Healthcare.gov Turning To Tech Giants For Help?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stiletto said:
Nearly 100 million. 93 million, according to the administration.
Click to expand...

Stiletto said:
Sure, anything can happen, but it allows people who would rather spend their money on food or other necessities to do so, rather than spend it on something they will not end up needing. I prefer allowing them to make that decision for themselves because I recognize them as an adult, not a child who needs to be forced to live a certain way and buy certain things. I am not a statist.
Click to expand...

And this sounds great UNTIL that moment comes, and if you live long enough it's going to. No matter how "safe" one is no one is immune from accidents and illness. To simply ignore this fact of life is completely irresponsible and that irresponsibility leads to others paying for stupidity. Don't know when's the last time you've had to deal with a medical procedure, but the costs are stratospheric.
 
heatlesssun said:
And this sounds great UNTIL that moment comes, and if you live long enough it's going to. No matter how "safe" one is no one is immune from accidents and illness. To simply ignore this fact of life is completely irresponsible and that irresponsibility leads to others paying for stupidity. Don't know when's the last time you've had to deal with a medical procedure, but the costs are stratospheric.
Click to expand...

I don't accept this argument. Why do you think health care cost has been going up many times faster than inflation over the past 3 or 4 decades when the department of health was setup. It is because of government interference in the private free market that cost has skyrocketed. So to fix a problem caused by gov we are going to solve it by making government even bigger? what kind of scam is this?

Most people don't even know what most medical procedures cost because the cost is hidden from the customer by insurance. If there is actually less insurance middlemen in the way and people pay more out of pocket directly to the doctors, there would be competition and price would go down. Already because of ACA many doctors are calling quits and going to concierge practice to bypass the paperwork and service end customers directly.

I live my life pretty safely, I don't drink soda and rarely any alcohol. I avoid processed food and I exercise regularly and in my past decade I have only been to the doctor once due to a severe cold. I save my money so that when I am old I won't be a burden to anyone. I am one of the big losers under Obamacare. I will be forced to buy a plan that I don't need to offset the cost for some idiot who live cant control what goes into their stomach or bother to take a 15min walk everyday. Stop rewarding bad behavior!
 
panhead said:
The Senior Vice President of CGI, the company that won the no-bid contract to develop Healthcare.gov was a classmate of Michelle Obama’s from Princeton.
Click to expand...

This.

Hopefully we get a refund of the $600MM since we now have to bring in outside experts. It cost my company $10MM for a system many scales more complex than Healthcare.gov. Just more of the government corruption that exists. It sure will be something to see once Joe Average finally ceases the Left vs. Right battles and finally pays attention to the elites vs. non-elites battle.
 
OlIv0rIolI said:
I live my life pretty safely, I don't drink soda and rarely any alcohol. I avoid processed food and I exercise regularly and in my past decade I have only been to the doctor once due to a severe cold. I save my money so that when I am old I won't be a burden to anyone. I am one of the big losers under Obamacare. I will be forced to buy a plan that I don't need to offset the cost for some idiot who live cant control what goes into their stomach or bother to take a 15min walk everyday. Stop rewarding bad behavior!
Click to expand...

I really don't care about the politics of it, I simply believe that life and pain saving medical care shouldn't bankrupt people. And it's great that you live healthy but at some point in your life, God forbid unless you just drop dead, something is going to happen, accident, declining health, illness caused by external factors from lifestyle. Even healthy people have heart attacks. It's just inevitable, I don't know why so many think they are invulnerable.
 
OlIv0rIolI said:
I live my life pretty safely, I don't drink soda and rarely any alcohol. I avoid processed food and I exercise regularly and in my past decade I have only been to the doctor once due to a severe cold. I save my money so that when I am old I won't be a burden to anyone. I am one of the big losers under Obamacare. I will be forced to buy a plan that I don't need to offset the cost for some idiot who live cant control what goes into their stomach or bother to take a 15min walk everyday. Stop rewarding bad behavior!
Click to expand...

it's not the things you plan for... I knew someone just like that, super heath/fitness guy... he had a massive heart attack at 30 something because of a condition he was unaware of...
 
OlIv0rIolI said:
Most people don't even know what most medical procedures cost because the cost is hidden from the customer by insurance. If there is actually less insurance middlemen in the way and people pay more out of pocket directly to the doctors, there would be competition and price would go down. Already because of ACA many doctors are calling quits and going to concierge practice to bypass the paperwork and service end customers directly.!
Click to expand...
Hardly. When people are sick or worse when their loved ones are sick, they become emotional and bargain shopping goes out the window. Insurance companies have some emotional detachment and apply pressure down on price and because they speak for large numbers their pressure is observed immediately.

