Affordable Care Act Exchanges Fail To Detect Counterfeit Documentation (atr.org)

Tulsa_Time writes with this excerpt of an account from the (unapologetically partisan) Americans for Tax Reform about a report released by the Government Accountability Office in which "application and enrollment controls on the federal exchange and two state exchanges (California and Kentucky)" were investigated by supplying false information; in each case, the investigators were able to obtain and activate health insurance through the exchanges. A slice: Ten fictitious applicants were created to test whether verification steps including validating an applicant's Social Security number, verifying citizenship, and verifying household income were completed properly. In order to test these controls, GAO's test applications provided fraudulent documentation: "For each of the 10 undercover applications where we obtained qualified health-plan coverage, the respective marketplace directed that our applicants submit supplementary documentation we provided counterfeit follow-up documentation, such as fictitious Social Security cards with impossible Social Security numbers, for all 10 undercover applications."

Comments

So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[DeBattell]

I'm sure submitting false information on those forms is illegal. So, make sure all the people responsible go to jail.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[ShanghaiBill]

I'm sure submitting false information on those forms is illegal.

Why should it be illegal? If you want to buy insurance for someone that doesn't exist, that is fine with me.

Re: So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[known_coward_69]

This is California. Back in the day of MediCal there was billions of $$$ of fraud and they didn't care

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[ScentCone]

Why should it be illegal? If you want to buy insurance for someone that doesn't exist, that is fine with me.

How about if in the course of applying, the fake person also describes a lifestyle that qualifies them for completely subsidized care that other people get to go to work every day to buy for them? This is no different than any other of benefit fraud.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[hawguy]

I'm sure submitting false information on those forms is illegal.

Why should it be illegal? If you want to buy insurance for someone that doesn't exist, that is fine with me.

But are you ok with them submitting and getting paid for claims for that fictitious person? Buying insurance for a fictitious person should be as illegal as submitting claims for them, so if you find that someone has bought 1000 policies for fictitious people, you have a tool to stop them before they start submitting claims.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[ShanghaiBill]

But are you ok with them submitting and getting paid for claims for that fictitious person?

Claims have to be submitted through a medical office, which checks your ID. Besides, if you want to submit false claims, you can do that as easily for a real person as a fictitious person. The only difference is that the real person will have much less difficulty cashing the checks. Banks also check IDs.

Sorry, but I just don't see the point in getting an insurance policy for a non-existent person.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[jedidiah]

Forget about illegal. The system couldn't even figure out that the details were completely invalid and fictitious. It's unable to do the slightest bit of basic sanity checking.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[hawguy]

But are you ok with them submitting and getting paid for claims for that fictitious person?

Claims have to be submitted through a medical office, which checks your ID. Besides, if you want to submit false claims, you can do that as easily for a real person as a fictitious person. The only difference is that the real person will have much less difficulty cashing the checks. Banks also check IDs.

Sorry, but I just don't see the point in getting an insurance policy for a non-existent person.

But can you see the point in not allowing it?

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[ShanghaiBill]

How about if in the course of applying, the fake person also describes a lifestyle that qualifies them for completely subsidized care

Who cares? Now they have a FREE insurance policy that is worth $0 because it is in the name of someone that doesn't exist. Since no doctor is going to treat someone whose name and SSN doesn't match their insurance card, this would cost the taxpayers nothing.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[khallow]

Why should it be illegal? If you want to buy insurance for someone that doesn't exist, that is fine with me.

Consider this scenario:
1) Create a pile of fake people.
2) Conspirator at insurance company gets them insurance.
3) Siphon money out of the company as commission bonuses.

If instead, you control the insurance company, then you can rake in the subsidies. Fake low income people, subsidized by Uncle Sugar, who never need medical care would be great for the bottom line.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[I'm New Around Here]

Wow. Die hard Obamabot. It's amazing you can breath, with your head shoved so far up his ass.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[khallow]

Claims have to be submitted through a medical office, which checks your ID. Besides, if you want to submit false claims, you can do that as easily for a real person as a fictitious person. The only difference is that the real person will have much less difficulty cashing the checks. Banks also check IDs.

Unless they don't do that say because you bribed them.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[LynnwoodRooster]

Or it's in the name of someone who DOES exist, but because of a fake SSN and other information - you cannot verify the fact they earn above the subsidy levels, so they can get subsidized insurance.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

there is nobody on THESE particular forms. The reason is that it was done by GAO for testing purposes, however, since nobody will be using them, then no federal law was broke.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[Antique Geekmeister]

It';s potentially very useful for illegal immigrants, for drug addicts faking a medical record to get pain opiates, for fake billing by medical staff or insurance companies, for getting treatment for conditions your limited medical insurance is unwilling to provide for statistical reasons, and to obtain and and resell expensive medications on the black market.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[Cinnamon Beige]

But are you ok with them submitting and getting paid for claims for that fictitious person?

Claims have to be submitted through a medical office, which checks your ID. Besides, if you want to submit false claims, you can do that as easily for a real person as a fictitious person. The only difference is that the real person will have much less difficulty cashing the checks. Banks also check IDs.

Sorry, but I just don't see the point in getting an insurance policy for a non-existent person.

Offhand, if you're running this scheme for money then the doctor is in on it--one of the problems with traditional Medicare/Medicaid fraud is that the patient is an actual, real person who can be asked if you performed the procedures you billed for. As you might notice, this is a real thing and none of the problems you've mentioned should exist--the doctor is cashing the checks, the doctor is generating the false claims.

Now, you can also use this so somebody with fake ID--something that exists, and I'm not sure how anybody could not know this--can go and get procedures using the fake person's insurance and on the fake person's records. This could be done for reasons ranging from "the doctor's reports would out you for the disability fraud you're doing" to "you do not want your abusive spouse finding out you're a touch pregnant."

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[ScentCone]

You're foggy on the whole fraud thing, aren't you? Fraudulent medical billing and the provision of services to people who aren't supposed to get them (because they're posing as someone else, or getting someone else's opiate prescription, etc) is rampant. In the billions of dollars. Fake IDs, stolen identities ... these are front and center in massive, ongoing, and routine fraud. Very popular in the illegal immigrant set, who also receive hundreds of millions in fraudulently claimed incomes tax refunds and credits. That you're not clear on this is pretty frightening. Please don't do anything tricky or risky like voting.

Re: So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Start reading e newspapers. Tens of Thousands of people do it to get narcotics. It's estimated that at least a hundred thousand illegals are using fraudulent or stolen identities, and that a large fraction of them are using health insurance.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[sumdumass]

They don't check your ID. If that was true, it would prevent the poor and minority communities from getting medical care just like asking for ID prevents them from being able to vote.

Maybe they ask for an ID and take it if you have it but they cannot refuse you if you don't. Getting medical care is not like cashing a check, opening a bank account or any of the other things most people do in society that requires some form of ID. its more like voting were no ID is required and if you think otherwise you are a racists.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[John Jorsett]

But are you ok with them submitting and getting paid for claims for that fictitious person?

Claims have to be submitted through a medical office, which checks your ID. Besides, if you want to submit false claims, you can do that as easily for a real person as a fictitious person. The only difference is that the real person will have much less difficulty cashing the checks. Banks also check IDs.

Sorry, but I just don't see the point in getting an insurance policy for a non-existent person.

If it isn't a problem, why do we (pretend to) check? Just to employ bureaucrats?

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[BadgerRush]

I'm sorry, but if you believe there is such a thing as "basic sanity checking" then you are not a software developer (or had some flaws in your education if you are). In a system of this size there will always be unexpected exceptions to any sanity checking that you can think off. By programming a "basic sanity checking" in the system you create a huge problem where several clients with perfectly "sane" inputs get rejected just because some of their information is uncommon.

That reminded me of an interesting blog post I read some time ago, about mistakes programmers make when creating "basic sanity checking" on a simple name field: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/...

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[fahrbot-bot]

You're foggy on the whole fraud thing, aren't you? Fraudulent medical billing and the provision of services to people who aren't supposed to get them (because they're posing as someone else, or getting someone else's opiate prescription, etc) is rampant. In the billions of dollars. Fake IDs, stolen identities ... these are front and center in massive, ongoing, and routine fraud. Very popular in the illegal immigrant set, who also receive hundreds of millions in fraudulently claimed incomes tax refunds and credits.

That you're not clear on this is pretty frightening. Please don't do anything tricky or risky like voting.

Your obvious Fox News inspired mindset not withstanding, yes some people attempt to obtain health care services fraudulently, but the bulk of Health Care Fraud comes from unscrupulous *providers* not patients:

• The Challenge of Health Care Fraud, "The majority of health care fraud is committed by a very small minority of dishonest health care providers."
• Health care fraud, Types: Billing for services not rendered, Upcoding of services, Upcoding of items, Duplicate claims, Unbundling, Excessive services, Unnecessary services, Kickbacks

And I would add, quoting you: "That you're not clear on this is pretty frightening. Please don't do anything tricky or risky like voting."

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlikely that anyone from the GAO will go to jail for making sure that government agencies are being responsible with federal funding. This is one of their mandates. The people who run the organizations that sign false identities up for federal benefits are the ones that should go to jail.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[dywolf]

if only there was some sort of list of personal identifying information they asked for.
oh wait, they totally do.
apparently you havent actually tried the website.

Re:So make sure they all get jailed for fraud

[khallow]

if only there was some sort of list of personal identifying information they asked for.

If only that were good enough. Let us recall they were able to get 17 fake people enrolled in either insurance companies or Medicaid coverage. Better to catch these things now than when there are a few hundred thousand people siphoning health insurance subsidies for years at a time.

The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Made Obama do this.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The Republicans forced Obama to include the exchanges.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong again, it's the NRA's fault!

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

The exchanges force people at gun point to give money to corporations. That is why the Republicans created them.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of the problem is the NRA's fault since they flood the streets with guns and do not pay their fair share of the medical bills they are responsible for.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! In addition to their own off the books gun manufacturing capabilities which spit out identical copies of well known guns, which are fed into their shadowy underground transportation system, where they finally end up in the hands of stealth members who shoot people at random and leave the gun behind... they clearly have a state level hacking group which is responsible for these issues with the federal exchange system.

I hear the hurricane hitting Mexico now is also the fault of the NRA.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well while it isn't directly the NRA's fault, there is a lot of overlap with the Republicans who are responsible for global warming.

Re: The Republicans...

[Papaspud]

Pretty sure Reps had nothing to do with the ACA, but go ahead and spin anyway..... like a top.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure Reps had nothing to do with the ACA, but go ahead and spin anyway..... like a top.

you mean romneycare? Mitt romney was the republican candidate for president last election, of course the republicans had something to do with romneycare they got it from him, wtf are you smoking?

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which Republican congress suggested enacting RomneyCare at the national level?

Re: The Republicans...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Obamacare was already law prior to Mitt running for President...

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

The one prior to Obama's first election. Seriously. The ACA is a Heritage Foundation healthcare reform plan, which was *trumpeted* by Republicans as being the perfect way to fix our broken healthcare system right up until the moment that Obama endorsed it, and actually started pushing to get the thing turned into a law. The moment that happened, Republicans turned against the plan, and, despite being responsible for more than 100 of the successful amendments to the original bill, voted against it in a futile attempt to *not* let Obama do something they'd been claiming they wanted (but not actually attempting) since Reagan was campaigning for office.

