Slashdot Mirror
HealthCare.gov Back-End Status: See You In September
theodp writes: "The consumer-facing parts of the Obamacare website may now work (most of the time) for people buying insurance, writes Politico, but beneath the surface, HealthCare.gov is still missing massive, critical pieces that are essential for key functions such as accurately paying insurers — and the deadline for finishing them keeps slipping. Without a fully built and operational system, federal officials can't determine how many of the 8 million Obamacare sign-ups announced last week will have actually paid their premiums. The Obama administration earlier this month indicated that insurers will continue to be paid through an 'interim' accounting process — pretty much a spreadsheet and some informed estimates — until at least September, when what is being called 'the mother of all reconciliations' will be conducted, which some fear could reveal the need for a massive correction and rate adjustments. Still, Oregon decided Friday to switch to Healthcare.gov from its own nothing-wrong-that-$78-million-couldn't-fix Cover Oregon online healthcare exchange."
At this point, what difference does it make?"
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I guess I missed the memo, but isn't shitting on Obamacare last year's bugaboo? After you guys proclaimed that meeting the enrollment goal was impossible, you looked like complete morons when they exceeded it. Why double down on a losing hand?
Wonder why Obama keeps delaying ACA provisions? Especially until after the 2014 elections?
Because we're gonna get horse fucked in the back end.
And just wait until things like the "Cadillac plan tax" kick in - when the US government starts taxing health benefits. That'll really piss people off.
I'm honestly beginning to think that if you get money from the government you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
But despite all of it, what the crack team of unsung IT gurus did in Nov 2013 is nothing less than heroic. How long did it take for the comparable services like Amazon, Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL, gmail, eBay etc to create 3 million accounts? OK, that is an earlier generation. Take the current generation of Twitter, WhatsApp, SnapChat, FaceBook, how long did they take to ramp up to 3 million accounts?
Helathcare.gov is something like eBay for health insurance. How long did it take eBay to refer 32 billion dollars worth of business? (8 million accounts, 4 K a year premium per person). No body had done in two quarters. Even banking and mutual fund sites like Schwab, Vanguard, Fidelity do not do 32 billion dollars a year. Even if the do, they did not ramp up in 2 quarters.
They bungled the roll out. They probably squandered tons and tons of money to get it done. But despite all that, no body has ever created a web site that did what Healthcare.gov has done. It is easy to criticize and do Monday morning quarterbacking. But the task they failed to well was not some simple task any hack could do or something others have done before.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
True, clueless politicians made last minutes changes like, "don't show them raw premium, sticker shock, make them do subsidy calculation first" a week before roll out. True, dimwitted bureaucrats gave out contracts with idiotic levels of fragmentation and blame-dodgeability. Obama raised expectations insanely by saying "as easy as buying books in Amazon..".
Of course, these are the reasons government-run health care will be so much better: politicians can control it and tell you how much better off you are.
Give me a break, if that's what the people spouting this nonsense really think, they should stop receiving health care to prove their point.
...of our corporate-controlled government.
I'm sure the insurance companies have it set up so they make out like bandits no matter what happens.
Reality: the ultimate conservative talking point. If you thought that 'bugaboo' was done sucking, you know nothing of statist vampires.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Moderators, mod this clown into oblivion. He is obviously a Republican shill paid for by the Koch brothers. Obamacare is a godsend, and will lift this country out of third world status.
republican propaganda piece by the in house radical conservative trolls. When did /. become such a propaganda rag?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
The extra millions being spend on a web infrastructure, government payouts to insurance companies, and accounting that like would not be able to survive an actual audit are going to improve the quality and cost of your health care. Right? That's what we were promised, right?
It's like, how much more dishonest could the #ObamaCare be? The answer is none. None more dishonest.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Welcome to democrat logic, "I don't know what bill does but if my party wants me to vote for it, i will regardless if i agree with it or not." "
Its all that and more about focusing on certain positives rather then any of the negatives. Yea, you can delay the facts, but in the end they do come out.
Politics is all about perception these days. I give Obama and his White Staff credit for creating great positives in the face of negatives. But it wears thin after a while when all you do is cook the numbers.
the Democrats, which is why there is NO legal reform in Obamacare (as Howard Dean admitted in 2009 when he was running the Democratic National Committee). FYI: "Trial lawyers" are the type of lawyers who sue people for things like medical malpractice (as opposed to prosecutors, defense lawyers, patent lawyers, contract lawyers, etc)
So, given that Obamacare is a Democrat thing and you claim it's not to blame the legal culture of American medicine, but THAT culture too is driven by the Democrats, perhaps you ought to think a bit more...... there's a common thread to all this.
