were denied. For ages 50-64, the denial rate was 20-30%.

Did you say you are paying $75 per month for your current plan? For 2009, the national average premium for individual insurance with single coverage and a $500 deductible was $259 per month.

You haven't been the one who's been seeing the worst of the current system and I'm not convinced that you are going to be the one who's seeing the worst of it next year.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[Bartles]

$165 actually. The problem with making the young and healthy subsidize the old, is that the old have the money and the capital, while the young have fledgling careers and mountains of student debt. This is not going to work. Btw, my $165 will be $420 to $700 next year. That is nowhere near the national average for 500/0% insurance.

Re:designed to obfuscate actual prices of plans

[NonSequor]

It does work for group insurance which is what 90% of people who have private insurance have. Most people who have group insurance don't want to buy individual insurance.

Whoops, I forgot to mention that since the survey was from 2009, those numbers have grown with 4 years of medical cost trend (plus one more to grow on to project to 2014). Fortunately that's been lower the past few years compared to the average for the last 20 years. I think it was only a bit over 6% last year, compared to a more typical trend of around 10%.

http://www.aon.com/attachments/thought-leadership/2011_Health_Care_Trends_Survey_Final_FINAL.pdf

Re:Fixed in two months

[daem0n1x]

Quoting a piece of toilet paper like the Daily Mail doesn't give much credit to your arguments.

Stop it already.

[the eric conspiracy]

Healthcare.gov didn't cost 634 million. Even the article the submitter linked to says it didn't. It appears the actual cost is around $55 million.

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2013/10/10/how-55-7-million-doesnt-equal-634-million

Re:NSA, IRS, EPA...

[hermitdev]

A tax for dieing ?

This already exists. But they call it an estate tax.

we paid $500 million for a broken web site

[raymorris]

We paid $500 million to build a web site that doesn't work. That's the bottom line.

Re:we paid $500 million for a broken web site

[smittyoneeach]

It's not like we're PAYING for any of this through legitimate economic activity, reasonable taxed, against a sane government budget.
It's all a pile of crap made up on the fly, to land with a dull thud, hopefully later, likely sooner, on a bunch of disenfranchised victims.

Fed up with the whole lot of it.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not like this, Uncle Sam.
I do not like this health care scam.
I do not like these dirty crooks,
Or how they lie and cook the books.
I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals.
I do not like their speaker man,
I do not like this "YES WE CAN."
I do not like this spending spree,
I'm smart, I know that nothing's free.
I do not like their smug replies,
When I complain about their lies.
I do not like this brand of "hope".
I do not like it, nope, Nope, NOPE!!!

Re:How the fuck...

[geoffrobinson]

You mean like Britain's with higher death rates?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-195277/NHS-death-rates-times-higher-US.html

Re:Wouldn't that be a violation of HIPPA?

[smittyoneeach]

Only if the U.S. were still a place where notions of Rule of Law and Equality Before the Law were more than pleasant memories.

Reflects Current Law

[the eric conspiracy]

This disclaimer is just a re-statement of current law. It just warns people of the actual facts of what happens when they disclose information to third parties.

See US vs. Miller (1979).

Fixed that for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberals: Making more poor people.

Just put a period after the word "people" and you've nailed it, simple and concise.

The Disclaimer Should have Read...

[huffybadger]

The disclaimer should have read, "No Expectation of Freedom."

No free lunch.

[westlake]

I want legislation limiting their healthcare and other benefits to those which are available to the general public.

To what purpose?

In January, the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics' website unveiled a database detailing the minimum, average and maximum net worth of nearly every member of the current Congress.

The research shows many of them are rich. Very rich. The median estimated net worth of Congress is $966,000, according to the center. By contrast, the median net worth of the typical American household is slightly more than $66,000. Ten members had a net worth greater than $100 million on one or both sites.

Is Congress a millionaires club?

The congressman represents a district of about 710,000 people.

Not a trivial responsibility ---

and to do the job effectively requires staffing and money, quite a lot money when you get down to the truth of it.

You can of course outsource the expense to candidates, lobbyists and campaign contributors with pockets as deep as the Koch brothers --- the Tea Party solution --- but you get what you pay for.

dumb

[Sterculius]

Really? We are talking about hidden terms of service that effect exactly nobody? Must be a slow day at Fox News.

