Slashdot Mirror


Officials Say HealthCare.gov Site Now Performing Well

The much-discussed health care finance sign-up website HealthCare.gov has benefited from the flurry of improvements that have been thrown at it in the last several weeks. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid spokesman Aaron Albright told Fox News Saturday that "[w]ith the scheduled upgrades last night and tonight, we're on track to meet our stated goal for the site to work for the vast majority of users." CMM spokeswoman Julie Bataille. "said the installation of new servers Friday night helped improved the response times and error rates, even with heavier-than-usual weekend traffic." If you've used the site this weekend, what has your experience been like?

29 of 644 comments (clear)

  1. Officials say? by Kohath · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If officials say it, that makes it official. No need to check.

    Go forth and force men and 50-year old women to buy insurance for childbirth! Forward.

    1. Re:Officials say? by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

      there's no such thing as something cheaper than mandatory insurance

      anyone who doesn't get insurance is someone who thinks they don't need insurance. while those who get insurance really need it. so costs are spread amongst fewer people and they go up, if you respect the "freedom" of some freeloaders to be stupid and irresponsible

      then those assholes without insurance break their arm and get sick anyway, and then they avoid the bill because they can't afford it, and the taxpayer has to bail out the hospital

      so you pay for it anyway, in the most wasteful, stupid way possible, and you pay for irresponsible freeloaders

      that's why healthcare is such a joke in the usa and is so incredibly expensive

      now forcing 50 year old to buy childbirth insurance does sound crazy so you fix that specific problem, you don't jettison the entire superior idea

      any questions?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:Officials say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And those younger women are paying for old people's heart attacks. The old people are paying to prevent flu epidemics from getting younger males sick. And men tend to have a part in making babies and it is much cheaper to pay for IUDs and pills than kids. Especially unplanned ones.

    3. Re:Officials say? by Bartles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not true. At least not in my case. I was paying $165 for a better than platinum level plan. My new option for slightly worse coverage now costs $451. But I suppose you're right. I now have maternity coverage, and can get free birth control pills.

    4. Re:Officials say? by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Young, rich, healthy people pay more so that the old, the poor, and the sick can get affordable coverage. Maybe you don't like that right now, but you'll change your mind if you ever get seriously ill, or lose your job, or see your retirement savings vanish into Wall Street's coffers. And if none of those things happen, then count yourself blessed and move on.

    5. Re:Officials say? by ewieling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think much of the opposition to health insurance reform is because the costs to treat the uninsured are hidden. People who receive health care and do not have money or insurance cost hospitals (and patients and shareholders) a lot of money. When they pass these costs on, I think the hospitals should be required to break out these costs as separate line items on the bills they send to their patients and the insurance companies. I feel people would be much less opposed to health insurance reform when they see exactly how much they are paying to treat the uninsured. I do not think a civilized person can think "let them die in the streets" to be an option.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    6. Re:Officials say? by Kohath · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How can that be?

      The president said "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." He said it over and over, in a dozen different ways. Are you suggesting this thing the President said wasn't true?

    7. Re:Officials say? by BonThomme · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the same attitude led to an AIDS pandemic.

      "If you can't afford to buy health care, don't breed"

      I think you mean "don't be born".

    8. Re:Officials say? by nctritech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Citing a Salon article that exposes Fox News? Pot, meet kettle...

    9. Re:Officials say? by ghettoimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Damn straight you should count yourself lucky.

      There are seriously terrible things out there. Cancer. Parkinson's. MS. But do go on. Complain about paying more than your share, you always-healthy person, with your great genes, with your great personal character and intelligence that have kept you away from drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, with your even temperament that has shielded you from depression. Complain, with your good job, where you aren't exposed to toxins, which pays for your good house in your nice neighborhood, where gang violence is the farthest thing from your mind, where you have a great grocery store that enables your fully organic diet, where you have a great gym just up the road that you work out at five days a week.

      The whole point of insurance is that we all get screwed a little, so that when someone gets really fucking boned, they don't get screwed sideways on top of it. Even a perfect person like you can fall off a bike or get hit by a car.

      Of course, you're also right. We're all getting screwed way more than we should because we didn't have balls to say to hell with wall street and insist on a single-payer system.

    10. Re:Officials say? by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if you don't get insurance, and break your arm, you avoid the bill because you can't pay it, or you declare bankruptcy

      It's called putting money aside each month and saving for a rainy day instead of always eating out, always buying the latest gadgets and living high on the hog while expecting that other people will cover your ass in a jam or as I like to put it, "Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

    11. Re: Officials say? by spongman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're called appropriations bills and they're freely available online.

    12. Re:Officials say? by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >That's called something else that was tried numerous times in the 20th century and proven a failure.

      the american system is a failure. we pay ridiculous multiples as compared to other countries with universal healthcare/ mandatory insurance, and we have lower quality of care than them

      what you call a failure has been proven to be a success in all of our social and economic peers

      this is where you trot out out horror stories from countries with socialized medicine. as if the american model has no horror stories, including avoiding the doctor until it is too late because you can't afford him

      socialized medicine is not perfect. it's just a hell of a lot better than the american joke of a system

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    13. Re:Officials say? by JDAustin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "socialized medicine is not perfect. it's just a hell of a lot better than the american joke of a system"

      Then why to the rich from various countries with socialized medicine come to the US for treatment again?

    14. Re:Officials say? by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what about police services?

      do we have to do a financial means test before cops answer 911?

      what about fire services?

      do we have to a financial means test before the firemen turn on the hose?

      healthcare is same necessary fundamental service, where no questions are asked and response is automatic

      therefore it must be paid for in the same way as police and fire, and understood in the same way: a fundamental necessary government service, the way it is all of our economic and social peers (who pay fractions of our healthcare rates, because their policy matches the reality of what healthcare is)

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    15. Re:Officials say? by quantaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Citing a Salon article that exposes Fox News? Pot, meet kettle...

