Because its true. Back in previous threads the most we could come up with is that its volatility was something like 100% in either direction in 6 months. Now we're at ~1000% volatility in 6 weeks, which is only "like currency" if you live in Zimbabwe.
It seems to me that that wonky pricing is BECAUSE insurance exists, and any legislation that further entrenches the insurance system is backwards.
Ideally we would get out of this system where you literally cannot afford common procedures like childbirth without insurance, not make it mandatory for everyone.
Im saying its irrelevant because youre the only one discussing the state of the Tennessee site. The thread is on the failings of healthcare.gov, not any other website, and the state (or State) of Tennessee has nothing to do with that: They arent a contractor, they arent the developer, they arent in a management role for it.
The people of Tennessee, according to their own governor, could have had a state-run site that he believed was a good idea
Which still would have had no impact on healthcare.gov, which is why your entire rant is irrelevant. The existence or lack thereof of any number of state exchanges has no relevance to the failed launch of the federal exchange.
And it the government hadn't bailed them out, leaving the economy even further in the shit than it is now,, you would have blamed that on the government too.
Not really, I would have seen the problem as self correcting. Risk-taking company goes under because it turns out they took too many risks.
Wait, no, Ive got it: Lets bail them out so they can do the same crap again 10 years from now!
Pretty sure I didnt say any of that, but good strawman. There are a lot of people who make poor health choices, and telling them that they no longer need to worry about the consequences sure isnt going to get them to make better choices.
You dont have to have a car to breathe, or live in the US. It also isnt the same thing: theres no parallel with car insurance of the threat that the government will now have a say in how you live (ie, being healthier).
Also, Im pretty sure you dont need a license to even drive, as long as its on your own private property; the personal mandate doesnt take that route, it just says "if you live in the US you must buy insurance".
Your post might be on point if A) uninsured emergency care constituted a large portion of hospital expenses, and B) Obamacare was solely about rectifying that and requiring emergency-care insurance. Who knows, a lot of conservatives might have been behind that.
But thats not what Obamacare is, and theres about a million reasons to object to it. And regarding "A", a quick google turned up a Kaiser Foundation link indicating that,
Uncompensated care will make up just 2% of total health care spending in the U.S. in 2008
This is a gigantic non-sequitur. We're discussing why the healthcare.gov site failed, not the politics around everything else. What the gov of Tennessee did has in relevance to why the healthcare.gov website failed, as he was not involved nor had any impact in its creation.
The government is not requiring me to do ANYTHING really
Its requiring us to pay for insurance that covers things that have NOTHING to do with hospital visits.
It would be one thing if the discussion were just for critical care-- and I bet conservatives would be more divided in that case (certainly I would). Thats NOT the discussion; we're at a point where existing insurance plans are being canceled because they dont provide enough coverage.
IMHO single payer or Medicare-for-all would've been a preferable option,
Dont be surprised when the government tells you that you are not allowed to eat cheetos because it costs other taxpayers dollars.
And if someone was really sick and was unable to get health insurance at any price before now gets health coverage.. isn't that GOOD?
Sure, if you ignore economic realities and forget all the reasons that we discarded communism and socialism, despite how great they sound in theory. You cant legislate away poverty, and you cant make communism or socialism work no matter how hard you wish.
I see the appeal to emotion, and I am sorry for your ex-wife, but the reality is that nothing is free in life. The only way to make it free will just bring all of the leeches out of the woodwork. Does this mean that some people get the short end of the stick? Yes, sadly, it does; but the alternative is to ensure that everyone gets the short end of the stick.
Im not getting how making illegal something that is already illegal will stop it from happening. Existing enforcement mechanisms already dont work, and its already basically impossible to track these scammers down. Are you hoping that if we get enough laws, theyll become so intimidated theyll stop?
Downside is its terribly confusing for friends / family-- when you call outbound, your real number will show up. You can explain the whole forwarding thing to each and every one of them, but dont be surprised when remembering the details of your phone setup dont rank high on their list of things to focus on.
Straight up libertarians dont have any policies except "do what is good for you". In a sense theres less to be mistrustful of in a libertarian society, except that theres really not much keeping your neighbor from murdering you and taking your stuff.
The contractors working the site were sounding alarms well in advance of the launch.
They were?
Either Obama is the most disconnected president in recent history
He's done this on several issues where responsibility by all rights should have rested with the Executive, but somehow he was unaware of what was going on. I recall some quote about how government is just too big to be able to keep track of it all; its as if he didnt read the job description or exactly what his purpose is.
Slashdot Mirror
This is sort of a scripting issue, and Powershell has modules for everything under the sun-- including Amazon:
http://aws.amazon.com/powershell/
Not sure whether your instances themselves are running windows, but if so that would be even easier to integrate.
Because its true. Back in previous threads the most we could come up with is that its volatility was something like 100% in either direction in 6 months. Now we're at ~1000% volatility in 6 weeks, which is only "like currency" if you live in Zimbabwe.
It seems to me that that wonky pricing is BECAUSE insurance exists, and any legislation that further entrenches the insurance system is backwards.