When I'm dying of a serious disease the first thing I think about is finding the k-mart equivalent of hospitals, doctors, and drugs.

Dispite the propaganda, insurance companies bring at least some semblance of market forces in an otherwise emotionally skewed market. Even better if it company funded insurance, they total costs matter to them, Insurance company bureaucracy can lose its way because they sort of work on percentage but if the company is paying the insurance costs an can apply group purchasing power, even more market pressure.
 
heatlesssun said:
I really don't care about the politics of it, I simply believe that life and pain saving medical care shouldn't bankrupt people. And it's great that you live healthy but at some point in your life, God forbid unless you just drop dead, something is going to happen, accident, declining health, illness caused by external factors from lifestyle. Even healthy people have heart attacks. It's just inevitable, I don't know why so many think they are invulnerable.
Click to expand...
The thing is that if that was the goal, we could have simply added a small worksheet to everyone's income tax where they could claim insurance premiums and based on their income they get a partial or full credit. If you wanted to force everyone you could have baked in the mandate penalty into the worksheet. SInce the 'mandate' was declared a tax and the penalty is an IRS fine anyway.

There was no need for the government to inject its tendrils into the whole system to accomplish what you mention.
 
Understand people: Because of the general decrease in government benefits/salaries since the 1970's, the only people who work in government now are the ones who couldn't hack it in real life. As a contractor, I have first hand experience with things like this.

Be it Federal or state, this type of thing happens ALL THE TIME. See:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor...e-week-us-state-government-cant-shake-it-woes

I also think part of the problem is the refusal to treat IT as part of Software Engineering. As a Software Engineer, I have a very, very low opinion of the skills of most IT personnel.
 
jpm100 said:
Hardly. When people are sick or worse when their loved ones are sick, they become emotional and bargain shopping goes out the window. Insurance companies have some emotional detachment and apply pressure down on price and because they speak for large numbers their pressure is observed immediately.

When I'm dying of a serious disease the first thing I think about is finding the k-mart equivalent of hospitals, doctors, and drugs.

Dispite the propaganda, insurance companies bring at least some semblance of market forces in an otherwise emotionally skewed market. Even better if it company funded insurance, they total costs matter to them, Insurance company bureaucracy can lose its way because they sort of work on percentage but if the company is paying the insurance costs an can apply group purchasing power, even more market pressure.
Click to expand...

I was never against any of which you stated. If that's how you want it that's fine. you have the freedom to do so whether its through a group of like-mined people, insurance or company. I was against forcing someone else to buy something which he does not want or need.
 
panhead said:
The Senior Vice President of CGI, the company that won the no-bid contract to develop Healthcare.gov was a classmate of Michelle Obama’s from Princeton.
Click to expand...

DING DING DING !!! WE HAVE A WINNER!

Fucking shady ass Chicago politics at work yet again..
 
polive said:
The Health Care Act can work if we let it!!
Click to expand...

That's a funny thing to say. Like the legislation is alive or something. Like the legislation was perfectly constructed or something. Like the failure is just that we're not trying hard enough to make it work.

A lot of funny notions you have. :D
 
heatlesssun said:
I really don't care about the politics of it, I simply believe that life and pain saving medical care shouldn't bankrupt people.
Click to expand...

That's nice that you believe that, but that's also completely irrational and unrealistic. Some people don't buy insurance for their property before it burns down and devastates their life, or it gets flooded, or a tree falls over during a storm and destroys it. Some people don't buy insurance for their car before they get in a crash, or it gets stolen. Some people live awful lifestyles that guarantee that they will end up needing costly procedures and medicine, and that is not be our responsibility.

All the ACA does is tell everyone that yes, it is your responsibility, and we're going to make sure that everyone is financially destitute in order to avoid a few people being that way.
 
As someone how lives in a country with a universal healthcare system (which actually costs substantially less as a percentage of GDP and per capita than the current US system) I find the hate towards universal healthcare, and the unapologetic selfishness to be rather disconcerting.
 
"Unapologetic selfishness" being people not wanting their premiums to skyrocket for coverage they didn't need, or would rather spend money on food than health care.

Those selfish, poverty-stricken people. Why don't they get jobs?
 
Stiletto said:
"Unapologetic selfishness" being people not wanting their premiums to skyrocket for coverage they didn't need, or would rather spend money on food than health care.

Those selfish, poverty-stricken people. Why don't they get jobs?
Click to expand...

You forgot to read the part of my post which clearly states the universal healthcare system I have access to is actually substantially cheaper than the current US system.
 