      Really? Salon certainly has a liberal slant, but Fox News regularly misleads its viewers and employs complete nutjobs as contributors. Maybe you could compare Salon to the WSJ but the only Liberalish news org I could think to compare Fox to is the Health section at the Huffington Post.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  2. Here's What I Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm unemployed and without insurance. If I go to the dentist's office to get a small no-anesthesia filling, as I did last week, they will accept $116 from an insurance company but will charge me $167 for exactly the same procedure because I'm a cash payer. When an insurance company pays them, they deduct the difference between $167 and $116 as a "loss" to reduce their taxes. Obviously, they've got quite an incentive to do that.

    It's not just dentist's offices. Those are the shenanigans going on with tens of thousands of health care providers across the US, it's to the tune of tens of billions of dollars of "losses" pulled out of thin air, and it has to fixed before any of this is going to improve. Subsidizing private insurance companies with taxpayer money and mandating that people sign up with them while allowing insurance companies to keep skimming profits out of the system and penalizing cash-payers is the wrong thing to do.

    1. Re:Here's What I Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They really need to just ban health insurance completely. It is the only thing that will fix things at this point.

  3. Re:define "performing well" by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Canada has more health care than Americans do, and they're not slaves.

    Are you completely sure that health care is slavery?

  4. Re:define "performing well" by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh stop it. You can go off into the wilds and stay away from the IRS, UPS, AT&T and likely the NSA. Very, very few people stay completely off the grid. If you want to have the benefits of civilization, then you have to pay for it. That said, the ACA isn't going to help (or hurt much), the entire system is screwed up six ways from Sunday, but if you want to have any chance of reasonable rates you have to spread the costs as far and as wide a possible.

    Perhaps there should be a way to opt out - you sign a form (and get branded, RFID'ed, tatooed or whatever) and you don't get to go to the ER. You don't get Police or Fire protection. You don't get mail. You can live your life in whatever rugged fantasy world you create for yourself. Goodluckwiththat.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  5. Re:define "performing well" by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which of these other countries do you speak of that I would have gotten better treatment or a better outcome?

    In any modern developed country other than the US, you would have gotten similar treatment and since we know you responded well to treatment, you'd have the same outcome. Obviously you can't get a better outcome than successful treatment.

    For people without insurance, of course, the outcomes are often vastly different because in the US that means they'll likely have to delay treatment.

  6. Re:I tested it two weeks back by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No. By that time, they have removed the restriction and allowed me to browse the plans, save the plans and compare the plans. Only thing was the prices shown were the "full retail" price and there was a nagging side bar that kept saying "your actual cost could be lower please complete this form", "click here" "please please please click here".

    The reason for the whole fiasco was they decided not to show the full retail price till people actually complete the eligibility because the politicians thought the sticker shock would be too much. That last minute change to hide the price till the income verification was done was the root cause of all problems. The income verification involves social security number, getting info from the hub etc etc. They could have rolled in income check and eligibility check even before the plan pricing was finalized. But that is all monday morning quarterbacking.

    One of the first thing they did was to just open it all up for comparison shopping to reduce the load of window shoppers. Even now I am not sure how well the subsidy eligibility portion of the site is working. But for straight up comparison of plans and pricing, you could do it anytime. This alone is going to change the landscape of medical plans for everyone. Many small companies, people with "trustable" friend/broker etc were all buying health insurance blind. Pricing was very opaque and plans were not comparable at all. Right now so many people are figuring how trustable their friendly neighborhood broker had been.

    Subsidy is nearly 100% at 32K income for a family of 4, sliding down to zero at 96K for a family of four. The median family income in USA is around 50K and around 75% of the people make less than 100K. Very few people with more than 100K were without health coverage prior to ACA/Obamacare. So vast majority of the 40 million Americans without healthcare would be eligible for subsidy. It is not going to be easy for the Republicans to roll back this program. No matter how bad the web site is, it would be impossible to go back to the bad old days of preexisting condition, "we will collect premium and cancel your policy if you get sick" health insurance company days.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  7. Re:define "performing well" by DexterIsADog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slavery. Good one.

    If you don't want to participate in this society, don't. Sure, none of the civilized countries in Europe will take you, but maybe you can get into Rwanda. Then you can see firsthand what actual slavery looks like.

  8. Re:I played with it just now by bwcbwc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a difference between "The administration f-ed up the website and they deserve legitimate criticism." vs. "See, this proves that Obamacare sucks." There's also a difference between criticizing Fox when it really goes right-wing wack0, and just generic bashing because you don't like their slant.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, you may now remove your blinders. Yes, ALL of you.

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
  9. Re:Privacy Issues by Imrik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not what they know about you, it's what whoever decides to hack their site with untested security knows about you.

  10. for a lower level of care/poor outcomes by csumpi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You are just fucking kidding, right? You get better care at our emergency rooms than in intensive care anywhere else.

    Apparently you have missed the whole point of the ACA. Which was to make the best of the best health care we have here in the US available for a larger group of people.

  11. Re: define "performing well" by paiute · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We have the best doctors in the world, so I'm not sure how any of those countries could be *better*.

    I would rather be seen by an average doctor early in my illness instead of a superstar doctor late into it.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  12. If the site was broken because the law is flawed.. by Lendrick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...now that the site works, does that mean that the law isn't flawed? Or are the people who made that argument just going to backtrack now?

  13. Re: Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Fortunately repeating your lies is easy. Look there they are.