'Romneycare', as it was called in Massachusetts, was a state-level implementation of the same plan and is widely considered a very *good* system, which made it all the more ironic (and idiotic) when he argued against implementing that plan nationwide by claiming that it was harmful.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your crack dealer must be wealthy, even if you are his only client and he only has a 1% profit margin.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! Just as the NRA directly floods our streets with self shooting guns... so too does the Republican party set up massive CO2 producing factory that turn out nothing but CO2.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

But not when he was governor of Massachusetts. The ACA is basically a clone of the system enacted there that was a major accomplishment of the Romney administration. That, in turn, was a copy of an idea from the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s meant as the conservative alternative to the (failed) Clinton plan.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong again because it will always be Bush's fault in the end.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except if you read the heritage foundation version it isn't the same on several major points and the idea for individual mandate existed prior to it by several years. But sure you could spin it to some how to blame republicans for something that democrats created and passed.

Re: The Republicans...

[sumdumass]

I hear that a lot but can never find where any vote in congress happened where republicans actually voted for it.

The reality is a lot different than the picture you attempt to paint. Outside of some republicans in very liberal states, very few supported it and the support it seems to have recieved was the lesser of two evils type. There are plenty of conservative states which republicans controlled all branches of government which refused to adopt similar laws or the law you claim they championed. It has never been brought to the floor of the house or Senate any recieved any significant amount of republican votes. During the primary, Romney got slammed hard for Romney care by republicans and democrats both. In fact, even the democrats had severe issues with the PPACA and it only passed by legislative maneuvering and bribes to democratic senators when the democrats controlled both houses of congress and the administration.

You really should look into what you are repeating before blindly repeating it. Perhaps doing a little sanity check on your reality would be wise to. It certainly doesn't match the pictures you painted which is likely why you find yourself "informing" people so often. The reason they didn't know is because it is made up or presented fictitiousaly.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or give credit? Within the framework where the government can't provide care and the market is broken, it's the best option by far. Works pretty well, too, both in Massachusetts and nationally.

Re: The Republicans...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Maybe what works for a city or State doesn't necessarily work for the nation? Like a national minimum wage - what is a "living wage" that is fair and equitable across the entire country?

So what?

[Kohath]

The pro-ACA people don't care about screening out fake applicants. They think any person getting another government handout is a good thing, regardless of circumstance.

The anti-Obamacare people don't care about fixing the screening process either. They want to get rid of the government exchanges altogether.

No one wants the process fixed. So it won't be.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, both groups don't have to worry about ACA anyway, as they're in the elite class. Bread and circuses.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The pro-ACA people don't care about screening out fake applicants. They think any person getting another government handout is a good thing, regardless of circumstance.

You have it wrong, what they don't care about, or rather for, is the onerous and difficult process to get people covered. Fraud, most of which will be by service providers, is the real issue they worry about.

But instead, it's treated like the problem is somehow on the individual level.

Uh-huh. What else does Rick Scott want you to believe?

Re:So what?

[Technician]

Anything government is a total mess. Today I needed a replacement SS card. no problem, fill out the SS 5 form found online and take it to the office with my ID. Sounds simple. Actually it was not.

1 the take a number sign in was out of papter. 12 minutes to wait for the paper to be replaced.
2 Wait 2 hours to be called. Run out and feed the parking meter.
3 Sent away because my drivers license is invalid ID. Why was it invalid? It is due for renual next month. It is not expired. Went in to start the renual. Was issued a temp paper while the replacement is mailed to me. I still have the original, but they punched a hole in it to invalidate it. If I didn't renew my license, it would still be valid until next month. Is there any higher level of incompentance other than fedral government? They can't take it not because it is expired, but because it is being renued. How stupid can the fedral government get.

Somehow I expect the same high livel of competance with health care. As long as I can afford it, I'm staying on a private plan. This scares me.

Re:So what?

[rmdingler]

Spot on, however modestly you've presented yourself.

Total dollar fraud by individuals applying for a rate credit they don't qualify for will be dwarfed by the fraud dollar amount created by clever, unscrupulous medical providers.

Note: Rick Scott, FTR, is the governor of Florida, who was famous prior to that mostly for getting rich as the head of a hospital consortium... perhaps not the most unbiased source for objective review of the ACA program.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, more government control of healthcare is a good thing. Imagine the description of what happened to you if one of those Republican-style private corporations controlled SSN cards or the DMV. They'd rob you blind then try to steal everything you have. Everything you have.

Re:So what?

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

This class warfare thing is hilarious. The "elite" aren't suffering from this system designed to encourage fraud. I'm sure folks that are making a million dollars a year could care less about what amounts to a rounding error when it comes to the cost of their insurance. It's the MIDDLE class that's getting soaked here. The rich don't care.

Re: So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the insurance companies will be happy to take their money right up to the point there's a serious medical issue,then they'll get dropped for falsifying their info.

Re:So what?

[Art Challenor]

No. The Republicans want to use the ACA as a weapon but would be devastated if it went away. It was written by one of their biggest donor groups (the health insurance industry) who continue to salivate at the premiums that are being paid to them by the government. They also protected another donor group - big Pharma - by inserting an amendment to prohibit drug price negotiation.

What's surprising is that Kentucky is in the mix. Mitch McConnell pretty much ran on a ticket of how much better Kynect - the Kentucky exchange - was than the ACA. Since Kynect IS the ACA you start to wonder at the stupidity of the average McConnell supporter.

Re:So what?

[gurps_npc]

The problem with people like you is you can't do a valid comparison. Compare that with how most business treat non-profitable requirements - such as getting a insurance claim paid.

The real truth is that 12/15 new businesses fail in the first year. Over the next two years, 1 more business will go bankrupt, one will continue at a viable loss (definition: Owner makes less money per hour worked than owner could make working for someone else). and only ONE out 15 makes a real profit.

This compares with about 1/3 government agencies considered successful. Government beats new business every day of the week.

The real reason people think governments don't work is that most of the time it's working AGAINST you. Cops ticket you, the IRS taxes you, the city says you can't build that there, etc. The main reason people like the military is that it only works against foreigners, not citizens. So you never complain about them. Even if they kill civilians, torture innocent people, bomb hospitals, etc. The truth is the military is no more effective than any other government agency. They fail just as often, you just don't care.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't a handout. You sound like one of those Republicans. It is a fair tax on the wealthy. Those people with jobs are not paying their fair share. With the ACA they are paying more of their fair share. Without the ACA, people kept too much of their money and didn't pay enough for the care of others. The hateful gluttons in the US refused to pay their fair share. They hate us and would rather have us die than pay what they owe.

Re: So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Found the Democrat.

Re: So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If wanting people with jobs to pay their fair share, then yes I am. It is the Republicans that are fighting against reasonable, common sense income tax increases.

Re: So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans truly are the party of death. They don't want to pay their fair share of our healthcare.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that this drivel is rated +5 insightful is why Slashdot is so pathetic these days.

Re:So what?

[jedidiah]

> This compares with about 1/3 government agencies considered successful.

Unfortunately none of those include Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, or any of the state disability systems.

If a company fails, then you can just use the another company. If a monopoly of any sort fails, you're just stuck. If that monopoly is medical care, you're just DEAD.

Re:So what?

[khallow]

Imagine the description of what happened to you if one of those Republican-style private corporations controlled SSN cards or the DMV.

Why would we do that? Imagine you letting a Republican-style private corporation chop out your organs and sell them to the highest bidder? I can't imagine that either. There are some dumb things we just won't allow corporations to do. What I consider stupid is the idea that it's ok if the government does it (or often, lets Republican-style corporations do it as proxy).

They'd rob you blind then try to steal everything you have. Everything you have.

If that's a problem, then don't use those services. Don't be a blind idiot is always good advice.

Re:So what?

[_Sharp'r_]

No need to imagine. Lots of states have privately run DMVs for car title-related stuff now. You walk in, talk to someone immediately, hand over your paperwork, they help you with real customer service and then at the end of the 10 minute process they tack on a $6-8 extra "fee" for not having to wait several hours at the still existing government-run ones.

Re:So what?

[jedidiah]

It's strange. If the Republicans are in the health insurance industry then why was it the Democrats passed a corporate welfare bill for insurance companies?

As far as the "drug price negotiation" bogey man goes, I would rather people like Clinton and Sanders didn't slay the golden goose. The parts of the industry that make new stuff create modern miracles and should be encouraged to keep on doing so.

Trying to "stiff doctors" and "stiff drug companies" is nothing to brag about. It's kind of sleazy really.

In the grand scheme of things, "overpaying" for new miracle drugs beats buying an extra aircraft carrier we don't even need.

Re:So what?

[I'm New Around Here]

The rich don't care.

Neither to the poor.

Re:So what?

[jedidiah]

Moron. Get this through your thick skull. The ACA is corporate welfare for insurance companies. Anything that forces me to buy something from a corporation is not making people "pay their fair share".

A new "Obamacare Tax" would have made people "pay their fair" share. The Dems just had no balls to do things the right way so they end up with this corporate welfare monstrosity.

They did that despite ramming this through congress without any republican approval. If you are going to do something like that, you might as well do it right or something vaguely resembling right.

God, nanny state babies are stupid.

Re:So what?

[_Sharp'r_]

Here's your shot for intellectual honesty, as compared to just hating on Republicans.

In the current 2015-2016 election cycle, who is the top recipient of money from "big Pharma", as you call them, almost 40% higher than the next closest candidate?

I bet Hillary Clinton just jumped to the top of your mind there, right? Health industry in general? Hillary, by 2.5x the next closest candidate.

Face it, if you look at the records, the industries donate to whoever they think might win. There isn't an ideological bias in their donations, there is a bias towards giving money to anyone who may end up writing or enforcing laws which affect them.

Re:So what?

[spauldo]

I've never met anyone who is pro-ACA.

I have met (and am one) people who think the ACA is marginally better than what we had before, and support it only because no decent medical plan has a chance of passing.

So yeah, while I'd prefer a single payer system, I know I"m not going to get it. I'd like this fixed.

Re:So what?

[roman_mir]

What the fuck is 'successful' then? A successful business is one where the owner makes money because the market found the business to be useful.

This compares with about 1/3 government agencies considered successful. Government beats new business every day of the week.

- ????? WTF does that mean? Government 'beats' real business? Because government STEALS money to run its department!

Government is theft, income and wealth taxes are theft, government departments are theft, government programs are theft, every single thing, without a fucking exception that governments do is based on theft!

You know, if your private business is theft you can also be quite successful, especially if it doesn't matter that you can get caught, because the entire political system says that the theft that you do is legal.

Re: So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I agree with you. All us Republicans should just quit our jobs and get the rich Democrats to pay for our medical care.

After all, that works for you Democrats.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the rich get better service, and you don't have a problem with that unfairness?

Re:So what?

[jedidiah]

Don't be such an innumerate MORON.

It's $8, not $800.