The site is extremely broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Usability is non-exisitent:
First you have to fill in your personal details, then you come on a page where you create an account ID and password.
If the account ID you choose already exists, everything gets cleared and you have to fill in your personal details again.

Privacy, enormous amount of tracking going on, some even collect form fields:
Optimizely
Google Analytics Tag manager, the JavaScript is externally hosted so you can anything there.
Doubleclick
Chartbeat
Pingdom
CrazyEgg
govdelivery.com

https://rum-collector.pingdom.net/img/beacon.gif?path=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.healthcare.gov%2Fmarketplace%2Fglobal%2Fen_US%2FemailVerification%3FtrackingId%3D0e7c4604-6a45-468f-a0ff-8fc887996e1f&title=Verify%20Account&id=51f026bdabe53d9e07000000&s=nt&rC=0&nS=0&uES=-1&uEE=-1&rS=-1&rE=-1&fS=1&dLS=195&dLE=196&cS=196&cE=199&hS=-1&reS=196&resS=339&resE=340&dL=345&dI=5162&dCLES=5241&dCLEE=5280&dC=5459&lES=5460&lEE=5466

Nice that it measures where I came from:
168641224.1381850447.1.1.utmcsr=weeklystandard.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/blogs/obamacare-website-source-code-no-reasonable-expectation-privacy_762489.html

They expect you to be able to use public terminals to fill in the form. The cookies contain all kind of private information, they don't get deleted after logout. They are kept for 1 year!

Also easy to commit fraud, eligibility validation is executed in client-side JavaScript!
It provides a nice API without authentication, so you get get social security numbers, birthdates, names and adresses, by just brute force ID's.

Re:How the fuck...

[avandesande]

Yes, because 'health' trumps every other consideration, even quality of life. (not that quality of life is great in the UK!)

Re:NSA, IRS, EPA...

[Kwyj1b0]

Obamacare is different.

Obamacare taxes people for NON-PARTICIPATION in an activity.

Once upon a time, activity was taxed. Obamacare taxes inactivity.

No, the ACA is a tax on those who take part in the healthcare system (hint: by being alive in the US, you do take part in the US healthcare system). Don't like it? Stop being a part of the system.

Wealthy folks have a lot of insurance

[sjbe]

Insurance is, by definition, payment to mitigate risk. If one has the ability to back up that risk, as the 1% do, it is on average better to not get insurance.

You are generally correct but it is a bit more nuanced than that. The question you have to ask is whether the underwriting premiums (the amount you pay) is likely to exceed the benefits paid out to you. As you say, a gamble. If you can afford the loss in many cases it is better to just take the risk as your expected return is higher. This typically comes down to how much is being charged for the insurance premiums. Some very smart underwriters are evaluating the risks and if the underwriting is being done at a profit that by definition means that the insurance costs more than the payout on average. Feeling lucky?

Healthcare insurance is unusual in that if you get ill, you can be financially wiped out very quickly unless you are extremely wealthy. It also is unusual in that EVERYBODY is going to need healthcare at some point which is not true of many other forms of insurance. Health insurance isn't really primarily to pay for your annual checkup but rather to keep you from going bankrupt should you need surgery or other serious medical care. A few days in a hospital can easily add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills - well beyond the means of most people. However as you get lower on the income scale it takes less and less (not linear either) to bankrupt you they need more things covered.

On the other hand if you examine the estates of the very rich (the so called 1%) you'll actually find they tend to have a LOT of insurance. Some of it is for estate planning, some is for asset protection, some is simply a calculated investment. Insurance is a form of investment. Insurance is simply a bet that you are going to have worse luck than the insurance company thinks you will. The advantage you have in that equation is that you have more information about yourself and your situation than the insurance company does. Smart people take advantage of this fact.

Re:Wealthy folks have a lot of insurance

[HornWumpus]

The very rich buy life insurance as a tax dodge. Often after they get a terminal diagnosis. Paying a premium above the value of the insurance for the tax advantage.

Re:Wealthy folks have a lot of insurance

[sjbe]

The very rich buy life insurance as a tax dodge.

I presume you are referring to plans such as Universal Life or similar? Sure, it can be a tax advantaged account. Plus it can have lots of other estate advantages.

Often after they get a terminal diagnosis.