Ideally we would get out of this system where you literally cannot afford common procedures like childbirth without insurance, not make it mandatory for everyone.
Im saying its irrelevant because youre the only one discussing the state of the Tennessee site. The thread is on the failings of healthcare.gov, not any other website, and the state (or State) of Tennessee has nothing to do with that: They arent a contractor, they arent the developer, they arent in a management role for it.
As I said, no, I wouldnt have, because I dont the government's job as "fixing the whole world".
The people of Tennessee, according to their own governor, could have had a state-run site that he believed was a good idea
Which still would have had no impact on healthcare.gov, which is why your entire rant is irrelevant. The existence or lack thereof of any number of state exchanges has no relevance to the failed launch of the federal exchange.
Not really, because it doesnt cost me a dime when companies go under. When the government makes bad decisions, Im on the hook. Thats why its worse.
And it the government hadn't bailed them out, leaving the economy even further in the shit than it is now,, you would have blamed that on the government too.
Not really, I would have seen the problem as self correcting. Risk-taking company goes under because it turns out they took too many risks.
Wait, no, Ive got it: Lets bail them out so they can do the same crap again 10 years from now!
Pretty sure I didnt say any of that, but good strawman. There are a lot of people who make poor health choices, and telling them that they no longer need to worry about the consequences sure isnt going to get them to make better choices.
You dont have to have a car to breathe, or live in the US. It also isnt the same thing: theres no parallel with car insurance of the threat that the government will now have a say in how you live (ie, being healthier).
Also, Im pretty sure you dont need a license to even drive, as long as its on your own private property; the personal mandate doesnt take that route, it just says "if you live in the US you must buy insurance".
Examples please, of where additional regulation or legislation has reduced costs and driven up efficiency.
Your post might be on point if A) uninsured emergency care constituted a large portion of hospital expenses, and B) Obamacare was solely about rectifying that and requiring emergency-care insurance. Who knows, a lot of conservatives might have been behind that.
But thats not what Obamacare is, and theres about a million reasons to object to it. And regarding "A", a quick google turned up a Kaiser Foundation link indicating that,
Uncompensated care will make up just 2% of total health care spending in the U.S. in 2008
This is a gigantic non-sequitur. We're discussing why the healthcare.gov site failed, not the politics around everything else. What the gov of Tennessee did has in relevance to why the healthcare.gov website failed, as he was not involved nor had any impact in its creation.
You cant legislate efficiency; adding red-tape and bureaucracy has never made things work better / faster.
The government is not requiring me to do ANYTHING really
Its requiring us to pay for insurance that covers things that have NOTHING to do with hospital visits.
It would be one thing if the discussion were just for critical care-- and I bet conservatives would be more divided in that case (certainly I would). Thats NOT the discussion; we're at a point where existing insurance plans are being canceled because they dont provide enough coverage.
IMHO single payer or Medicare-for-all would've been a preferable option,
Dont be surprised when the government tells you that you are not allowed to eat cheetos because it costs other taxpayers dollars.
And if someone was really sick and was unable to get health insurance at any price before now gets health coverage.. isn't that GOOD?
Sure, if you ignore economic realities and forget all the reasons that we discarded communism and socialism, despite how great they sound in theory. You cant legislate away poverty, and you cant make communism or socialism work no matter how hard you wish.
I see the appeal to emotion, and I am sorry for your ex-wife, but the reality is that nothing is free in life. The only way to make it free will just bring all of the leeches out of the woodwork. Does this mean that some people get the short end of the stick? Yes, sadly, it does; but the alternative is to ensure that everyone gets the short end of the stick.
The problem is that anarchy doesnt actually work.
Managed by government agency, to a spectacular result: Noone is to blame, noone knows why, and noone is getting fired. Hooray!
Wrong. The mantra is that no matter how bad you think things can get with private business, Government can do it worse.
Because we're not on the hook to keep RIM on lifesupport. They screwed up, they disappear, and taxpayer dollars arent lost in the process.
Imagine if RIM were a government-run agency.
Im not getting how making illegal something that is already illegal will stop it from happening. Existing enforcement mechanisms already dont work, and its already basically impossible to track these scammers down. Are you hoping that if we get enough laws, theyll become so intimidated theyll stop?
Downside is its terribly confusing for friends / family-- when you call outbound, your real number will show up. You can explain the whole forwarding thing to each and every one of them, but dont be surprised when remembering the details of your phone setup dont rank high on their list of things to focus on.
All true "ism"s
I see what you did there.
Straight up libertarians dont have any policies except "do what is good for you". In a sense theres less to be mistrustful of in a libertarian society, except that theres really not much keeping your neighbor from murdering you and taking your stuff.
IIRC the monarch has to confirm the Prime Minister. Not sure that its a power that is exercised in practice, though.
The contractors working the site were sounding alarms well in advance of the launch.
They were?
Either Obama is the most disconnected president in recent history
He's done this on several issues where responsibility by all rights should have rested with the Executive, but somehow he was unaware of what was going on. I recall some quote about how government is just too big to be able to keep track of it all; its as if he didnt read the job description or exactly what his purpose is.