Former Microsoft Exec To Lead HealthCare.gov

Antipater writes "NBCNews reports that Kurt DelBene, former head of Microsoft's Office division, will take over operations of Healthcare.gov on Wednesday. DelBene will replace Jeffrey Zients, who stepped in to lead the team fixing the health insurance website when it crashed and burned on its Oct. 1 launch. Zients is set to take over next month as senior White House economic adviser from Gene Sperling.'"

Comments

New meaning to blue screen of death?

[xobyte]

My healthcare BSOD...

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[Mashiki]

Sadly it will make you fill out a death application form, 32 pages long. And should you develop the BSOD, you or your family will be taxed for it at a 'cheaper' price. Sorry I mean, an excessively more expensive price.

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[roc97007]

> Those who complained about their canceled plans actually got better plans - less cost and more coverage.

Um, really? We didn't. Our plans (wife and I) were canceled because the company didn't want to pay the cadillac tax. For a replacement, we get higher cost, and much higher deductible. The strategy, as I understand it, is that you are supposed to live off your FSA for the first five months or so before your coverage actually starts paying for stuff. This is a definition of "better plans" of which I am unaware.

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[Mashiki]

No. More then likely, lowered premiums for better coverage. Those who complained about their canceled plans actually got better plans - less cost and more coverage.

Whatever guys, Troll dissolves Troll - like Chemistry, like dissolves like.

Really now, I have to ask if you're being paid by OFA or Media Matters after two statements like that. Every single person that I know in the US who had healthcare plans they liked, got theirs cancelled, and are paying anywhere between 40% and 280% more now, and they're getting 60% less coverage, with a 2000% increase in their deductible.

Maybe, maybe...you're just ignorant. Then again, back when you guy's were looking at implementing this, I repeatedly said it was doomed to failure and your healthcare insurance rates were going to head for "ass rape" territory. How did I know? Because I already live under a socialized medicine system in Canada.

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[Archangel Michael]

No, it is ELITIST bullshit that they are spewing. Making blanket judgements based on what someone like Ezekiel Emanuel told them to say. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, they believe it, because they were told by someone who knows better than anyone else. And it is "better" depending on who you ask, just don't ask the patient, doctor, health insurance company or anyone immediately involved in your health care (lack of) choices. It IS better for the DNC as it provides a nice new entitlement to ensnare unsuspecting weak individuals into a lifelong servitude of voting for the candidates the Party Dictates they vote for.

Welcome to Soviet Amerika!

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[Dan667]

he was in charge of MSOffice so it will get a ribbon toolbar and be completely unusable.

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[pspahn]

Everyone succumbs to indoctrination given enough time.

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[Bartles]

Really? I got 259% higher cost, $500 higher deductible, smaller network, and 10% coinsurance after deductible. It's worse in every way, and way more expensive.

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[mspohr]

So... blame your cheapass company for dropping your insurance coverage.
They didn't have to buy you a "cadillac" policy... they could have bought you a regular policy but they are using the "blame it on Obamacare" excuse for screwing you.

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

That is not the only way they were blaming everything on Obamacare. They carefully cancelled all the grandfathered plans that did not have to be ACA compliant. Now they can use the whipping boy, Obamacare.

Obamacare is taking tax dollars and giving it to these private companies that have absolutely no compunctions about denying coverage, shifting responsibility and shirking responsibility. This is the system Republicans want. Left to the Democrats we would have simply expanded the medicare, paid for it with taxes.

Americans with employer provided health insurance pay oodles and oodles of money to the private healthcare companies till they are 65. They pocket all the case, once they are no longer young, no longer as healthy, they are all passed on to Medicare with we the tax payers holding the bag. Remember this folks, more than 50% of the healthcare you are going to receive in your lifetime, comes from the government. All the premium you are paying when you are younger and healthier goes to private companies. "Privatize the premium collection, Socialize the benefit payments", systematically. Bank bailout is nothing compared this bail out given to the healthcare companies. And they are somehow the paragons of virtue and the government is the personification of evil. Once they have their rank and file drink this cool-aid, nothing is impossible for them.