If anybody who says their coverage is now worse and costs more "is obviously a Republican shill paid for by the Koch brothers" then allow me to assert that any idiot who insists this is impossible is obviously a stupid moron under the age of 26 living in mommie's basement and on HER insurance plan.
I'm self-employed like the earlier poster and not only have my costs gone up for less coverage, but I find that everybody I have talked with who is also a small business operator has had the same experience. In the REAL world where we adults live, the basic economic laws apply. When the government intervenes and demands that all healthcare policies must now cover all sorts of stuff they never used to cover, the price of a policy MUST rise; denying this is as stupid as denying the law of gravity. Health insurance companies MUST pass these additional costs on to their customers, and when the government decrees that certain customers must get a discount, that means other customers MUST pay more; denying this is as ignorant as claiming the Earth is flat. Go back to your Hot Pockets and your X-Box and leave the discussion of serious matters to those of us who work to pull the wagon jokers like you are riding in.
It is a FACT, admitted by the Obama admin in testimony under oath before congress that [1] the backend of the website is not yet written, [2] the Obama administration has no solid numbers on how many people have paid (heck, they even said under oath that they did not have a count of people who'd "signed up" about a month before the deadline) and [3] that they are using estimates to pay insurers for now and will need to "settle-up" at some point. It's also true that insurance companies have started issuing warnings to congress, the administration, and some employers that they forsee a large rate increase for next year.
So, given these facts..... what insane act of childish Obama meatpuppet rage causes you to claim this is "republican propaganda" "by the in house radical conservative trolls"? Are you saying that the Obama administration is part of some "vast right-wing conspiracy" to help Republican trolls with their talking points? I am simply mystified by the sheer incomprehensible mental flatulence that must be occurring in your locale. Are you truly claiming that reality is, in itself, a Republican troll talking point? Wow..... just sayin' .... that's really - out there.
See you in November might be the more important question.
The Democrats lost their super-majority in the Senate before they could ram-through Pelosi's house bill as the "Affordable Care Act" and since they were absolutely determined that no Republican input would be tolerated they needed a scheme to solve their dilemma. Harry Reid (Nevada Democrat who runs the Senate) used a tactic of taking another bill, stripping out all its content and then injecting in whatever language he wanted; Harry inserted the ACA language we ended-up (which could not perfectly match Nancy's language for complex legal reasons) into the hollow shell of a bill that had previously worked its way partially through the senate (the bill Harry used as a shell had already cleared the 60 vote "cloture" hurdle) and then THAT mess was handed over to Nancy Pelosi in the House where it should have had to go through reconcilliation (but couldn't because the resulting "reconciled" bill would have needed another Senate vote WITH that pesky 60 vote cloture) . Nancy's team however, could not pass it properly "as-is" because the Senate version had language some of her House democrats did not want to be held accountable for..... so she worked out a scheme to pass a separate resolution in the house that would "deem" the ACA to have passed rather than actually passing it, and that whole ball of wax was what Obama ultimately signed. The "affordable care act" written by the U.S. House of Representatives never actually went anywhere (no matter what a lazy wikipage editor may claim) ..... the Senate's verson is what went through (and, incidentally, this is one of the major reasons it is such a mess - all the normal committee work to unify house and senate bills into a joint bill, which usually cleans-up conflicts between sepearate parts of complex bills written by various interests, never happened).... all those shenanigans were done just to block any Republican input that WOULD have been enabled by the election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. Scott Brown campaigned to be the vote to stop the supermajority from passing the ACA, and he won that election, but Harry and Nancy simply manipulated the process to block the new Senator from interfering in their plans for a pure-Democrat health law.
When the Supreme Court took up the ACA in that big case Republicans believed they'd win and which Democrats still crow about to this day, they ruled that the thing could NOT be implemented using the "Commerce Clause" and with "penalties" but COULD stand if it was all really just a big tax scheme - so they declared it a big tax scheme and let it stand as Constitutional (shocking conservatives, who now see John Roberts as a traitor) ........ which brings us to the lawsuit "Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services" which points out that the Constitution specifically and explicitly forbids any tax law from originating in the Senate, and given that the SCOTUS has already certified that this is exactly what Obamacare is..... the SCOTUS will be a pack of hypocrits if they let it win this suit. Oral arguments are scheduled for May 8, 2014.