Even "poor" people can afford that kind of convenience should they so desire it. If that's not something they value, then they can squander that $8 on something that makes them feel wealthier than they really are.

Re:So what?

[Kohath]

I'd like this fixed.

Why?

Re:So what?

[plopez]

So if the gov't office were properly funded to the tune of $8 more we would get better service.

Re:So what?

[plopez]

It isn't theft if you get something in return.

Re:So what?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Government doesn't have to pay taxes. Government can (and does) exempt itself from laws and regulations. Government doesn't need to turn a profit - it can unilaterally raise taxes/fees or simply issue debt to keep running. Government can create or break monopolies at will. Government and business are nothing alike and you cannot compare rates of "success".

Re:So what?

[roman_mir]

Wrong, it is theft under all conditions when my money is stolen from me under the barrel of a gun (quite literally, should I refuse to pay and try to protect my private property).

Beyond that, most people who are paying most taxes are getting nothing from it that they personally need at all, but that's totally beside the real argument that all government is based on theft.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look everybody! A 'taxes are theft' loon!

Look, junior, taxes are *literally* the price we pay for civilization.

In your little dream world, you think that if we didn't have government, we'd have a joyous little paradise where everyone got along, and everything was kittens and roses. In *reality*, without government, you wouldn't have *any* of the little luxuries that let you get by with more than a subsistence level of survival, because even if you did manage to eke out more than that, someone who is stronger than you would take it, and you'd be left without recourse. You wouldn't have police to protect you from predators. You wouldn't have courts to apply laws and punish law breakers. You wouldn't even have *laws*.

Anarchy isn't a happy place where you get everything you want. It's a hellhole where anybody who wants something can (and will) take it from you, up to and including your freedom and/or life.

Do yourself, and the rest of us, a favor. Grow up. Look around you, and see how the world *really* works. Take a look outside your cushy little bubble, and see what happens to people in places without government. It isn't pretty. Ever. It's not a dog-eat-dog world in those places, it's a forced-to-watch-your-wife-and-daughter-be-raped-and-fed-to-dogs-because-the-local-warlord-finds-it-amusing world.

Re:So what?

[Daemonik]

Tell you what, never use our roads, our internet, our many other public services ever again. Shut yourself up in your private property hermitage, dig a well because you aren't allowed to use water that came from a river the government diverted for our benefit. We'll work out a list of products you can never use because they resulted from government backed research. Then.. yeah you can quit paying taxes then. We'll let you.

Re:So what?

[roman_mir]

Tell you what, 'your' roads are stolen property. The Internet is built privately and the government work on the protocol was one of many. Government stole the money to build the original ARPANET as well. Every single thing that you believe government is giving you came on the backs of theft, violence, murder. As to what I should do, I had the unfortunate displeasure of being born on the planet full of thieves and as such options are limited, you being happy with the situation is simply another indicator of the theft as the status quo here. AFAIC everything that government does comes from theft of private property and all forms of destruction of individual liberties, including murder in every war that governments start.

As to who is paying taxes in this system, it's easy to use the system, such as it is, to not pay income related taxes, at the very least half of the population does not, so quite the opposite, I will do as that half does - let the system work for me because it is set up this way. That does not mean at all that I want that system. I believe that this system has prevented much more wealth from being generated than what it generated itself with all this theft. Government has cut your legs off, gave you crutches and you are happy about it, moron.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't theft if you get something in return.

That's like saying it's not rape if I enjoy it: My consent (which I might otherwise have cheerfully given) was not gotten. It also matters if I actually want what I am getting in return.

Re: So what?

[Bartles]

No, because the customer doesn't have the option of buying elsewhere.

Re:So what?

[Cinnamon Beige]

Tell you what, never use our roads, our internet, our many other public services ever again. Shut yourself up in your private property hermitage, dig a well because you aren't allowed to use water that came from a river the government diverted for our benefit. We'll work out a list of products you can never use because they resulted from government backed research. Then.. yeah you can quit paying taxes then. We'll let you.

Why not set it up a la carte? See what public services people feel are worth paying their money for? It might actually get more rational public spending by pushing people to think about just where whatever public service they think would be cool and nifty to have will come from, especially since for things like 'community pool' you could have the trigger not be 'majority' but 'sufficient funding.'

It's very easy to vote for funding things such as a library, but my experience is that you're not going to be told where the money is actually going to be found. Yes, alright, sometimes you get told that they're going to issue bonds but I've gotten to watch politicians--some of whom are now nationally-known--give every reason to believe that they don't understand how bonds actually work. You sell them for money now and look confused when people want to redeem them at maturity because...apparently they were just supposed to turn into money somehow? It's hard to tell. (It got rather hard for the city and county this was in to get people to vote for bonds, because even the college students who weren't likely to be there long enough to see whatever it was built caught on.)

Re:So what?

[itsenrique]

And what private replacement for disability do you recommend?

Re: So what?

[Bartles]

What's their fair share?

Re: So what?

[Bartles]

Well, 9 of 23 state co-ops have gone bankrupt already. We're well pin our way to single payer, as designed.

Re:So what?

[spauldo]

Because there's no viable alternative.

We're not going to get single-payer. We're not going to get fully socialized health care. We might get Alan Grayson's "Republican health care", if the libertarians gain more foothold, but that's as bad or worse than what we had before.

We have to live with the system we have. I'd prefer it to work.

Re: So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh it could be worse. I lost my ID in a fire. I had to get a new DL and Soc Sec card. SS is required to get a DL, DL for SS. I did have my passport as it was in my bank fortunately. I had to explain class 1,2 and 3 IDs to the SS office manager who then said my passport would not be accepted because I had not recently travelled out of the country and so could not show my, and I quote her 'continued existence'. I lost it and asked if she honestly thought I had spontaneously ceased to exist and then come back into being. she looked at me like a deer in headlights. I then tried to explain that she acknowledged I used to exist, and that I existed now, thus logically, if I did not cease to exist then come back into being, my previous existence plus my present existence should be enough to prove that I existed in-between.

Eventually they gave me a piece of paper I could take to the DL office, get them to issue me another piece of paper, bring it back to the SS office get my replacement card letter, to wait on my replacement card, and go back to the DL office and get my new DL issued.

Re:So what?

[tompaulco]

You have it wrong, what they don't care about, or rather for, is the onerous and difficult process to get people covered.

Why do we need people to be covered? We don't have an insurance coverage problem. We have a healthcare problem. Insurance coverage != healthcare. In fact, because I have insurance like a good boy, I can't really afford medical attention. We have $1,000 in medical bills from this summer which we can't pay. If we had not paid our insurance premiums, we could have paid this down in two months.

Re:So what?

[Daemonik]

Do please avail yourself of one of the many options open to you to leave this planet you were so tragically born into then.

Re:So what?

[Mantrid42]

Let me guess. You've never been poor.

Re:So what?

[Mantrid42]

What about police and fire fighters?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The rich don't care.

Neither to the poor.

Fucking seriously? You may use "a real octal numbering system" according to your sig, but it's really more like you use a "real rectal reasoning system" for your posts.

Re:So what?

[wendyo]

The pro-ACA people don't care about screening out fake applicants.

This is ridiculous on it's face. The pro-ACA people want the ACA to succeed.

They think any person getting another government handout is a good thing, regardless of circumstance.

Nonsense.

Re:So what?

[_Sharp'r_]

If you value $8 more than a couple of hours of your time, then you go to the state run DMV. If you value your time more, then you go to the privately run one. Anyone of the working poor are going to want to work their job rather than have to ask their boss for a few hours off to go to the DMV. Of course, the state run ones are only open during a shortened work day.

In the meantime, the competition on the private side keeps them fast, efficient and with good customer service, because otherwise you just go to the one that's run better.

Everyone who pays to go to a privately run DMV reduces the workload and lines at the state DMV by that person, so it also benefits those going to the state run DMV.

The biggest problem is that they haven't figured out how to privatize the driver's license part of the DMV, so that still entails a very long process for people getting their license for the first time. On the day she got her license, it took 6 hours for my daughter and I to get her through the process. Wasn't helped by the fact that the road test folks took a 2 hour lunch break in the middle of the day, so after waiting through multiple paperwork lines in the morning, we then had to wait for them to come back in the afternoon. She needed me to drive her there and needed my car for the test and signature for the paperwork, so it cost me an entire day of PTO in order to help her through the final process. I'd have gladly paid $50-$100 bucks for it to only take the actual time spent not waiting, i.e. about 30 minutes.

Re:So what?

[sumdumass]

I had to get a copy of my SS card recently to. My experience was a little more pleasant but similar. Showed up, my belt buckle set of the metal detector so i got groped by an armed security guard. Signed in at the door and recieved instructions on where to go. Pulled my number and watched the 5 or so people who came in while I was experiencing federal foreplay get served before me. Thinking i would be called soon, i held the need to use the restroom when someone who wasn't even in the same room for the last half hour or so walked up and complained their number was skipped. So they jumped in front of me and argued with the window clerk loud enough that my not so secret admirer walked up and stood beside them.

So I'm standing there for about 20 minutes almost about to start the pee-pee dance when officer friendly's not so friendly brother comes over asking me why i looked so agitated. The battery in his hearing aid must have been dead or something because i had to repeat that my number is next and i had to piss couple of times progressively louder until his dad came over to inquire why i was yelling at his officers. Finally a window opens and as the people were leaving i was expecting my number to be called. But no, life couldn't be that easy, it was the clerk's lunch break time so i told the guard i was going ahead and pissing. Came back and the number after me was at the other window. I'm on my third hour now and was about to go off on everyone when the guard came over and told me a supervisor would open a window to do my business in a minute. Sure enough, a window opened and she called me over. I told her what i needed and gave her my drivers license. She verified my address, explained it was a two part process where a letter saying they were going to mail the card would show up first and if i didn't see it within a week to call them because something might have been screwed on the address. Then she asked me my race. I had to ask if i said Martian or black if I would get better or worse service. She said it was just on the screen so she had to ask and it wouldn't effect anything. So i said if there wasn't a box for American i didn't want to play the game. She laughed and said i didn't have to answer which puzzled me.

All in all, i wasted about three hours and forty five minutes, got to meet a chick with a strange sense of humor, a frisky security guard, two guards with little sense of humor, and left with the sense of being in incompetent hands

Re:So what?

[porges]

Is that a deductible, or what? Either way, the question is, what would the bills have been if you showed up as an uninsured person? Notoriously, the non-insured rate is often higher than the insured-rate-before-insurance.

Re: So what?

[smooth wombat]

So it's like Obamneycare where I don't have a choice whether or not I want to give my money to a private company. I'm forced to do so and if choose not to do so the government will reach into my bank account and forcibly extract the money.

Good to know the two are related.

Re:So what?

[tompaulco]

Is that a deductible, or what? Either way, the question is, what would the bills have been if you showed up as an uninsured person? Notoriously, the non-insured rate is often higher than the insured-rate-before-insurance.

It was like $2,000 before the contract rate. So yeah, it would have taken about 4 months to pay it off if I didn't have insurance, but I can't pay it off at all because I do have insurance, unless I drop my insurance, in which case I can pay it off in like 4 months.

Re:So what?