Draax although I agree and most people do not face reality that they will be on medicare as a senior, especially those with less than $1,000,000+inflation in their retirement plans.... if this fiasco cost 300-1000% higher, then imagine the future of our healthcare.

This seems to overshadow issues with the actual plans. An affordable plan didn't include $10,000 deductibles or other costs 3-4x higher than my current insurance plan that thank goodness I get to keep.
 
Draax said:
You forgot to read the part of my post which clearly states the universal healthcare system I have access to is actually substantially cheaper than the current US system.
Click to expand...

You forgot to read the part of ACA that isn't your universal healthcare system, and the part where our country is not yours.
 
They should fire everyone and hire some fresh talent. There are tons of people itching to get in on a project like this.
 
Post 2000's: Our insurance plans were bad. Prescription costs high. Price of extended living care and hospitals were dramatically increasing. Some people wanted to maximize the lawsuit limits for malpractice. Maybe a compromise could of been made.

Healthcare act part 1:
a. we get hipaa hitech act (awesome)
b. we get the new rights of not being denied insurance from illness (awesome) or maximum ceiling costs (awesome)
c. we get more security in the healthcare industry. Hospitals and Nursing homes now are using modern EHR systems and patient portals to dramatically improve the healthcare experience.
d. more efficient billing to reduce fraud (no more dial-up unsecure billing to the govt or fake claims by docs to insurance)
e. FSA (yay) HRA (sucks because its only good if your insurance is horrid)

Health care part 2:
a. broken website
b. the tiered packages have high deductibles, 20-200% higher rates etc, people are freaking out.
c. script prices are still high for the private and public markets
d. costs/charges/are higher for the private and public markets
e. premiums are higher for the private and public markets

Regardless of universal vs private vs public vs semiprivate healthcare, we didn't fix some of the sprawling issues which are prescription prices, poor insurance practices (denying rightful claims, surgeries, not meeting negotiated prices etc), increasing deductible costs, higher copays etc. We also need to have an even worse plan to get an HRA which is just insane, please just let us all have access to an HRA not just those that want nearly NO INSURANCE COVERAGE.
 
Draax said:
You forgot to read the part of my post which clearly states the universal healthcare system I have access to is actually substantially cheaper than the current US system.
Click to expand...

By the way, is this the universal healthcare system you were referring to?
 
Draax said:
As someone how lives in a country with a universal healthcare system (which actually costs substantially less as a percentage of GDP and per capita than the current US system) I find the hate towards universal healthcare, and the unapologetic selfishness to be rather disconcerting.
Click to expand...

You probably don't have private health insurance companies using the government to monopolize control of healthcare.

My father is a doctor. The amount of BS that the health insurance companies get away with in the US is astonishing. Doctors can actually get in trouble if they give too big of a discount to those without insurance (they call it "anti-competitive behavior", I call it government coercion). The problem with healthcare traces back to the HMO Act in which Nixon and Ted Kennedy sold a law to Kaiser Permanente that mandated that businesses offer HMOs to their employees and essentially coupled healthcare to employment.

Before that time, most people used health insurance as insurance for catastrophic events rather than as a payment plan to cover all medical expenses (after all, your auto insurance doesn't pay for routine maintenance like oil changes; why should health insurance?). If they couldn't afford to pay, they were able to work out payment plans (even something like washing the doctor's car) or rely on private charity such as religious institutions and mutual aid societies.

The HMO Act artificially propped up health insurance companies (in particular, HMOs) and put them in a position to where they could engage in price fixing. The reason why health care insurance is so expensive in the US is because the health insurance companies set the price of healthcare so that you can't afford it without them. Any doctors attempting to give too much of a discount to the uninsured get in trouble with the state. Health insurance companies also bought themselves an exemption from anti-trust laws.

Urkelcare is a health insurance company's wet dream. It does not reign in the health insurance companies, it only further empowers them. Now, under the threat of violence, everyone in the country must become their customer. They have even less motivation to provide good customer service now than they did before because you have no choice but to be their customer. And because, in many cases, Urkelcare exchanges only have 1 or 2 health insurance companies on them, they don't have to work to retain you as a customer. If you think that the 20,000 pages of Urkelcare regulations will protect you from such behavior, think again. More regulations means more loop holes and a harder time keeping track of and figuring out if a company is even violating them. It may be "illegal" to deny someone coverage to someone with a pre-existing condition now but that doesn't mean the insurance companies won't make your life miserable because you have no choice under Urkelcare but to be their customer.
 
More good news. If the website isn't fixed by November 30th, they have no backup plan.