Millions of people have their insurance cancelled every year by insurance companies, sometimes while they are receiving treatment.
In some cases, the "lost" insurance had become illegal because it didn't provide the minimum required benefits. Better policies are available for those people.
Some people got those policies for less money, others got more benefits for the same, or more money. Those that pay more, probably got better insurance and won't have to declare bankruptcy if they get sick or are injured. They can carry their insurance from one job to another, so they aren't pinned like a dead butterfly to one employer. People with pre-existing conditions are now being treated, instead of being cast off like roadkill.
The only significant hole in the system is in states like Montana where the medicaid supplement was refused by the state legislature, and so people under specific income levels that were intended to be covered by medicaid, now aren't. If that's happened in your state, you can put the blame for that directly on your state legislators -- the republicans -- not on the ACA. Do something about it at election time.
As far as media coverage goes, almost every person they've tried to use as a "poster child" for "lost insurance" has been debunked. So many million can gain coverage, and there's barely a word about it. But a handful of people say they've lost coverage (which they can easily replace), and the media -- and you -- scream to high heaven. Then there was the bullshit about my insurance is now $xxx dollars a month and I can't afford it. Again, turns out these people were refusing to participate in the insurance exchange setup, and were basically being complete morons.
The states that participated in creating and operating the exchanges, instead of Koch-blocking the system as designed via the tools in the republican party whose only goal -- as they stated -- was to "see Obama fail", have had a much higher level of success. Again, blame your state legislature, specifically, the republicans.
So stop with the "insurance loss" meme. It's been dead for months. The ACA is doing ok for what it is, which is a baby step along the road to single payer.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
My lab tests are covered, as are my prescriptions. My copay is less, too -- $5 if they're in our group, and $10 if not -- Sounds to me like you simply picked the wrong policy. Make sure you look into equivalent meds, too. For instance, my insurance won't pay for Ventolin HFA, but they will pay for PROAIR HFA. Either one addresses the asthma just fine. I pay less than 10% of my income. I consider that a great bargain.
Again, your choice of policy is not the fault of the ACA. This is very much a situation where consumer choice is part of the process.
My daughter in law chose a different policy than the one my son chose. This was because she takes (expensive) Victoza shots, so she needed to choose a policy that met her needs, which were quite different from my son's. Thanks to the ACA, you can research and choose something that best meets your needs. But you still have to *do* it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Not for lack of trying :)
No, I'm pretty sure you haven't. You've most likely confused me with someone else. Not a problem.
Well. I am required to pay for highways that I never drive upon. I am required to pay for fire extinguishing services and I have never had a house fire. I am required to pay for public schools, even though I never sent a child there. I am required to pay for corporate subsidies, even though I am not in favor of these. I am required to pay for various war efforts, even though I am not only not in favor, but vehemently opposed to same. The idea that I might have to pay to improve someone else's health strikes me a a breath of fresh air. In fact, in a purely selfish way, I don't want to have people, far sicker than they need to be, running around and sharing the bounty of their personal microbial crops with me and mine. Nor am I in favor of them being out of work for any more time than required.
Time for a little anecdote. Fairly recently, the lady and I went to McDonald's for a salad and some coffee. They took our order via the miked menu outside, then our money at window #1, and so we pulled up to window #2, where the food was to arrive. When they opened the window, those poor bastards (uninsured in any sense worth really talking about) collectively managed to do a marvelous impression of a final stage tuberculosis ward. I rolled up the winddow and we drove off without our food.
When you talk about "now" having to subsidize the medical costs of others, let me just point out to you that when these uninsured types zip right down to the emergency room and consume medical services at a premium, while not getting actual decent care but instead, just getting stabilized, you pay for that just as directly via increased costs to the hospital that were "covered" by government grants, increases in the cost of our own medical needs, and higher insurance premiums to pay those higher medical costs, which in turn, you (and I, and everyone else) pay for. There's no free lunch. When people are sick or injured, it's going to cost. It's expensive and it is unevenly distributed, and it is best done in a manner that works to control the costs (prophilactic care, etc.) by pooling our resources and then expending them on a per issue basis, and preventative ones, and in the context of completely addressing problems with an appropriate course of therapy instead of just doing the minimum, or nothing.
When you want to bitch about paying for everyone else's healthcare, to whatever extent that may be so, just remember, the better health the population is in, the better health you -- and yours, and the economy -- are are likely to be able to maintain. It's a fact, and there's no way around it.