If you take out a sizeable life insurance plan you will almost certainly be required to get a physical. The underwriters will adjust the cost of the plan accordingly.

Re:Wealthy folks have a lot of insurance

[HornWumpus]

Duh. They pay $1.01 million for a $1 million policy. So the cash part of their estate is not taxed. Most of the money would already be in a trust, but for a few loose millions they buy single premium whole life.

Special policies obviously, normal commission rates would make the above deal a non-starter.

THE GPL IS NOT AN EULA!!!!

[mrchaotica]

The GPL is not an EULA (End User License Agreement). The only things governing your right to use GPL software are (1) copyright law itself and (2) whether the person who provided the copy to you had the right to do so. You don't even need to see it or know about it when you're using your copy of GPL'd software, let alone "agree" to it. (In particular, displaying it in an installer and forcing the user to click "I agree" -- as LibreOffice does, to name one -- is wrong and evil.)

By default, copyright law gives the right to use the software, but not to copy and redistribute it. The GPL grants you that right of redistribution, within certain limits that you have to agree to (i.e., the "consideration" necessary in any legitimate contract). But the key thing to remember is that the GPL doesn't start to apply until you try to do something that copyright law doesn't already allow you to do. Therefore, if there's no redistribution, the GPL is irrelevant.

(By the way: EULAs, which try to restrict the rights the user already has under copyright law without giving any consideration in return, should be considered not valid contracts and be held unenforceable except when they're presented and agreed to prior to the user receiving his copy of the software.)

Re:THE GPL IS NOT AN EULA!!!!

[mrchaotica]

Yes, it is. It's also more than that, but to say it imposes no restrictions on end users is false. An end user at law is a non-reseller; the only people it excludes are retail middlemen who possess the goods or services essentially in the form of a bailment. If you modify and redistribute a GPL software package, you're an end user, too.

"End user" in the context of people talking about the GPL means people who don't redistribute. You're using some other unusual and irrelevant definition.

There is no right to use under copyright law. Copyright law does not restrict what you do with a copy you legally possess, but that is not the same thing...

No, you're wrong. If you own a copy of a work you have a right under copyright law to read it if it's a book, or watch it if it's a movie, or listen to it if it's a sound recording, or use it if it's a piece of software. Some assholes once made an argument that you needed some kind of additional permission for software since it's necessarily copied into RAM for use, but 17 USC ss. 117 makes a special exception for software allowing that copy.

Everything else has to come to you in the form of redistribution, which is controlled exclusively by the copyright owner under whatever terms s/he wishes to impose.

But the copyright holder imposes those terms on the distributor, not the receiver (i.e., the end user).

except when they're presented and agreed to prior to the user receiving his copy of the software

There's no legal basis for that.

1. 1. It is a contract of adhesion
2. 2. It is after-the-fact (the agreement and transaction was concluded at the point of sale, before the contract terms were introduced)
3. 3. Because of (2), there is no consideration (the user already has the right to use the software; what else does he get in return for subjecting himself to the EULA's terms?)

is EULA signature binding?

[avmich]

Can it be argued that for EULAs (and by induction for similar documents) there is no expectation of signing person reading all the document? That's clearly what routinely happens today; isn't it a criteria for this conclusion? Next, if there is no expectation that the document is read, how the person could be expected to follow the writing if he/she does not know the content? Doesn't therefore this renders the signature on EULAs - and, by induction, on other documents reading and understanding of which is not routinely done with the reasonable care and time required to fully understand it - void?

Can this be clearly stated in a court of law? This is "a little bit" uphill battle, but doesn't it at least sound reasonable, consequencies notwithstanding?

Re:Its *not* $634M - $1.2 billion contract to Serc

[tocs]

I do not know much about the new health care laws. Certainly, I have no idea what the costs are going to be. So, my question is how does this story, Obamacare glitches give paper applications new life fit into the picture. It sounds a little like the health care program is not going to cost so much as the infrastructure and bureaucracy to support it.

From the link above:
"The Obama administration has been prepared for a crush of paper. Over the summer, it awarded a $1.2 billion contract to Serco, which says it expects to process 6.2 million paper applications in the health law’s first open enrollment period running through the end of March."