Shaheen demanded to know why the rollout of HealthCare.gov had become so riddled with problems.

A Democratic aide said Shaheen asked the administration officials for a contingency plan in case technical problems are not fixed by Nov. 30. They replied they are working on one but did not have a plan to share as of Thursday.
Click to expand...
 
Draax said:
As someone how lives in a country with a universal healthcare system (which actually costs substantially less as a percentage of GDP and per capita than the current US system) I find the hate towards universal healthcare, and the unapologetic selfishness to be rather disconcerting.
Click to expand...

Yes.

First, most of the contractors even remotely capable of building a product like this are crooks in the US. They will bleed you and bleed you and bleed you for money, constantly shuffling senior US devs off the project and then you end up with a bug-ridden mess full of security holes and functionality issues. Unless you personally know the team and their work quality it feels like a 99% chance you will end up with unmaintainable crap.

Further, the UK went through the exact same problems. In the end they decided the same thing - tech consultants and contractors for big projects are bullshit and almost completely worthless. They got rid of them all and built an in house team and provided a sane, ongoing support structure.
 
Stiletto said:
More good news. If the website isn't fixed by November 30th, they have no backup plan.
Click to expand...

I've had the misfortune of having to deal with the GSA so I know how the federal government operates. It won't be fixed by November 30th. When they can't even handle paying simple invoices, what makes anyone think they can handle managing a project the size of healthcare.gov? Even with the best contractors in the world, the website would have turned out the same because the federal government changes their requirements more times than I change the oil in my car (forcing work to be thrown out). One of the first things in managing a project is to decide on requirements and to lock them in; it is impossible to have a project where the requirements are like a cat that can't decide whether to go in or out.
 
InternationalHat said:
Further, the UK went through the exact same problems. In the end they decided the same thing - tech consultants and contractors for big projects are bullshit and almost completely worthless. They got rid of them all and built an in house team and provided a sane, ongoing support structure.
Click to expand...

Who? These guys?
 
I hope the contractor that won the bid gets sued into oblivion for delivering this piece of shit. Further, I would hope that no one ever does business with them again.
 
I want to respond to a few questions as I am slightly shocked that nobody has pointed the answer out yet:

Q (from first 2 pages): Why/How did a Canadian company get a no-bid contract with the US-Government?

A: Yes, CGI is a Canadian Company. CGI Federal, a wholly U.S. subsidiary of CGI, is the company which received the contract. No, its not because they're both in North America. :p

Someone already answered the question about the "no-bid" part. The company is on a short list approved for no-bid government work. I don't necessarily agree with this system, but it is what it is. If you think the ACA implementation is drawn out at 3+ years, add another year or so of bidding and evaluation of in there and think about that.

Q (more of a paraphrased statement really): Any company in PA (or insert other place) would have built the website for 1M no problem.

A: It has been stated and confirmed from multiple sources that the website's ties and interactions with the multiple back-end systems is incredibly complex. I'm not pointing out specific details but if you are any kind of real developer or manager you will understand that 1M is nowhere close to what this website costs.

That being said - the main reason that the website is broken, or rather was developed into a broken mess is the management of the contract. The news has covered this many times, the government appointed its own agency to run the management of the contract instead of one of the contracting companies doing so. As many of you have been quick to point out -- the government folks oftentimes are mediocre at best at what they do. They needed the BEST to accomplish these goals.

I'm certainly not defending any of this system or its implementation, just pointing out how we got to the mess that exists today. Its a good lesson on cutting corners, on micro-management, and setting realistic goals.
 
How are we going to pay for this?
No problem for the DNC just make more taxes!!

tax-and-spend-obamacartoon1.jpg
 
Even the Liberal TV media outlets are citing a very real "Death Spiral" of ACA loss of confidence in foreign investors and a market crash. Rabidly, Liberal DNC supporters are upset that the website was outsourced to a Canadian company.

Death-Spiral-Final1.jpg
 
Draax said:
As someone how lives in a country with a universal healthcare system (which actually costs substantially less as a percentage of GDP and per capita than the current US system) I find the hate towards universal healthcare, and the unapologetic selfishness to be rather disconcerting.
Click to expand...
As someone who has lived under both,
the reason for the GDP differences
arre

1) One part is the Medical Tort Law Industy in the US being out of control. The size of the awards, the size of malpractice insurance and waste associated with defensive medicine are radically different and add significant cost.
2) The other part is simply you get what you pay for.
 
The health care law aside, If a private company rolled out a web site that ran 6x over budget (600 million? Really!?!?) took 3 years to develop and completely failed to work, requiring the likes of Google, Oracle and Red Hat to bail them out, there would be a line of people in the unemployment line.