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[Venotar]

The socialists in Canada pay almost $4500 per capita for healthcare, or more than 11% of GDP. Because of the waste inherent in socialist systems, we should not be surprised that healthcare costs in Canada are 7th highest on the planet, yet for all this outrageous expense, they are only tied for 4th in life expectancy and something like 24th in infant mortality

I'm sorry - how is 7th highest cost for 4th highest life expetancy not a deal?
If life expectancy was less than 7th, I might see your point. Beyond that, the US already spends 17.2% of it's GDP on healthcare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States) and has an infant mortality rate around 34th in the world , so moving to an infant mortality rate of 24th in the world for a cost of 11% of GDP is a huge improvement for your southern neighbors.

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[Mashiki]

Now that Obamacare is bringing socialism to US healthcare, Mashiki knows from miserable experience the poor quality and excessive expense that his southern neighbors can expect in the years to come.

You bet. Enjoy that "upto 84 and more days" for cancer surgery k? How about 196 days to get an MRI done for neck surgery. A 3.5hr wait for "critical care" emergency room visit.

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[Desler]

As the saying goes "I got mine so fuck you".

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[Desler]

The socialists in Canada pay almost $4500 per capita for healthcare

So nearly half of the US.

or more than 11% of GDP.

So only 60% of that of the US.

Because of the waste inherent in socialist systems,

So paying less per capita and less as a percentage of GDP is a sign of inherent waste?

we should not be surprised that healthcare costs in Canada are 7th highest on the planet,

And the US's is the highest.

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[mspohr]

There are lots of anecdotal stories floating around and being touted as "evidence" for and against ACA.
FWIT, my personal experience is that for my family, I can get better insurance (better list of doctors and hospitals, lower deductibles, lower cost) under ACA than I had before under my old policy which was cancelled because it was not ACA compliant. YMMV
It will take at least a few months to get the actual results sorted out.
A lot of the people who had very cheap insurance which was cancelled had "hospital gown" policies (which means that their ass wasn't covered). Others could prove that they were "healthy" and could show that they didn't need insurance.
The big win is for people who couldn't get insurance or who had very expensive policies. They will be able to get affordable insurance under ACA since the scumbag insurance companies can't refuse to insure them. Also, a lot of people who have very low income and couldn't afford insurance can now get subsidies and can buy insurance... a big win for them.

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[vux984]

A lot of the people who had very cheap insurance which was cancelled had "hospital gown" policies (which means that their ass wasn't covered). Others could prove that they were "healthy" and could show that they didn't need insurance.

Bingo.

The main 'losers' under the ACA are:
a) people who didn't actually have coverage; are being forced into plans that actually cover things.

b) lowest risk, healthiest people -- they got better rates before because the insurance industry figured they wouldn't have to pay out on them. Now with more (and less healthy) people being added to the system, the rates are rising slightly to accomodate the overall higher insurance costs to the industry.

But insuring all those extra people is a net gain. At least in my books. And I'm speaking as someone still comfortably in the first half of my life, with no significant health concerns, who makes a decent living -- aka someone the insurers love to insure.

The big win is for people who couldn't get insurance or who had very expensive policies. They will be able to get affordable insurance under ACA since the scumbag insurance companies can't refuse to insure them.

Exactly. But its inevitable that there will be some "losers" at the other end of the spectrum whose rates are going up to offset this. But as I said before... its net gain for society.

Clippy?

[KoshClassic]

Will the web site feature a seemingly-friendly, but obnoxious-as-hell talking paper clip that pops up whenever its unwanted?

Polilitical Link

[jasnw]

He is the spouse (husband, I assume) of Congressperson Karen DelBene (D-WA), also an ex-MS person.

Re:Polilitical Link

[bluefoxlucid]

We don't say "Congressperson" anymore because that implies these are people, and not soulless monsters. The correct term is "Congresswench".