Do you not understand that if you fall and break your leg, or catch something horrible, or develop chronic asthma, or cancer, or manage to detach a retina, or get burned really badly, that without insurance, your capital and wealth will evaporate like smoke on the windiest day you can imagine? I think you do, since you tell me you had insurance previously. Now I ask you: Would you want to have that happen to someone else? Seriously? When just by putting your shoulder to the same wheel the rest of us are trying to roll around, you can prevent it to some useful extent?
Ok. Delighted you're being forthcoming. Let's work it. If your new insurance is being delivered under the aegis of the ACA, then at $455/mo for your premium, you're paying $5460/year, and your income (after business deductions, if you're taking those) should be (at least) $54600, because under the ACA, no one has to pay more than 10% of their income unless t
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Better than Republican Logic.
Let's vote 51 times for repeal and decide that will be the one that works, despite the previous 50 failures.
Just as an off-topic aside, this topic (not just my threads) is the most amusing peak event of "moderation as agree/disagree" that I've seen in my years here. Up, down, up, down, up, down, up, down.
Slashdot moderation. lol. Just lol.
Note to the powers that be: If you EVER thought anonymous moderation was a good idea, this topic alone should serve as the poster child come to completely disabuse you of that notion. Unless, of course, you're one of the ones abusing the moderation system, in which case, well, there you go. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Most people, having their insurance paid for by their employer don't see this, and don't care.
My employer has been very good at holding health insurance costs down. Wellness activities like weight loss, health screenings, cost awareness, etc. We had gone for at least three years without any price increase. This year, thanks to the "Affordable" act the cost took a 13% jump, and my out-of-pocket contribution went up by about $1000. Thanks a lot Democrats.
Switching to Healthcare.gov by Oregon was likely a face-saving move since State's exchanges will learn soon enough that there is NO money, i.e. no money to pay premiums, no money incoming to fund insurance, no money to underwrite people who have no money to pay, NO money means NO money. So all the other State exchanges will soon be in bankruptcy.
we had to vote for it before we could see it remember? thats what comrad nancy told us
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
right, they should have given up on those pesky civil rights after the first filibuster by the democrats, because why bother?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Fascists are National Socialists. that's History. Progressive is a name for a Political Philosophy in the US that is Fabian Socialist. They want a French style government control of the economy. Woodrow Wilson was of this persuasion when he participated in the crafting of what were later called the 'Jim Crow' Laws in the early 1900's.
By the mid 1920's, the Progressives had alienated so many people that they changed labels and started calling themselves 'Liberal'. Liberal of course means freely giving of your own resources. The Political Liberal's have the lowest per capita charitable giving of any group in Washington. Fifty years or so later, LIberals had so alienated people that they changed and started calling themselves Progressive.
Progress as a label only means something if you have a goal to measure it by. Only if you understand the goal can you measure the progress.
Progressives have a goal. That is to manage the entire economy, 'fairly'. Fairness, of course in politics means 'I got mine!'.
Progressives want a network of interrelated monopolies that are regulated by the Progressives. Look around you. Hollywood is represented by the MPAA, and regularly cycles Stars and Starlets through the 'Mass Media' machine to promote Progressive Agenda's. Just one more monopoly in action. Microsoft/Apple, ditto. It's very much the same, wherever you look. Unions are really just large corporations that try to exert a monopoly in providing labor. Where do the Unions always side? The National News Media are taught in College to always support Socialist causes, after graduation, the majority of them then do. Witness MSNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NYT, . . .
The Progressive/Liberal dream end state is total security, with all power held and exercised by a select few.
Of course, freedom is not compatible with security, so you see many freedoms being 'infringed' and denigrated by the 'progressives.
And so it goes.
But, your identifying the Liberal/Progressive politics with the Fascist is really totally correct. The really funny part is that they call anyone who opposes them Fascist.
Interesting story. Do you have any links to confirm that's how it happened?
Government: meet your deadlines.
Populace: Don't be held to deadlines by a government that refuses to meet theirs.
When we were supposed to have registered and become insured again? With the key, critical, central piece of the equation critically broken? It won't stop them from trying to fine people for it, though.
Dictating law to people doesn't work. Levying fines for their own incompetence, it's all this is going to come down to.
Let's get this straight. The White House knew people were going to lose their doctors and insurance butte hey kept saying the old line, "if you like your insurance you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." Instead, they lied knowing full well what would happen. They kept saying this in order to sell it. However, no one in the main stream media, calls the White House on these facts.
In addition, isn't there a supposed policy for the government to post on forums to sway public opinion, just saying...