[drinkypoo]

Why not set it up a la carte? See what public services people feel are worth paying their money for?

Because most people are ignorant idiots; they don't know what they need to know to make an intelligent decision, and even if they did, they still couldn't make one. Everyone would choose to spend their money on saving puppies and putting homeless people in jail for littering and nobody would choose to spend their money on infrastructure.

Re:So what?

[drinkypoo]

The biggest problem is that they haven't figured out how to privatize the driver's license part of the DMV,

The biggest problem in California, anyway, is that the DMV is still using 1970s technologies and processes. They need a complete goddamned revamp. Unfortunately, most of the people who work there can barely understand how to tie their fucking shoes in the morning, and a new system would paralyze them even if it sang instructions to them to the sound of mini-tune jingles.

Re:So what?

[drinkypoo]

Yep, Hillary's job way back when was to champion single-payer health care. After it flopped they didn't even let her talk again, basically, until she took a big fat sack of Big Pharma money. Now she's just Part Of The Problem to me. Before that, I might have considered voting for her for president eventually. Afterwards, she is more of the same and that's it.

Re:So what?

[Cinnamon Beige]

Why not set it up a la carte? See what public services people feel are worth paying their money for?

Because most people are ignorant idiots; they don't know what they need to know to make an intelligent decision, and even if they did, they still couldn't make one. Everyone would choose to spend their money on saving puppies and putting homeless people in jail for littering and nobody would choose to spend their money on infrastructure.

That's precisely because they're insulated from it: The source of funding for infrastructure is something they don't think about, nor do they tend to think of what forms & kinds of infrastructure will have the best bang-for-buck. They're used to voting for politicians who promise to spend money on your "saving puppies and putting homeless people in jail for littering," and both doing things efficiently and paying for doing this is always Somebody Else's Problem.

This would make it no longer somebody else's problem and control for at least some of the effects of diffusion of responsibility, and the problem is likely to be both self-limiting and self-correcting as people start earmarking their money for infrastructure that they consider important.

Knowing some of the issues for the homeless, though, your second example of what you expect money to be given to brings up a major problem with assuming our current system does terribly much to avoid defunding important infrastructure. We defunded the mental health infrastructure, because suddenly we had these magic pills that 'cured' people, and people didn't like mental hospitals. The thing is, those pills don't cure--they can get people to where they're only needing a very bare minimum of support, but a lot of these conditions are pretty much permanent. (Some of the research actually points towards the theory that at least some are more accurately described not as psychological illnesses but as neurological illnesses that happen to have psychological symptoms.) If we're going to end up having the only way somebody can get treatment and shelter be getting themselves in jail, the absolute least we could do is minimize the costs to society and them by not forcing them to commit a serious crime.

Or, y'know, we could fund having the infrastructure rebuilt, except right now that's not likely to happen because you'd have to convince a majority of people, as opposed to 'enough people to toss in enough money.'

Re: So what?

[Bartles]

At least you could move out of a shithole like Massachusetts. Now you don't have that option.

Re:So what?

[tlhIngan]

Why not set it up a la carte? See what public services people feel are worth paying their money for? It might actually get more rational public spending by pushing people to think about just where whatever public service they think would be cool and nifty to have will come from, especially since for things like 'community pool' you could have the trigger not be 'majority' but 'sufficient funding.'

Because people are idiots.

I don't pay for firefighting services. My house catches on fire. Firefighters are dispatched, and they protect my neighbour's house because he paid up. I offer to pay, and they refuse. Whose fault is it? Mine, for not paying into the service? The firefighters, for refusing to take my money?

Likewise, if I don't pay for social security, and I don't have savings, that means I'm poor in old age. Which makes it more likely I'll go robbing stores for food or begging on the street. Is that a better outcome for society - to have homeless or higher petty crime just for people who fail to plan?

And that's the real problem - that's why we collectively pay into emergency services - sure it'll be very unlikely to happen to *me*, but you know, I'd rather spend my days and later years in life not worrying about all the old seniors who decided to live it big when they made money and not save up who might come and rob me, or to just be able to go out and enjoy parks without tent cities of same.

Even today, a significant chunk of the population lives paycheck to paycheck - miss one and there's a good chance they'll be out on the street, likely raising the local crime rate all so they could feed their kid (and we all pay for it - increased prices, increased policing/jail/courts/etc). There's a good chunk of people not living

And yes, there's a good chunk of people not paying income taxes - but they're both rich AND poor. But they're paying taxes in other ways - state taxes, sales taxes, etc. They're not getting a free ride.

Re:So what?

[Cinnamon Beige]

Why not set it up a la carte? See what public services people feel are worth paying their money for? It might actually get more rational public spending by pushing people to think about just where whatever public service they think would be cool and nifty to have will come from, especially since for things like 'community pool' you could have the trigger not be 'majority' but 'sufficient funding.'

Because people are idiots.

[...]

Likewise, if I don't pay for social security, and I don't have savings, that means I'm poor in old age. Which makes it more likely I'll go robbing stores for food or begging on the street. Is that a better outcome for society - to have homeless or higher petty crime just for people who fail to plan?

You do realize that I'm figuring that the odds of social security surviving long enough to pay me and most others of Gen Y & above a single penny is so low as to qualify as a sadistic joke, right? If a non-government organization tried running social security it'd be shut down because it's a Ponzi scheme--the original assumption was that the population would keep climbing and life expectancy would be stable, given that the odds of you living long enough to see your first social security check when it was set up started pretty bad and dropped towards laughable for the poor.

We're in full agreement that people are idiots, but I'd like to point out that not all cultures even organize emergency services and care of the elderly/disabled the same way--and some of them really are rather healthier in many ways because of the issues involved in making things Somebody Else's Problem.

And that's the real problem - that's why we collectively pay into emergency services - sure it'll be very unlikely to happen to *me*, but you know, I'd rather spend my days and later years in life not worrying about all the old seniors who decided to live it big when they made money and not save up who might come and rob me, or to just be able to go out and enjoy parks without tent cities of same.

Congrats, you just covered why emergency services definitely need paying for--though you still have the question of why exactly I should trust Social Security to stick around, since whatever I pay into it now is going right out the door now. It's not an investment scheme, it's not a lockbox, and if anybody but the government tried running it then it'd be very, very illegal.

Even today, a significant chunk of the population lives paycheck to paycheck - miss one and there's a good chance they'll be out on the street, likely raising the local crime rate all so they could feed their kid (and we all pay for it - increased prices, increased policing/jail/courts/etc). There's a good chunk of people not living

And yes, there's a good chunk of people not paying income taxes - but they're both rich AND poor. But they're paying taxes in other ways - state taxes, sales taxes, etc. They're not getting a free ride.

Which also suggests a way to cover the emergency services, because part of the entire issue here is that if you're living from paycheck to paycheck, then the more of that very same paycheck you can take home the better. You could probably get fewer people living from paycheck to paycheck that way, if nothing else.

As you said, people are idiots; why give them a blank check? Even threatening them with an a la carte system and making them argue for why any given part needs to be in place would help. (Especially since some of the differences between cultures which consider, say, care of the elderly the problem of their kin vs the problem of the government are interesting--particularly in the differences in what the outcomes tend to be when it is viewed as your problem to deal with as opposed to a nebulous governmental one.)

Really, I figure that people are such idiots that giving a

There should be no validation!

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone deserves to force the rich to pay for products and services for them. Better countries do it, so it should be forced on us.

Re: There should be no validation!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. European countries do this. They should be forced to buy things for us.

Re: There should be no validation!

[Kohath]

Actually, I have suggested this exact plan. The US should tax Norway to buy stuff for US benefit recipients. Norway is rich. Why shouldn't we tax them?

Re: There should be no validation!

[fustakrakich]

Because they aren't in the US, Goldman Sachs is, and they pay less US taxes, take more currency out of circulation, and receive far greater benefits than Norway does from the US government. Let's tax the people who have all the money stashed away for their casino gambling financial industries. They should pay at least much as the rest of us. Or what, their "entitlements" (handouts in these cases) are okay? The ACA is a windfall for the industry far greater than the medical packages offered, yet as always, the 'uppity' poor are to blame. It would be far cheaper and simpler to just give everybody a damn card and make the bureaucrats do the paperwork.

Re: There should be no validation!

[Kohath]

Because they aren't in the US.

We should tax Norway specifically because they aren't in the US. If we tax Norway, the US gets all the benefit and no one in the US pays anything for it. It's all benefit and no cost.

Re: There should be no validation!

[Bartles]

Do you know how many ex-goldman Sachs employees have worked for the Obama administration? Have you ever looked?

Re: There should be no validation!

[fustakrakich]

They are not "ex". The position is waiting for their return, just like Holder. This is normal. I always recommend voting out the crooks, but all I get are excuses and blame passing. It's not the politician's fault for winning.

Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

My health insurance rates have nearly doubled since the implementation of Obama care.

I guess it's "affordable" when you're on the government dole and US taxpayer is footing the bill.

KEEP OBAMA IN PRESIDENT!!!

Re: Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you are wealthy the plans are subsidized so it is affordable. Saying it isn't is a Republican lie.

Re: Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

"The uninsured rate among U.S. adults aged 18 and older was 11.4% in the second quarter of 2015, down from 11.9% in the first quarter. " Source:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184064/uninsured-rate-second-quarter.aspx

The ACA has made healthcare affordable for millions of Americans. The Republicans keep spewing the lie that there have been increases in the cost of health insurance. A change of 0.5% in a single quarter is a stunning improvement.

Re: Affordable my ass

[phantomfive]

Most of the insurance increase has been from people signing up for medicare.

I'm ok with that, but that doesn't mean it hasn't caused problems for other people.

Re:Affordable my ass

[HiThere]

While true, you ignore the fact that they started skyrocketing long before Obamacare was passed.

OTOH, if you mean that the insurance companies should be cut out of the healthcare system, I agree completely. I'm in favor of free coverage for everyone without all the god-damn middlemen that have tripled the price. (And I mean that as in "God damned the sheep and they died.". Those insurance parasites should just drop dead...or at least be rapidly put on unemployment.)

Re:Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll play. My rates went down slightly.

Re: Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. More government control provides higher quality service.

Re: Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

And makes sure race isn't used to deny care like it was before the ACA.

Re: Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

It's better that we have a higher average level of care than one that unfairly lets people bribe their way to better care.

Re: Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

But Republicans are incompetent so they think everyone else is too.

Re:Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Every article about the ACA always has some fucktard claiming this but they're always ACs and they never get into details.

Re:Affordable my ass

[Firethorn]

While true, you ignore the fact that they started skyrocketing long before Obamacare was passed.

Healthcare costs have been rising world-wide. Obamacare marked a decrease in the rise for the USA.

And I agree with you on the middlemen. They're adding approximately 30% to the cost of our healthcare by themselves. Minimum.

Re: Affordable my ass

[jedidiah]

Of course. If you have contradictory first hand experience, then it's a lie. I personally know low paid working stiffs who were not helped by Obamacare.

Plans are still expensive.
Even worthless plans are expensive.
Deductibles are still high.
Plans without high deductibles are astronomical.

Costs continue to rise for everyone getting to the point where you need to be "wealthy" to afford a plan at all anymore.