READ HIPPA

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing more needs to be said, you are wrong. It is illegal _not_ to expect privacy and illegal to claim you have to provide no security. Work for a HIPPA compliant company before spouting off! Vendors now get fined for open permissions on a file even if the customer opened them.

Re: NSA, IRS, EPA...

[Dare nMc]

never done a tax return? You have income, when you make enough you get taxed, the more income the more tax. ACA is not income, but when you make enough they threaten to tax you. Deductions, when you spend money on things the government approves of you pay less taxes. Save for retirement, give to a church, have/adopt children, or pay for health insurance, your taxes go down (or with the ACA, if you have to pay too much for care at your income, the government pays you.) ACA fits into the tax system, the same as any other tax. Now for political reasons Obama admin didn't want to call it a tax, but it is a tax, with a equal deduction if your a good citizen (in the eyes of the government.)

Re:How the fuck...

[Rockoon]

In the liberal mind it seems to... quality of life gets sacrificed at every turn in the name of "we know whats best for you" or "it helps the unfortunate" or some combination of the two. Each sacrifice creates the need for another, at an ever-increasing rate.

Simply spreading comfort and pain equally is neither equality nor represents freedom. They used to understand this concept, but they lost their comprehension somewhere around the time of F.D.R.

When its worth doing, its worth doing right. If you don't know how to do it right, then how can you possibly know that its worth doing? Therein lies the problem: Guessing because of Feeling because of Ignorance. "Something needs to be done!" leads to "Shit this turned into a big mess, something needs to be done!"

Plight can sometimes be the best outcome. This is reality, not Star Trek.

Re:NSA, IRS, EPA...

[jbeaupre]

There are lots of people who are healthy and don't see a doctor, nurse, or any other health care provider over the course of a year. They are not participating in the health care system that year, but are being taxed that year.

You might make the argument they could end up going to a doctor at some point in their lives and so are participating. But that's still making an assumption that might not be universally true.

Re:Fixed in two months

[Bartles]

No one in the untied states has legally been denied treatment for a broken arm in decades.

Re:Fixed in two months

[Bartles]

United, lol. But that may turn out to be a predictive error.

Just covering for their masters

[damn_registrars]

This is just the government giving the health insurance industry even more plausible deniability for when they fuck up. This shouldn't surprise anyone, as the ACA itself was the largest corporate handout in the history of our country. To make matters worse, you can't correct for it at the polls, as the health insurance industry owns senators, congresspeople, presidents, and candidates for all of those on both sides of the aisle. You can't win this game, even if you don't play it.

Re:If you don't like it don't use it

[Bartles]

With Republicans in the minority, is the country winning, winning, winning?

Are we getting what we pay for?

[Valdrax]

Yes, we just need to get those heart surgeons salary limited to $100k per year.
I mean, that is enough for anyone, right?

What are we getting for the average $446K we spend on heart surgeons? The US does have some of the best rates of survival post heart attack or stroke, so we're getting something, but there's a lot we pay for that's unnecessary: angioplasty, for example. Most vessels opened by it are closed back off within a few months, and the procedure costs upwards of $64K. In European countries, they mostly just do what we *also* do in addition to the procedure -- proscribe nitroglycerin and various blood thinners.

Is there a reason you don't go elsewhere for your health care?

Hassle. Proximity to family. Time available off from work. The fact that my insurance doesn't cover foreign doctors, that I can't afford healthcare without it, and that I've in effect already paid for it at an exorbitant rate via my premiums.

What do you do for a living, and shouldn't we have the govt "help" your industry out?

Previously, I would have said, "Hell yeah!" since that would mean good benefits and a reliable job, but Congress has done it's best to sabotage that feather in the cap.

Re:Are we getting what we pay for?

[jwilso91]

What are we getting for the average $446K we spend on heart surgeons?

A few things: Malpractice insurance (since Congress refuses to pass tort reform for fear of offending attorney donors), a subsidy for people that we force him/her to treat but don't pay for, money to employ staff to navigate the incredible maze that is private insurance and Medicare/Medicaid, the diminishing returns on the latter at the whim of Congress or state legislatures who happen to have gotten themselves into a budget pinch but know that the public doesn't mind "sticking it to the rich doctors", interest on all the student loans the surgeon incurred in getting through the broken doctor training process we have in the U.S.