Who is getting fired over this nightmare?
 
griffinhart said:
The health care law aside, If a private company rolled out a web site that ran 6x over budget (600 million? Really!?!?) took 3 years to develop and completely failed to work, requiring the likes of Google, Oracle and Red Hat to bail them out, there would be a line of people in the unemployment line.

Who is getting fired over this nightmare?
Click to expand...

Kathleen Sebelius. She's on what's known in Washington as "deathwatch" due to being called before Congress. That's generally recognized as the signal that you're on your way out of your job.

Meanwhile, the majority of the people actually responsible for this debacle will remain untouched and in power over the next few years.
 
Thanks to odumbocare, my 5 year old son just lost his insurance policy. We found out when we tried to use it for his fractured humerous. So now that comes out of my pocket after I've been paying premiums for 5 years and using the insurance a total of 2 other times.
 
InternationalHat said:
Further, the UK went through the exact same problems. In the end they decided the same thing - tech consultants and contractors for big projects are bullshit and almost completely worthless. They got rid of them all and built an in house team and provided a sane, ongoing support structure.
Click to expand...

Yes, and as we all know the UK NHS system is year after year in the RED to the point where they are cutting back services. The problem with a single payer/universal system is someone else has to pay for it. The people who end up benefitting most off of it (the poor) are riding on the backs of the people who are barely making ends meet (the middle class).

I think the idea of a free healthcare system to be quite noble. I think every person on this planet should live in a 7,000 squarefoot mansion, eat shrimp/filet mignon every night, drive a ferrari with unlimited gas, dress in the finest italian suits every day, and have a beer w/ Jesus while watching Monday night football. This can't ever happen in any society where monetary compensation is demanded for goods/services.
 
griffinhart said:
The health care law aside, If a private company rolled out a web site that ran 6x over budget (600 million? Really!?!?) took 3 years to develop and completely failed to work, requiring the likes of Google, Oracle and Red Hat to bail them out, there would be a line of people in the unemployment line.

Who is getting fired over this nightmare?
Click to expand...

Except that it wasn't 1 private company that used all of this budget. It is several companies of which CGI used about 1/3rd (~210M), not 600. Yes there is blame, but not quite of the magnitude you describe. And Google, Oracle, and Red Hat are not holier than thou companies that can just necessarily 'make it work'. There will be a lot more over budget, a lot more time, and probably a complete rewrite/re-architecture before all of this is 'working'.
 
Working around the clock? Looks like healthcare.gov was the "demo" system. Looks like they're putting in the actual code now so the system can function.
 
Stiletto said:
That's nice that you believe that, but that's also completely irrational and unrealistic. Some people don't buy insurance for their property before it burns down and devastates their life, or it gets flooded, or a tree falls over during a storm and destroys it. Some people don't buy insurance for their car before they get in a crash, or it gets stolen. Some people live awful lifestyles that guarantee that they will end up needing costly procedures and medicine, and that is not be our responsibility.

All the ACA does is tell everyone that yes, it is your responsibility, and we're going to make sure that everyone is financially destitute in order to avoid a few people being that way.
Click to expand...

There a LOT of rules behind property insurance. Got a mortgage? You probably have to have home insurance. And what state doesn't require auto insurance? That's to protect others as well as yourself because typically if you get in an accident and you get the ticket and you hurt someone or damage property, it's the insurance from the person at fault that pays out.

And the ACA is going to make sure everyone is financially destitute? It's this kind of nonsense that's at the heart of why we have the ACA. Making up problems instead of actually addressing the real ones.
 
shade91 said:
Yes, and as we all know the UK NHS system is year after year in the RED to the point where they are cutting back services. The problem with a single payer/universal system is someone else has to pay for it. The people who end up benefitting most off of it (the poor) are riding on the backs of the people who are barely making ends meet (the middle class).

I think the idea of a free healthcare system to be quite noble. I think every person on this planet should live in a 7,000 squarefoot mansion, eat shrimp/filet mignon every night, drive a ferrari with unlimited gas, dress in the finest italian suits every day, and have a beer w/ Jesus while watching Monday night football. This can't ever happen in any society where monetary compensation is demanded for goods/services.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much all wrong from the various economics sources I subscribe to. NHS was running a surplus last I heard which was admittedly a few months-ish ago. There have definitely been cuts but that's political. It's not worth my time explaining further though because judging from the latter portion you want to believe it REALLY badly and I guess you'll just go google a bunch of leading phrases to try to find something that contradicts that in the news. Have fun?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top