Re:Affordable my ass

[jedidiah]

No. Obamacare DOUBLED the rate of increase for plans. My state had respectable individual plans that could not be canceled. Except Obamacare caused them to be canceled. Now the decent replacement plans look like they're going to be canceled and nothing will be left but total crap.

Re:Affordable my ass

[jedidiah]

Why would anyone here want to go into too much detail? If you make it easy to identify yourself then you're just putting a target on your back for every kook and troll on the planet.

The average slashbot should be smarter than that.

Re:Affordable my ass

[LynnwoodRooster]

I'm in favor of free coverage for everyone without all the god-damn middlemen that have tripled the price.

So free coverage - who pays the doctors, the nurses, the janitors, keeps the lights on and equipment serviced, etc.?

Re:Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

No. For the *first* time in decades, health insurance costs have increased at a rate *lower* than inflation.

Your unsubstantiated claims to the contrary don't actually change this.

Re: Affordable my ass

[Bartles]

Medicaid. If you're too poor, you're not even allowed to use the exchange.

Re: Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you ment medicaid not medicare

Re: Affordable my ass

[Bartles]

Replacing insurance companies with the federal government does not cut out the middleman, you idiot.

Re: Affordable my ass

[Bartles]

? What planet do you live on? Inflation is 1.5% not 40%..

Re:Affordable my ass

[Firethorn]

A lot of those 'respectable' individual plans weren't actually respectable if you got sick. I remember reading about a plan Walmart was offering. $5k deductible, $5k maximum payout, $100/month.

Re: Affordable my ass

[Firethorn]

You're the idiot. You buried the point right in your post even. "Middleman" isn't "Middlemen". Yes, you're still going to have middle management, you're just going to have a lot less of it. IE the equivalent of one dude instead of a dozen.

I've read accounts of foreign medical providers. They just don't have the billing nonsense that we worry about all the time. They don't have to fight with a dozen insurance companies, just the one, generally speaking.

Re: Affordable my ass

[tompaulco]

Unless you are wealthy the plans are subsidized so it is affordable. Saying it isn't is a Republican lie.

Bullsh*t, Bullsh*t, Bullsh*t, Bullsh*t, Bullsh*t, Bullsh*t, Bullsh*t, Bullsh*t!!!!!!!! A thousand times Bullsh*t. I lost my job, had ZERO INCOME. I still had to pay FULL PRICE for my coverage. Redid my application, NO CHANGE. NOT EVEN TAX CREDIT. I'm sure SOME people are getting subsidized, but it isn't people like me who have paid into the system for 30 years.

Re:Affordable my ass

[tompaulco]

My health insurance rates have nearly doubled since the implementation of Obama care.

I guess it's "affordable" when you're on the government dole and US taxpayer is footing the bill.

KEEP OBAMA IN PRESIDENT!!!

Mine quadrupled and I got less coverage.

Re:Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine quadrupled and I got less coverage.

That's because you're a Repukian, and Repukians (particularly those evil Christian Repukians) are lucky we let them live at all, let alone allow them health care and/or insurance!

If we can just get to single-payer, we can fix those oversights and have a Final Solution for Repukians!

Re:Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Reputable source, or you're a fucking liar.

Re: Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the state of MO apparently has opted out of the federal money.

So if i want to sign up for individual insurance itll cost $200 a month.

Yeah i cant afford that.

And before someone chimes in with "shut off your $100 a month cable & $100 a month smartphone"... i dont have cable, or a smartphone.

Re: Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally know low paid working stiffs who were not helped by Obamacare.

Same here. Health care for people not working for large corporations sucks. One of the reasons contractors in the tech business make such huge amounts of money is they have to spend huge amounts of money to pay for benefits (especially if they have a family).

We should have copied the Swiss plan verbatim. They've already spend the money to come up with something that works, and has years of testing.

It would be a nice turn-about, the USA free riding on somebody else for a change. The Northern European and Scandinavian countries owe a lot of their success to free riding on others (and not, despite the claims of some, to socialism), why shouldn't we do the same?

Re:Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone does, same as before, except they only have to pay 20-30% of what they're paying right now. That's the amount those doctors, nurses, janitors, etc. actually get on those insurance bills.

Re:Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

The government. It doesn't have to be via an insurance model; the government employs or contracts out a lot of things.

Re: Affordable my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

What system have you paid into for 30 years? The ACA hasn't been around that long. Health insurance is generally done by the year (although there is short term insurance) with an insurance company; they don't care whether you've had them for 30 years or 0 years.

Re:Affordable my ass

[LynnwoodRooster]

Here's a clue: "Government" doesn't pay anyone. Government takes money from some and gives it to others. Government doesn't pay - taxpayers pay. How is this different than having taxpayers directly pay for insurance and medical costs in the first place - other than the Government skimming a healthy chunk off the top for its jobs program?

Re: Affordable my ass

[Bartles]

The Federal Government is a middleman, as there is only one. Federal employees are middlemen. You're still an idiot.

Re: Affordable my ass

[Firethorn]

I'm downgrading you to 'moron', because you can abstract them as organizations. The federal government is a middleman. Insurance companies X,Y,Z, each with their own sets of middlemen employees, are still 'middlemen'. You have to go deeper to get to 'middlemen' with the feds as a 'single payer'.

When they've done studies, single payer systems over in Europe tend to have drastically lower paperwork costs associated with billing.

BTW, I tend to mirror insults. Don't call me names, I don't call you names.

Re: Affordable my ass

[Bartles]

Of course they do. They also have lower patient satisfaction and quality of care.

Re: Affordable my ass

[Firethorn]

Do you happen to have a citation on that?

Also, would you consider a 1% or so better satisfaction rate worth paying twice as much?

For that matter, do you have a citation on the quality of care? Like I mentioned, Europeans tend to live longer, and there's not actually any indication that that quality of care is higher - we get more care, but our error rate is also higher, so you have extra 'churn' which means that it's not actually more effective.

Uninteded side-effects

[Anonymous Coward]

Its good to see that it has brought health-care to everyone, citizen or not. All that matters to the insurers is that they pay their bills anyways.

Your money is good, even if you docs are not

[Anonymous Coward]

They're happy to take your money regardless of what fake documents you supply. Just try and collect on a claim however!

The end of everything!

[rainwalker]

Oh god, no! Those poors were able to buy healthcare! This is truly the end of American democracy! :flail:

Wait, what were we talking about?

Re:The end of everything!

[ScentCone]

Oh god, no! Those poors were able to buy healthcare!

Or, they were able to get free services that other people get to pay for.

Re:The end of everything!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we were talking about H1b's that can't even write data verification/ input testing tests, much less program. But it might be we were just talking about a government which has outlived its uselessness.

Re:The end of everything!

[meglon]

Just like the services YOU get from the government that other people help pay for. The biggest leeches and thieves in this country are those who want all the rights and benefits of being here, yet none of the responsibilities.

Re:The end of everything!

[jedidiah]

"Those poors" are not debt ridden suburbanite conspicuous consumers. They know the value of money and don't squander it. They PAY CASH for services rendered and they don't even suffer for it.

Some of "those poors" are more solvent than you are.

Re:The end of everything!

[ScentCone]

Just like the services YOU get from the government that other people help pay for.

Which ones are those? I pay far more federal, state, and local taxes than most people, and then sales taxes on the things I buy. Have the country pays NO income taxes. I'm in the half that does. Do the math. Things like NASA, defense, etc., are paid for out of discretionary funds, entirely paid for by income taxes or by borrowed money on which taxes have to pay interest. How are the people who pay no income taxes helping me to pay for those things, again? Please be specific.

Re:The end of everything!

[Anonymous Coward]

Income taxes aren't the only taxes, you know. Also, the very poor don't have the resources to contribute to the public good. You apparently do. Shouldn't you be happy about that?

Re:The end of everything!

[ScentCone]

Income taxes aren't the only taxes, you know.

But at the Federal level, that's what pays for the non-entitlement spending. I don't receive any entitlements, and probably never will. So I'm still not sure who it is that I'm supposed to be thanking for helping me, here, as the GP says they are.

Re:The end of everything!

[Anonymous Coward]

What about, say, gas taxes, to pick a notable example of a federal benefit paid for by non-income taxes? Per the OMB, income taxes are 46% of federal tax revenue, and a much lower fraction of state and local revenue.

And why does it matter what you get? At the very least, you get to live in a society that isn't quite so horribly dysfunctional as places like S. Africa or Pakistan, with limited public resources, private security, and all the rest of the 3rd world fun.

Re:The end of everything!

[ScentCone]

What matters is that another poster is scolding those of us who pay the lion's share of the country's taxes for not being thankful for the help we're getting from other people ... when that "help" doesn't actually exist. It's worth talking about, because people who make those kinds of remarks are clearly not understanding who actually pays for what.

Re:The end of everything!

[meglon]

What matters here is people pull their heads out of their ass and realize that EVERYONE pays taxes, and EVERYONE benefits from the functions of government. Simple minded idiots who hate government think they've never received anything from it, yet they have every single day of their miserable ungrateful lives, and when one of the idiots stands up and says the government does nothing for them, they need to have people tell them to pull their heads out of their asses.

Your parents gained benefits from living in this country, benefits because of the government, every day of their lives.. and you started gaining them before you were born. I do understand who pays for that.. EVERYONE. You want to complain you pay more income tax than someone else, well too fucking bad you whiny little bitch. The only reason you're paying more is you're making more, or because you've voted in a bunch of tax-cut-for-the-rich fascists who are screwing the middle class out of everything they've gained in the past 70 years.

If you don't like government or society, just go somewhere where there's neither, because you're a useless, self-centered, egotistical twat as it is now.

All entitlement programs are rife with trust/fraud

[rmdingler]

Judging by the frequency with which the courts around here have a "Tampering With Gov't Records" case before them, I would venture a guess this sort of lie for profit is universally problematic for assistance programs.

This is the typical charge for obtaining gov't assistance under many different false pretenses, but typically under-reporting income.

I, for one, would prefer to keep the trust but verify nature of the programs... the aim is not to catch fraudsters straight away, but to help folks when they need it. Sure, some will game the system, but likely not for an extended period before getting caught with the hand in the cookie jar.

Arrest the GAO?

[cirby]

You want to arrest the GAO for fraud, for doing their actual job?

That's who wrote the report. Americans for Tax Reform just reported on it.

Low-Information American Voters

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why this country is f*cked --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Why this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are running the checks it means they are using them as a "manual override" against their internal data(which may be flawed). These checks exist to redistribute wealth via price discrimination according to a "means" test. If a person can claim to make less money than they actually do: the idea of selling a commodity below market price falls apart and attempts at rationing quickly become unsuccessful.

If the auditors scammed them successfully, that is "smoke" to the fire of a process breakdown. Gasp! It isn't 100% effective. It's true.

Only Trust

[SuperKendall]

I, for one, would prefer to keep the trust but verify nature of the programs

I would if there was any "verify". There was not.

People claim the U.S. should emulate Europe, but it seems they go mysteriously silent when it comes to emulating the controls that Europe has to make healthier care voting work to prevent fraud. If a system has endemic fraud it will eventually fail.

and I'm sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

they are registered to vote (as Democrats) as well....