Re:Polilitical Link

[runeghost]

I believe that the appropriate term is "Congresscritter".

Re:Polilitical Link

[DrData99]

Close. It's Suzan DelBene.http://delbene.house.gov/

Re:Polilitical Link

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

What did critters ever do to you?

Meet Sticky, the helpful animated syringe

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please oh please oh please

Re:Meet Sticky, the helpful animated syringe

[Bodhammer]

More like Tubey, the fully articulated enema nozzle...

Your rate offers will be ready in

[wagr]

45 seconds
2 minutes
15 seconds
30 seconds

microsoft exec plus the US Government...

[roc97007]

I'm trying to think how this could end well.

Re:microsoft exec plus the US Government...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Oh, that's easy . . . just look at Nokia and Steve Elop! The Microsoft exec will run Obamacare into bankruptcy, then Microsoft will buy Obamacare cheap for all the patents and IP . . . and then Microsoft will own our healthcare, as well as our desktops!

Healthcare.gov will be fixed in 2 weeks

[GoCrazy]

I mean 10 seconds. Err, 3 months. No 5 days.

Looks Like You're Trying to Sign Up for Obamacare!

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you Like to:

[N/A] Keep your existing health plan?
[ ] Automatically get shunted into Medicaid?
[ ] Pay through the nose for a plan with a higher deductible, a higher co-pay, and higher monthly fees?
[ ] Appeal your death panel ruling?

Re:website looks good just the PHB driven backend

[DaHat]

The tech's did not have that much time after getting the specs and have very limited QA time.

Oh? 3 years went by between the passage of the law and the launch of the site... how much more time do you think they should have had?

Re:Second one?

[drnb]

And yet...nobody is in jail, being fined, or even refunding all that money they were paid to develop it.

Its not really contractor's fault. I'm sure they did some pretty screwy things but the epic fail really comes down to time and specification. The contractors were only given months to implemented it, despite the administration knowing they needed it over 3 years ago, and the administration was making last minute changes, can't show plan prices from the insurance company have to connect to a bunch of different gov't agencies in order to calculate a subsidy.

Re:Second one?

[DaHat]

Because the rightists who got you into this mess of for-profit healthcare and the poor can go fuck themselves are the reason you need to have universal healthcare in the first place.

Yes, so horrible that the for-profit healthcare system in this country created so many life saving & extending drugs and treatments

Oh what a horrible world it was before the ACA was passed... millions of dead poor people in the street, insurance companies rolling the dice and canceling policies just because they felt like it, and no one but the ultra rich able to have a quality insurance policy.

Just because rich douchebags feel entitled to gouging people when it comes to their health doesn't make it right either.

Except for those 'rich douchebags' aren't all rich... instead providing a service which many of us are willing to pay a pretty penny for. I guess you don't value your health/life or that if your family.

But don't worry, the Tea Party will continue to try to ensure that anybody who isn't wealthy won't be able to afford health care like the greedy bastards they are.

Wait... the Tea Party us full of a bunch of wealthy folks? Where do I sign up???

Re:Very unfair to the original team

[DaHat]

Jay Carney, is that you?

Nice idea in theory... the practice thus far doesn't fall in life.

Aside from the fact that the enrollment #'s (at both the state & federal exchange levels) are well behind schedule, good sized portions of the website still do not exist, like the payment system: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-29/obamacare-payment-system-to-insurers-delayed-by-months.html

No... the website was only the second blow from this horrible law... the first being the massive wave of insurance cancelations & price increases we've also seen over the last few months, mostly in the individual market.

Just wait until the other shoe drops next year and the unlawful postponement of the employer mandate runs out.

Can we just have single payer yet?

[TheSpoom]

Please? How much more complicated do we have to make it before we do what the rest of the civilized world is doing?

I know Americans like to be different but it's gone too far.