The other sucking sound you hear is the vacuum created by all the physicians leaving or preparing to leave practice rather than deal with more government regulation, have their livelihood progressively reduced by government fiat, and see healthcare decisions that are properly theirs or the patient's (i.e. those knowledgable about them or those with a vested interest in them) be made by anonymous bureaucrats in Washington.

In a few years the only physicians practicing in the United States will be those educated in the Third World.

Re:NSA, IRS, EPA...

[Kwyj1b0]

There are lots of people who are healthy and don't see a doctor, nurse, or any other health care provider over the course of a year. They are not participating in the health care system that year, but are being taxed that year.

I'd say it is a fairly good assumption that at some point in their lives (from birth, immunization, etc.). they have been a part of the health care system. In fact, the argument could be made that everyone benefits from the healthcare system even though some people might not see a health care professional (herd immunity - if everyone around a person is immunized, that reduces the risk of an individual who isn't immunized). When you take into account the economic and social benefits accrued by a person indirectly, I don't think it can be said that a person who doesn't go to a doctor isn't a part of the healthcare system.

Obviously, very little is universally true - and the very nature of taxes (in todays society) is that I pay for things I don't believe I benefit from (or I'm not getting my moneys worth). But you don't pick and choose your taxes. I can find a lot of other ways my tax dollars are spent that I don't care for. A tax for healthcare is something that I doubt many people can honestly claim is unfair.

Weekly Standard = neocon rag.

[ArtFart]

Owned by Rupert Murdoch, co-edited by Bill Kristol, featuring articles by all the usual suspects. Not to say the "invisible disclaimer" isn't there, but if it is it's just another one of the errors that need to be fixed by the contractors who built the Web site--unless someone is able to show where in the text of the ACA there's a clause repealing the HIPAA rules.

Re:READ HIPPA - this is TRUE

[WillAffleckUW]

The above AC is correct, HIPPA applies to all health care and it covers privacy.

Boilerplate legalese can't change that, no matter how many lawyers you throw at it.

And we're required to subject ourselves to this

[GPS Pilot]

Every American who doesn't already have health insurance, and lives in one of the 25 states that didn't create a state exchange, is required by law to create an account on the HIPAA-violating Healthcare.gov site. (Under penalty of a fine that grows rapidly over the next few years. Unless you're John Roberts, who temporarily viewed it as a tax instead of a fine, in order to establish the ACA's constitutionality.)

Standard .gov Notice

[kstatefan40]

This is part of a standard notice on .gov/.mil sites:

"This is a protected U.S. government web site and should be accessed by authorized users only. To intentionally cause damage to this website, or to any [agency] electronic facility or data through the knowing transmission of any program, information, code, or command is unlawful.

This system and related equipment are subject to monitoring. Information regarding users may be obtained and disclosed to authorized personnel, including law enforcement authorities, for official purposes. Access to or use of this Web site constitutes consent to these terms."

Re:NSA, IRS, EPA...

[cornjones]

There are lots of people who are healthy and don't see a doctor, nurse, or any other health care provider over the course of a year.

Over a one year period, sure, lots of people probably don't need care but the number of people who will never, over the course of their lives and up to their death, see any sort of healthcare must be vanishingly slim. Between the natural causes and accidents, you are going to need care at some point.

Re:ALL the dates are political

[Uberbah]

Well, if you were 18 when you first voted for Obama, then you'd be on your parent's insurance through his entire term of office (long enough to support him twice and then support his, presumably, Democrat successor) BEFORE you start to suffer some of the effects of his policies; By the time you get hit in the face (and wallet) with the realities, you'll be older and wiser and more likely to vote for some more fiscally responsible candidates and the next Democrat candidates will have shifted their propaganda to the next generation of know-nothing morons with no life experiences.

That's rather complicated. A more simple explanation is that the ACA threw out enough improvements for the upper middle class, i.e. those who make enough money to keep paying for insurance for kids or in the event of an illness, so they would join the establishment in telling the working poor and hippies to STFU and support fascist Obomneycare.

But yea, the dates were an obvious tell. If the ACA was really going to be a hit with voters, Obama would have made sure it took effect before he ran for re-election in 2012, not after.