Easy answer

[rsilvergun]

Single payer. Book it done.

Re:Easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to SlashDot Bernie Sanders!

Re:Easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

and if you get sick after the budget is spent for the year, too bad.
If you need treatment they don't want to pay for, too bad.
If you're on the A-list, you get health care right away, otherwise you wait in queue.
If you're on the enemies list, the waiting time is until you die.
If you want to pay a doctor privately to get extra treatment, the medical police arrest you and the doctor.

Re:Easy answer

[spauldo]

I agree.

Too bad it'll never happen here.

Re:Easy answer

[BetterSense]

Which is exactly the outcome ACA was designed for: a broken system leads to future single-payer, since people will accept that when anything looks brilliant in comparison to ACA.

Re:Easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

So a failed healthcare system run by the government can only be fixed by a BIGGER failed healthcare system run by the government?

You should look up battered wife syndrome, you may have a version of that.

Re:Easy answer

[drinkypoo]

Which is exactly the outcome ACA was designed for: a broken system leads to future single-payer, since people will accept that when anything looks brilliant in comparison to ACA.

You're giving way too much credit. The ACA was designed to be a handout to insurance companies, full stop. It wasn't designed to push single-payer health care; it was what we got after single-payer health care was shot down.

Re:Easy answer

[dywolf]

actually a public option (defacto single payer) was included in it.
but republicans demanded it be dropped as part of their compromise demands

Re:Easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Fix the VA first. Then we can talk about taking over the rest of the healthcare system.

Bad framing

[Okian Warrior]

The pro-ACA people don't care about screening out fake applicants. They think any person getting another government handout is a good thing, regardless of circumstance.

It's interesting that you describe health care as a "handout", and bolster the metaphor with "regardless of circumstances".

There are perhaps three dozen examples of government-funded health care in the world that we can look to as examples. The US health care ranks worse than all of the top 10 countries.

Framing it as "it's a government handout" implies the subtext "(that you do not deserve)", and is a bit of a misnomer. Our system is horribly broken, we pay 6x as much as other countries and for that price get substandard care.

In short, many *many* people suffer needlessly because our health care system isn't a government handout.

So... I don't see a problem here. We do in fact deserve better health care. We're the US, we *were* the best.

Would you care to explain why a government handout is bad, in this specific instance?

(And before someone asks "well, how do you propose we fix it?", let me just say that we could find a system we like and copy it wholesale. For example, the Canadian system is better than the US system overall, and we could simply copy their procedures and implement them. If we did that, 80% of the money we now spend on health care would be available to stimulate the economy.)

Re:Bad framing

[Kohath]

The US health care ranks worse than all of the top 10 countries.

...based on criteria carefully chosen to make sure the US comes out worst. (Does anyone still give any credence to these types of rankings? If you do, do you also click on clickbait headlines because you're curious what "doctors hate" and what "your insurance agent doesn't want you to know"?)

So... I don't see a problem here.

I predicted you wouldn't in the first line of my post above.

Would you care to explain why a government handout is bad, in this specific instance?

Can we cut some other government handouts to pay for this one?

Well, how do you propose we fix it?

One suggestion worth looking at Megan McArdle's plan. You pay for all your health care up to 20% of your annual income (or buy insurance if you want) and the government pays the amount over 20% of your annual income. It partly gets paid for by getting Medicare recipients to pay for more of their health care (the part up to 20% of their income).

Re:Bad framing

[denbesten]

You pay for all your health care up to 20% of your annual income (or buy insurance if you want) and the government pays the amount over 20% of your annual income.

The downside to this approach is that it encourages postponing small, cheap fixes until they become big, expensive problems.

Re:Bad framing

[jedidiah]

I wouldn't copy Canada. I personally know someone that was killed by the Canadian system.

Also, don't drink the Kool-Aid. There's a big difference between what gets billed and what gets paid. If you think American health care is overpriced, you're probably looking at a bogus inflated number.

The problem with people trying to turn the US into a European style socialist welfare state is that they don't have any actual experience with those. They just hear a lot of bogus media reports that distort the facts to suit a particular narrative.

Re:Bad framing

[Firethorn]

...based on criteria carefully chosen to make sure the US comes out worst. (Does anyone still give any credence to these types of rankings? If you do, do you also click on clickbait headlines because you're curious what "doctors hate" and what "your insurance agent doesn't want you to know"?)

Yeah, criteria carefully chosen like "median life expectancy", "median wait times for healthcare", "cost per person", etc...

US healthcare tends to be a touch quicker than Europe's, but not significantly. We live shorter lives than the Europeans though. But we pay something like double to triple for that privilege.

If we could drop healthcare costs to something approximating Europe's, we could cover everybody for what the federal and state governments currently pay to cover a fraction of the population. IE no more out of pocket expenses other than currently existing taxes for your healthcare needs.

Re:Bad framing

[jedidiah]

No. The problem is that people will readily pay for any number of luxuries but they have somehow gotten it into the heads that they should never have to pay for medical costs.

Even people that should know better revel in the idea of the "free lunch" they think they are getting when all they're really doing is making the whole process more expensive.

Re:Bad framing

[jedidiah]

No. That idea of reducing health care costs is yet another one of those lies told through statistics. The "rack rate" for some expensive procedure is X where the real cost a hospital will actually get paid is 1/2 or 1/3rd of that.

You can "save tons of money" just by changing the numbers you look at it.

You people are droning on about public policy and you really have no clue at all.

I see stupid people and they don't even know they're stupid.

Re:Bad framing

[Kohath]

The downside to this approach is that it encourages postponing small, cheap fixes until they become big, expensive problems.

Not really. Say you had a $400 health care bill. You'd postpone this until it became a $2000 health care bill? Or more? That would make sense at what level of income?

The flip side of the argument is that, when someone else is paying for it, people go to the doctor for cold medicine.

Re:Bad framing

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have 20% of your income to spare?

Most people who need medicare live paycheck to paycheck, (Definition: If they don't get that next paycheck on time, they can't pay their bills, and they are kicked out of whatever rental they have.) Or they are on a fixed income. (Retirement / Social Security. These people can't afford to have the price of milk go up because their "wages" don't change unless someone with a pen declares it so.)
These people would be out of a place to live if they were mandated by the government to pay 20% of their income on ANYTHING before qualifying for assistance. And considering that some medications cost more per pill than the average McBurgerflipper makes in a month, that 20% of their income would run out fast and you'd have even MORE people on government assistance. Worse if you don't count insurance as part of that 20% mandate.

What needs to happen right now, (with regards to the summary), is the government needs to better validate these claims from the exchanges. Seriously, who thought that apply in an environment devoid of any real authentication (the internet) without any real human interaction and get free insurance for an industry that does anything and everything to make a buck off of those that suffer, was a good idea? There needed to be an offline verification process to validate the information given via the online form, and that information should have also been mailed out to the registered address for that individual at the SSA. That would eliminate most of the issues in the summary about using impossible or fake SSNs to get coverage, or failing to verify income. (When you come see us, bring your W2 with you too.)

For long term fixes, that I'm not an expert on, but I do agree with the GP, the idea that an individual is not worthy of healthcare because of their income needs to be abolished. Everyone deserves healthcare even if they can't pay for it themselves. (Real healthcare not the cosmetic kind.) The fact that the idea of "you don't deserve healthcare" exists, is one of the reasons our country is so fucked up right now. We literally believe that some people, despite doing nothing wrong, don't deserve to exist or be helped out in times of need, solely based on a balance number in a bank account. That the balance number is the sole measurement of worth. Given that it's no wonder the damn insurance is required in the first place. You can't afford it otherwise because what matters to the healthcare industry is money, not healthcare, and they justify charging over $100 for a doctor's visit because of that. It's the reason why going to med school and getting your doctorate costs so much. (We should be paying for a doctor's education. We all, at least theoretically, benefit from it.) It's the reason why malpractice insurance is sky-high. (If the patients were not paying ridiculous amounts of money for "healthcare", there would be a lot less incentive to sue over.) That money aspect of the healthcare industry, the idea that profit comes before lives and the well-being of others, is the reason that healthcare is so jacked up in the US. It's time for that idea to change.

Re:Bad framing

[Kohath]

We live shorter lives than the Europeans though.

Which is not relevant to health care unless it is normalized to account for demographics, race, income, etc. Do Europeans who move to the US live longer or shorter lives than Europeans who stay in Europe?

But we pay something like double to triple for that privilege.

Who is this "we" you think are paying more? Lots of people pay zero. As a society, we borrow money so "we" don't pay the collective bill either.

Re:Bad framing

[I'm New Around Here]

Yeah, criteria carefully chosen like "median life expectancy",... We live shorter lives than the Europeans though. But we pay something like double to triple for that privilege.

You don't think the high crime rate, especially murder, has anything to do with that? Only cost of medical care?

Go on. Pull the other one.

Re:Bad framing

[cas2000]

yeah, people go to the doctor for a cough and find out that they have a serious disease and get it treated properly rather than assume it's a simple cold and spread it around to everyone they come in contact with.

Re:Bad framing

[jedidiah]

How can you people be so stupid and misinformed? Are you trolling on purpose. You have to be. There's no way you could possibly be this ignorant.

If you go to the doctor for every little cough, they aren't going to take you seriously. They aren't going to engage in "excessive diagnostic procedures" and find that "mystery disease". They're just going to think you're a wasteful hypocondriac.

People with REAL diseases have enough trouble getting doctors to take them seriously as is.

Re:Bad framing

[plopez]

That's an insane plan. Only rich people have 20% disposable income. I am almost in the 1% and I don't have anywhere near 20% disposable income. I would have to drop all insurance, sell my vehicles, turn off the water heater, cut off my internet, cut off my cell phone, and stop funding my retirement. Most people would end up behind on their rent or mortgage and get kicked out.

Re:Bad framing

[Anonymous Coward]

I make 52,000 a year, and I have 20% disposable income, and living in California. What the hell are you doing wrong?

Re:Bad framing

[Anonymous Coward]

He's neither stupid, nor misinformed. He's describing *exactly* what happens when people end up on 'high deductible' healthcare plans, or without insurance altogether. They wait until they feel like it's serious enough to justify the high up front cost, and as a result end up waiting until what *was* a relatively minor, and easily treated condition becomes something serious, difficult/expensive to treat, and even life-threatening.

People with 'real' diseases have trouble getting doctors to take them seriously, because those same doctors are busy treating bus-loads of people who *should* have seen their general practitioner a few *months* ago, but instead waited and now they've discovered that they *also* have a REAL disease, and in the mean time have passed said real disease along to a few dozen other people.

Re:Bad framing

[Anonymous Coward]

The money actually *collected* by the healthcare provider is the cost measured. Not the initial 'not-a-bill' where you get to see how much the insurance companies negotiated a lower rate.

The phenomenon being described by the knowledgeable and *informed* people that you're busy insulting, has been a known issue for decades now, and has only gotten worse because nobody has been willing to try to do anything about it. In the mean time, other countries have recognized similar trends, taken action to *prevent* the cluster-fuck we're currently dealing with, and come out quite a bit better for it.