Re:Looks Like You're Trying to Sign Up for Obamaca

[mi]

[N/A] Keep your existing health plan?

When Obama said: "If you like your plan you can keep it," — he meant to say: "If I like your plan, you can keep it." The millions, whose plans aren't, in Obama's omniscient and benevolent opinion, good enough — because they don't cover, say, obesity counseling, or contraception, or gender-changes — are out of luck...

There is no corresponding correction to "death panels" because those are imaginary.

No, they aren't. There always are patients, who could be kept alive at high costs but without much, if any, prospect of recovering. When and whether to "pull the plug" on them is currently up to the patients and/or their families. Once the government becomes the single payer — which is what Obama and you dream about — the decision will be the government's. It is unlikely, that it will be a single shirley sharrod deciding — more like a panel of them. "Death panel" is a perfectly apt term describing the outfit...

If the IRS is already used today to suppress opposition, why wouldn't the next charismatic demagogue in the White House use these panels to an even graver effect? No, not even against the opposition figures themselves — too obvious...

"Hey, if you'd like your mother to be approved for surgery, rather than referred to End of Life Counseling, do not talk about this and that in your next public appearance. Do we understand each other?"

Re:Looks Like You're Trying to Sign Up for Obamaca

[Chalnoth]

We are already at that "single payer" nirvana for everybody over 65. It's called Medicare, and Medicare has a significantly higher satisfaction rate than private insurance.

Re: Second one?

[microbox]

I happen to know something about fascism. It's not really a left or right concept. As you correctly point out, these days it is just boo word to throw at people when you feel victimized for not getting your way. But lets look at the characteristics of fascism, and see where the chips fall these days:

Here are some fascist traits more associated with conservative politics:

• The emphasis on militarism
• The emphasis on nationalism. (Do you here that America was exceptional?)
• The emphasis on colonialism
• The emphasis on mysticism and the state
• The emphasis on warriorship
• Suppression of trade unions
• Foreign policy based on the myth of national power and greatness (covered above)
• Skepticism in democracy.

Here are some fascist traits associated with liberal politics:

• Broadened mandate for government intervention in the economy
• Anti-materialist -- but qualified that this is really not like liberal econuts -- since fascists are supposed to be sustained by their ideological commitment.

Here are some fascist traits that are identifiably both liberal and conservative (or a third rail in the two party system):

• the belief in the states role in monitoring its citizens.

Here are some fascist traits that are neither liberal nor conservative:

• endorsing terror to gain political power
• the notion that the entire population should be permanently and emotionally engaged in the political process.

DrHat, you are an ideologue, so don't bother me with logical contortions about how the Dems are really the more fascist of the two parties. But if there a legitimate argument, grounded in what Karl Rove pejoratively called the reality based community, then I'm all ears, because I love actually knowing things.

Changes in rules mean changes in payments

[sjbe]

Meanwhile, even the NYT is profiling lefty professionals who are quite surprised to learn that Obamacare means they pay more and get less.

Some people always were going to end up paying more any time you make adjustments in the rules. This is no big surprise unless you weren't paying attention or are just plain dumb. When you shift coverage around the risk pools are going to change and some people are going to end up paying more than before, particularly if they had an unusually good deal. Some will get better pricing others will have to pay a bit more. Most will end up somewhere in the middle.

On the other hand, in my company virtually all of my employees (except for myself) are going to end up paying less than they were before for similar or better coverage. In rough numbers my company was paying around $500/month for each employee on our plan and the company picked up half that cost ($250 to the company, $250 to the employee) for an HMO plan roughly equivalent to a gold or silver plan. The plans our employees are signing up for get them similar coverage (sometimes better) and their out of pocket expense is usually about 2/3 of what they were paying before. Better still, our company no longer has to kick in anything so the company wins too. (We would kick in but due to some of the rules regarding company contributions we cannot this year - hope to next year) In my case I'm paying just slightly more than before but now I can use a Health Savings Account and have a PPO instead of an HMO.