Inexpensive solutions have low commercial appeal

[Paul Fernhout]

Difficult conversations,yes. And here is an even more difficult aspect, because there is no profit in it for the mainstream cancer industry: http://www.lef.org/protocols/cancer/brain_tumor_01.htm
"Vitamin D3, the chemical form of vitamin D made in the skin and sold as a nutritional supplement, calcitriol (1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D), the active form of vitamin D, and various chemical analogs and metabolites of vitamin D, have all been shown to inhibit growth and trigger apoptosis in neuroblastoma and glioma cells (Naveilhan P et al 1994, Baudet C et al 1996, Elias J et al 2003, van Ginkel PR et al 2007)."

Iodine is another thing to consider for helping with cure and prevention, and again is very cheap and not patentable so has few advocates in the cancer industry:
http://brain-cancer-survivor.blogspot.com/2011/12/could-iodine-kill-cancer-cells.html

As Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

Upton Sinclair also wrote a book on using fasting to heal cancer, btw, but what profit is their in advising patients to fast compared to advising them to buy $10K bottles of pills every month?
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/fasting-cure-for-health.html

But once you have cancer, getting rid of it is iffy no matter what you do. The best thing to do is to prevent it, which again is fairly inexpensive, without much profit for the mainstream medical industry:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article24.aspx

The USA even subsidizes creating cancer through its agricultural policies:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
"The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has posted an easy-to-understand visual on its site that shows which foods U.S. tax dollars go to support under the nation's farm bill. It's titled "Why Does a Salad Cost More Than a Big Mac?" and depicts two pyramidsâ"subsidized foods and the old recommended food pyramid. It's interesting to note that the two are almost inversely proportional to each other."

I doubt this level of alleged fraud is common, but it does show the risk of conflict of interest in oncology, where the same doctor prescribing the treatments profits from carrying them out:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/07/1229570/-Michigan-doctor-arrested-for-purposely-misdiagnosing-cancer
"In the course of the scheme, prosecutors say Dr. Fata falsified and directed others to falsify documents. MHO billed Medicare for approximately $35 million dollars over a two-year period, approximately $25 of which is attributable to Dr. Fata, federal officials said The complaint further alleges that Dr. Fata directed the administration of unnecessary chemotherapy to patients in remission; deliberate misdiagnosis of patients as having cancer to justify unnecessary cancer treatment; administration of chemotherapy to end-of-life patients who will not benefit from the treatment; deliberate misdiagnosis of patients without cancer to justify expensive testing; fabrication of other diagnoses such as anemia and fatigue to justify unnecessary hematology treatments, and distribution of controlled substances to patients without medical necessity or are administered at dangerous levels."

Conflicts of interest apply to research as well:
"Financial conflicts of interest in economic analyses in oncology."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21441858
"Some financial conf

Re:FUD PACKER!

[somersault]

if it gets owned so what?

Then you can have your credit card details and other personal info stolen. ID theft really can ruin your life if you're not taking adequate precautions.

Critical question for critical thinkers

[cundare]

I'd normally assert that my time is too fkn valuable to waste on this silly, manufactured debate. But this time, the referenced article is so idiotic that I just had to post. Good frigggin' grief! If you RTFA, it reveals that this code is NOT part of the displayed terms of the site. It's from a block of text embedded as a comment into the site HTML, apparently inadvertently left in the code when an author cut-and-pasted code from another site.

.If anyone tries to tell you that this a legally relevant "hidden terms of service," just walk away.

From the article:

"It is unclear why these sentences appear in the code at all since they are not displayed, although the code may simply have been copied from another website that does use the full warning. In this case, the unwanted portion of the warning was rendered inert with HTML coding tags ("") usually used by programmers for inserting comments to explain the purpose of a section of code. However, the code can be rendered "live" again by simply removing those tags, in which case the full text would appear on the screen to users. However, it is unclear why the paragraph containing "no reasonable expectation of privacy" would ever have even been considered appropriate in this context."

It's articles like this one that give Obama-haters a bad name.

What about HIPPA ?

[Michaelejahn]

I would also like to know what HIPAA attorney signed off on this document..... surely HHS had one of their 'bright' guys review the specifications. The HIPPA bits would never allow this to stand if this were a web site sign up for Health insurance or a hospital. Next up - the horror story - wait for it...: In general the government doesn't have to follow its own regulations -- not because the law isn't clear or not applicable ... but that they’ll never be called to task or be audited.