If you want to stop seeing "stupid people" who "don't even know they're stupid", you should try looking somewhere *other* than a mirror for a change.

Re:Bad framing

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a big difference between what gets billed and what gets paid.

That's true if you have insurance. Poor people get to pay full price. I spent a few hours in an emergency room last winter. The hospital billed me 5 grand. I passed this off to my insurance company, who told the hospital that they'd be getting $500. Then my insurance company billed me a $50 copay. So I ended up paying 1% of the original bill, insurance covered 9%, and 90% went poof. But if I were a poor person without insurance, I'd owe 5 grand. Maybe instead of Obamacare, we need to fix whatever ridiculous incentives cause hospitals to charge 10x what they actually expect to get paid.

Re:Bad framing

[Firethorn]

No. That idea of reducing health care costs is yet another one of those lies told through statistics. The "rack rate" for some expensive procedure is X where the real cost a hospital will actually get paid is 1/2 or 1/3rd of that.

How odd, seeing as how the cost isn't calculated on what hospitals bill, but what is actually paid. IE insurance + copays(or direct payments) + government payouts.

Foreign governments are often even easier to determine.

You people are droning on about public policy and you really have no clue at all.

As the AC said, stop looking in the mirror.

Re:Bad framing

[Okian Warrior]

I wouldn't copy Canada. I personally know someone that was killed by the Canadian system.

It's a fair point.

I'm not wedded to the Canadian system per-se, only pointing out that copying any of a dozen systems would put us much further ahead than we are now. By a wide margin.

Re:Bad framing

[Firethorn]

You don't think the high crime rate, especially murder, has anything to do with that? Only cost of medical care?

Our murder rate isn't that high. It only knocks a few days off, not years.

Re:Bad framing

[quantaman]

I wouldn't copy Canada. I personally know someone that was killed by the Canadian system.

Also, don't drink the Kool-Aid. There's a big difference between what gets billed and what gets paid. If you think American health care is overpriced, you're probably looking at a bogus inflated number.

The problem with people trying to turn the US into a European style socialist welfare state is that they don't have any actual experience with those. They just hear a lot of bogus media reports that distort the facts to suit a particular narrative.

As a Canadian I don't know anyone killed by our system. Either way tragic anecdotes happen with every healthcare system, that's the reality of mortality and limited resources, but people here seem much more satisfied with the state of our healthcare than Americans do, and we pay a bunch less at the same time.

I think there's a role for private insurance and companies in the US system for things like drug development. But as for actual hospitals, public insurance and institutions seems to work quite well without all the massive headaches about medical insurance and billings. My father passed away from pancreatic cancer a couple years ago. Chemo, surgery, home care, hospitalization, hospice care, all sorts of things were involved before the end. And other than some fairly cheap pain drugs we bought from the pharmacy I don't think money or insurance was ever mentioned. I think that's something that's severely under appreciated when looking at public health care.

Re:Bad framing

[cas2000]

how ironic. an *american* calling someone stupid, misinformed and ignorant.

especially ironic when the topic is health care.

Re:Bad framing

[Mantrid42]

When you're poor. When you don't have $400. Not like you have $400 in savings that you shouldn't touch, when you literally do not and can not get together $400. You just soldier on and try to survive without health care because you literally can not afford it. You postpone it because there is no other option.

Re:Bad framing

[Anonymous Coward]

... European-style socialist welfare state is that they don't have any actual experience ...

Yeah, none of those European citizens know the effect of socialist welfare on their health. Have the "people trying to turn the US" healthcare around, ever been to Europe? I'm guessing that other Americans hope so.

Re:Bad framing

[Kjella]

Chemo, surgery, home care, hospitalization, hospice care, all sorts of things were involved before the end. And other than some fairly cheap pain drugs we bought from the pharmacy I don't think money or insurance was ever mentioned. I think that's something that's severely under appreciated when looking at public health care.

Not even for institutional care? Here in Norway healthcare is free, but only a handful of patients stay permanently at the hospital. Non-medical home care like cleaning, cooking etc. has copay and living at an institution they take 75% of your net income up to ~$10k and 85% of that above, capped to the actual cost of care. For that you get all facilities, meals, housecleaning and practical or medical help to get around, take medications, swap bandages or whatnot. The only thing you need are clothes and personal items, but it's still expensive. For the most part this is public pensions so when you're in public care it's essentially the government paying itself, if you both got to keep your pension and live essentially for free the expenses would be crazy. Since it's a tax though you don't pay - it's your retirement check that gets really, really small. In the end, the result is the same though.

Re:Bad framing

[Anonymous Coward]

No, people don't go to the doctor for cold medicine.
Doctors have office hours. Doctors have waiting times. Doctors have appointments. While it's possible you could get in to see a doctor for a case of the sniffles (and that the doctor will prescribe you some antibiotics to get you out of his office), it's unlikely. Most people, even if it's free, simply don't want to waste that much time.
Do some people do this anyways? Sure. But for every one that does this, someone else will go in for what could be a minor complaint and have something fixed before it becomes a huge expensive life-changing issue.
The Canadian health care system, no matter how you slice it, is cheaper than the US health care system per user. Much cheaper.

Re:Bad framing

[dcollins]

"There's a big difference between what gets billed and what gets paid."

Assuming that insurance pays for it. (And applies various group-negotiated reductions.) The biggest problem with the inflated American system, IMO, is that you're playing Russian roulette that a claim gets denied and then the individual is on the hook for the whole inflated bill. Not being able to confirm before the service if the cost is zero or tens of thousands of dollars is truly terrifying.

Re: Bad framing

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather live 1 day as a free man than a century as a slave.

Re:Bad framing

[sumdumass]

Government involvement is what causes this. You can track this fenominom back to when Medicare started paying the average costs for treatments instead of the actual costs. It got worse when the feds tried to save money by only paying a percentage of the costs.

What happens is a treatment costs X dollars, the government decided that because somewhere else it is cheaper they are willing to pay the average of the two but in order to save money, instead of fixing whatever is making it expensive, they are going to only pay 85% of it and the provider cannot demand more else lose the ability to treat Medicare patients which is a sizable number of people seeking treatment in any area.

So the providers started raising rates in order to get the average up to what they expected in the first place. Insurance companies got upset and threatened to exclude those providers from policy use so agreements were worked out where they get steep discounts for preferring a network of providers. This discount doesn't deflate the average because it is based on the preferential treatment of a network of providers instead of the costs of treatment. Now with no insurance, you do not get this discount. You can get some of it if you pay the same day as service but often if you can afford that, you can afford insurance to.

Re:Bad framing

[xra]

I wouldn't copy Canada. I personally know someone that was killed by the Canadian system.

An how many get killed in the US for not having any insurance?

Re:Bad framing

[plopez]

Pay for the best insurance I can get, live in a1500 sq ft house I am fixing up, trying to refund my retirement as I had to dip into it during the recession, disabled spouse, trying to have 1 year of take home in savings, buying the best insurance (medical, dental, long-term disability, short-term disability and vision), etc. I seems to add up quickly.

But you are unusual. Most people I know would be hard pressed to come up w/ 20%.

Timing

[Tablizer]

Quality/accuracy auditing takes money. There's usually a brake-even point where the savings from catching problems is less than the cost of auditing as more auditors are added. We'd need more info to know where the break-even point is.

I suspect it may not be a real problem as long as they check credentials when an expensive procedure or treatment is done, such as surgery or an expensive medication.

Before such, as long as the "fakes" pay their insurance fees, they are not a (significant) cost drain to the system.

In short, fraud happening on the enrollment end may not be a practical problem.

Re:Timing

[Anonymous Coward]

May not, yes. But is an avenue for claiming a certain success/enrollment rate in a system when the actual success/enrollment could be much lower.

Re:Timing

[Tablizer]

It's premature to conclude they are allowing such in order to jack up the membership numbers.

If they only care about the bottom line, and customers with fake docs are paying their fees, then they have little incentive to do anything about it as long as a big expense doesn't come up.

Why assume a political motivation when it just may be old fashioned greed?

an insurance is just paper...

[jopsen]

How about if in the course of applying, the fake person also describes a lifestyle that qualifies them for completely subsidized care that other people get to go to work every day to buy for them? This is no different than any other of benefit fraud

Well, it is different, an insurance is just paper (contract), when you obtain the contract to benefit a person that doesn't exist, you've acted in bad faith and obtained a contract that is invalid by nature.

So your chances of successfully upholding the contract is slim. That said, yesm the fake people could probably get some care, before the private insurance company starts looking at the details... This is another problem with private insurance, if there is a problem with contract the insurance company will declare it invalid (but they won't do so before you file a claim, ie. only when do it when you the insurance).

But yes, this is great :)
Note. insurance contracts in the US are in my experience, super sketchy have through my employer and had to fight very hard to get any kind of actual paper... and I'm still not satisfied that I have sufficiently strong contract to sue my insurance provider should it come to that, and certainly not if my employer decided not to look out for my interest (which I don't have contract saying they will). So legally speaking I'm is a poor standing (despite working for tech company, and having an good PPO plan).

Re:an insurance is just paper...

[jopsen]

sorry meant to say: "But yes, this isn't great :)" he he

Priorities

[manu0601]

Yes, shame on the ones that dared to provide help for fellow human beings.

While we speak about lost money, how much did we pour into banks?

Doesn't happen in Europe

[rsilvergun]

or Canada. Or Anywhere else with single payer. Seriously, are you just trolling or do you actually believe that?

Re:Doesn't happen in Europe

[roninmagus]

Here we go again with the country comparisons. With countries only a fraction of the population of the United States. For instance, Canada (per google, 2013): 35.16m. US (per google, 2013): 316.5m. It's a problem of scale. I'm not saying it can't be done, just saying that "they did it for their tiny amount of people" is not good enough.

Re:Doesn't happen in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

But all of those people presumably contribute. The GDP of the US is 17 trillion. The GDP of Canada is 1.8 trillion. The ratio is about the same. Seems like a valid comparison to me.

Put another way, the population of Europe is larger than the United States. All the countries within it have some variant of government subsidized/mandated/provided health care. That seems to work fine.

Re:Doesn't happen in Europe

[dcollins]

Incoherent counterargument.

Re:All entitlement programs are rife with trust/fr

[AHuxley]

Yes the "trust but verify nature of the programs" should have been done.
It could have all been fixed with a 100 point check like system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Bring in any mix of a birth certificate, passport like paperwork to show citizenship, refugee docs, licence or permit, local government docs, utility bill, rent agreement.
If a person has problems finding or updating the paperwork, help them get some of the above sorted out. The REAL ID Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... will be the next big change for many.

Re:I didn't vote for this

[jedidiah]

"undocumented freeloaders" just pay cash.

They actually work, so they have it to spend.

You are confusing "undocumented freeloaders" for our urban poor that are too proud to take certain kinds of jobs.

WTF is this?

[hpycmprok]

Since when has extremist paranoid weird ass conspiracy shit like this graced the front page of Slashdot? What the hell? Anybody check anything about this out before deciding to Slashdot it?

Or just really? We've gotta have this here? Come on.

Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

Healthcare in this country needs an overhaul. However I have absolutely no faith that the government could do it successfully.

Liar

[Anonymous Coward]

No Republican voted for the ACA, partly because no Republican was allow to propose an amendment to it.

Big fat Dem liar. But I repeat myself.

Re:Liar

[dywolf]

do you REALLY want me to present you with a list of amendments supplied by Republicans, that became part of the law, starting with the requirement that al members of Congress and their staff give up their federal health insurance plans and use the exchanges?

Re:Liar

[dywolf]

do you REALLY want me to present you with a list of amendments supplied by Republicans, that became part of the law, starting with the requirement that al members of Congress and their staff give up their federal health insurance plans and use the exchanges?

or will you simply concede that you're full of crap and don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

Of course, this generates huge profits

[burtosis]

You don't need to do hardly any up front auditing and you collect premiums. Make a single claim or claims over a trivial amount and then you do get audited - likely after someone has made payments under these fake accounts. The insurance company then just keeps all the money and cancels the contract.

Hell they do this now to honest people - they are experts at setting up a one sided contract and simply not paying for the i meat of reasons when the payout time comes.

Statistics

[Firethorn]

I'm not that far up on the statistics, though I know they're demographic adjusted. It doesn't help that the cost disparity holds up even or especially when you look at it on a procedure basis - Procedure A in the USA will cost 3-10x as much as procedure A elsewhere. An MRI, for example, is something like 1/30th of the price in Japan.

You're still paying even if you're borrowing to pay.

The stupid, it burns!

[cpm99352]

I worked for seven years in the medical insurance business (so glad to have left the field!) and the ignorance seen in many high-rated posts here is astounding.

1. GAO report, so no fraud
2. Even if someone wanted to fraudulently create an applicant, I don't see the problem, as long as they don't submit a claim. What's wrong w/ additional premium? (I will ignore the geeky underwriters, as I understand their position, but haven't seen any relevant objections so far about messing up the statistics.)
3. You cannot begin to appreciate the stupidity of pretty much everyone in the insurance business - so the inability to do very basic SSN validity checking comes as no surprise at all.

I left the year ACA came into effect, so got to experience the fun as we tried to implement insurance plans that Congress had not defined. See, ACA went into effect 2014, but we (that is, insurance companies) didn't have black letter law or even Federally-defined policies established (on many different fronts) until way past Jan 2014. How can you determine policies if underwriters don't know what the rules are???

Biut what continues to be under-reported is what a complete disaster/fail the back-office procedures are. Are we finally able to determine if someone is eligible? When I left, there was no way to tell if an applicant was qualfied for subsidies under the various arcane income rules.

If I were dictator, I'd immediately force hospitals and pharmaceutical companies to fall under the anti trust laws that everyone else has to follow. The high-deductible plans were created under the assumption that consumers would be motivited to shop around for the cheapest deal. But, it is impossible to get an actual quote for a procedure. If you require hospitals to produce a rate sheet that applies to all, and permitted people to import drugs from anywhere in the world, a massive amount of money could be saved.

But this cuts into rx profits, and we can't have that.

It works for legitimate documents

[tompaulco]

When my wife attempted to sign up for coverage they repeatedly asked for the same documentation and when they received it, they said that they couldn't find her in the system, so it does weed out legitimate people, just apparently not people with fake documentation.

So what

[Anonymous Coward]

... Fail To Detect Counterfeit Documentation ..

A corporation has little incentive to check who is giving them money. Now when someone wants the corporation to pay-out, the corporation can worry about their expenses and profits. Also, the cost of verifying every source document will be prohibitive, the longer they can delay that, the better.

Yet another problem that single-payer wouldnt have

[Anonymous Coward]

can we please stop subsidizing insurance fraud er insurance companies now?

Obamacare had 2 goals

[Anonymous Coward]

1. To give out money to buy votes.
2. Do it in a way where when Obamacare implodes, Republicans get the blame.

This is the very same thing Democrats did with the sub prime mortgage. This is also why Obama has destroyed the Democrat party, he knows if Democrats hold the White house, it would harder to blame Republicans for Obamacare failing. There is no IF it will fail, it is when, that can't be denied.

Lucky my employer pays for for my insurance, because I don't use it. But I still choose the cheapest one possible so freeloaders get the least amount of money that comes from the work I do.

regulatory theater . . .

[swell]

Every government agency has to do something now and then to justify its existence. The Government Accounting Office ( www.gao.gov/ ) did a useful thing here. They have often done worthwhile work in scrutinizing other government agencies for waste, negligence, corruption and incompetence. Without having an agency to scrutinize the GAO it's difficult to know if we are getting bang for the buck.

But I think some people here are thinking of government agencies in general, like the ones reported on here and the regulators that supervise everything. Yes, lots of them stink--and here's the reason:

Most regulators including the tax authority, the banking regulators, insurance regulators, food inspection authorities, energy regulators etc ... most regulators are corrupt and actually serve and protect the industry that they 'regulate' in return for certain benefits. When they do need to justify their existence, their wrath is pointed at some little guy, some outsider, someone who can't afford a team of powerful attorneys. This is so common around the globe that it is assumed by many people. How many bankers suffered jail or any personal inconvenience because of the corruption that devastated the world for nearly a decade?

So yes, most regulators produce nothing but theater while big crimes go unnoticed. Big farming corporations get government handouts originally intended for small family farms. Big oil companies get billions in tax benefits and more. Proposed bank reforms fade quietly along with the public memory. Meanwhile pot smokers, welfare cheats and homeless people are persecuted and prosecuted while the fat cats get fatter ... But the GAO really has done some good work.

- jew fraud govt -

[Anonymous Coward]

Most posts are computer generated, half argument bs make fake media appear more read or commented then they are. Who is behnd fraud 'govt', the bogus Forced 'healthcare' scheme to keep dupes paying for parasites so the millions in their tribe finish taking the world crushing then killing the rest. Who are the millions behind the mass schemes and mass murder. The fake 'federal reserve', over 65% fake 'whites' in fraud 'government', 90% in liar 'media', liar 'scientists' 'dokters' 80% fraud 'lawyers' 'judges' are Not nordic whites they are 'white' skin ashkenazi JEW race. Big med small 'corporations', all 'insurance' bs, fake 'alternative media', millions of websites distraction so dupes waste time, millions of jew trolls on the web paid by their bogus 'govt' and 'holocaust' fraud, many posts are computer generated or otherwise jew trolls. They 'score' up useless jabber posts fake 'arguments' to steer dupes, fake argue talking about only 'illegals' instead of pointing out the mass bogus 'legal' immigrants over 100 million who swarm onto the 'system' and bring their old relatives and are squatting out tens of millions of spawn, stealing your future. The bogus posts are to 'lead the opposition' to nowhere. They made up the bogus 'jeesus' fables and forced it on other races, 'turn the other cheek' 'love your enemy' suicide brainwashing, and their own religion for their race to take over the world. The tribe every scheme and mass murder is the JEWS. Look at 'washington' face on the dollar, jew, bogus 'founders' didn’t 'found' anything, all jew cons in the tribe. The so-called 'constitution' is a fraud. They made up the bogus 'government' and 'states' to 'tax' dupes to get themselves trillions in weapons while making up 'social' schemes so dupes pay for parasites who then 'vote' for more jew 'government'. http://jim.com/treason.htm copy page, ignore rest of site, sites bait with L. Spooner then use other bs to distract from the fact that we are free. All 'law' is based on contract between men. There is no other law. Any other claim of 'law' is but cons making up fraud papers to dictate 'laws' to 'tax' and kill you. 'republic' 'democracy' 'voting' is slavery and suicide. It is a fact you are free. The scum jews all over the web pretend their fraud 'govt' 'gives' to you, because they 'give' to parasites. Those who aren't parasites you paid for and built it all, same time the jews continue print fake money and claim 'debt' against you and claims 'govt' owns all the roads etc, then pretends they're 'giving' it to you. All jew bullshit. The fake name 'civil war', it was jews - 'who brought the slaves to america' by walter white, archive.org . The jews brought and owned most of them, and when the southerners were seceding to be free of bogus jew 'government', the jews started screeching 'free the slaves' to get scum idiot northerners to slaughter their southern racial kin who were trying to be free of the jew. The jews knew the scheme and left before the slaughter of the southerners, and after the killing went back to their properties, 'hired' back their slaves, and more jew 'carpetbaggers' swarmed in and took over the dead southerners property. They made up bogus 'public skools' to brainwash idiot's children and dupes allowed it, their fake 'war one' to set up for fraud 'war two'.
There was No 'jew holocaust'. The only holocaust was the jew 'allies' mass murder of Germans at Dresden. Their fraud 'war two' jews took over europe using 'usa' and 'british' scum 'troops'. Only 280k people died in the Labor camps and that was from natural causes. Total number of nordic whites dead, 20 million, 'following' jew Lies, ameriscums also paid for the scum jew 'bolshevik' slaughter of over 100 million nordic white russians ukraines poles from 1920's into the 1970's paid for in the jew roosenfelt / stalin 'lend lease' and 'cold war' hoax fraud. Don't waste time searching, all sites run by them including 'jew truther' sites, all have disinfo and/or try to keep you 'reading' so you Don't do anything. They 'lead the opposition'. Exa

-bogus-

[Anonymous Coward]

Bogus computer generated post above like most on these threads, doing fake 'right left' bs to cover up the tribe. The mass of frauds are jews. Jew fraud 'govt' fraud 'doctors', 'corporations', just as post above and most posts are bogus computer generated, the post above 'don’t do anything dangerous like vote' is to pump idiot 'voting' so idiots continue allowing jew fraud 'government' to their suicide.

suicide by jew fraud 'govt', 'welfare' bs, 'healthcare' bs, mass immigration suicide, now we're being sprayed. Get off your ass. Much more Information and links see 'jew fraud govt' post. - top of thread click show all comments also slide bar over.

The article is missing a few key things...

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously cause I work at an ACA call center on the federal exchange. I am NOT speaking as a representative of ACA or the company I work for or anything, just speaking as a private citizen. A few things to note. You can put whatever you want on an application and you can get insurance with it. It will be fraudulent, and they will want proof of things they can't look up, to prevent things from changing. To KEEP the tax credit, they need proof of income, to KEEP the coverage, they need proof of citizenship/residency. Now, what this report misses is that of course in 2014 people had tax credit and coverage they shouldn't have. DUH. That's because in 2014 nothing was working right! It is only in 2015 where the planned consequences (ie, removal of tax credit, removal of coverage) actually started functioning relatively properly. Now, I can't say much as to the standards of the processing centers for actually processing and verifying documents, but the rest of it is improving a lot (did you know the recent applications actually give useful advice as to what to send in? Like as of maybe last month!), and the 'computer starts taking action to do something with someone's coverage' is acting wayyy more reliable than it used to.

jew bs -

[Anonymous Coward]

bogus jew 'government' is the fraud. Your 'jewspapers' are bullshit. The point of your 'health' scheme forced 'insurance' is so dupes pay for hundreds of millions of parasites and immigrant scum while jews rule and kill when they decide. more above in 'jew' posts.
of course this site keeps the real posts hidden so have to click show all comments, phony bar shows '0' hidden even when there are posts still are.
thezog.info