Healthcare.gov Turning To Tech Giants For Help?

Status
Not open for further replies.
heatlesssun said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tell all the people whose premiums just jumped in cost and dropped in worth that their complaints are nonsense. Tell all the people who were already poor who now have to spend money on insurance they didn't want that their complaints are nonsense. Tell the millions of people losing their health insurance that their complaints are nonsense.

This petulant refusal to deal with reality is really tiresome. Just because you don't like the fact that medicine and health care have significant costs doesn't mean people have a right to it, or that by forcing everyone to pay for it that it will magically become cheap and easily available. Deal with the basic concept of scarcity, already.
 
shade91 said:
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...

There is difference between these things and not dying or living in excruciating pain. 7,000 foot mansions aren't handed out, but if one has a heart attack, even under the old system and don't have insurance, we typically don't just let that person die without any care even if they don't have the money.
 
Travolta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Current plans that do not meet obamacare requirements do not expire until the end of they year.

You've been misinformed or did not properly review and renew your son's coverage during the last enrollment period. Your provider dropping family coverage is not "thanks to odumbocare" if that's what happened.
 
Stiletto said:
Turns out the company originally hired to set up the site was the same company that tried to set up a Canadian gun registry.

They said it would cost no more than two million dollars. It ended up costing 2.7 billion dollars, and was not completed. Yes, that's over a 1000% increase in cost, for something that was never even finished and ended up abandoned.

It's fucked. Utterly fucked. "It" being American citizens, that is.
Click to expand...

this is why the govt should create a tech brain trust in house so instead of outsourcing these critical tasks to fucking contractors who only care about one thing getting paid.
 
Travolta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bullshit
 
Stiletto said:
This surplus?
Click to expand...

Yep.

InternationalHat said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm hoping you're not doing exactly what I said above.

Regardless, they're not "In the red" as was said. They're underfunded if anything from what that article says - but admittedly almost every healthcare institution will say something to that effect.
 
Stiletto said:
Just because you don't like the fact that medicine and health care have significant costs doesn't mean people have a right to it,
Click to expand...

So then what is the alternative, people just go home and die? This is more than just the idea of rights, it's how we as a society deal with the sick and injured. If there's no social obligation here and people are on their own then fine. But no one on the right ever says this. It's always about attacking ideas, not promoting them.
 
6 people signed up on day 1
248 by day 2.

87 people commit suicide daily and 11 times that attempt it.
So almost as many people killed themselves than sign up and nearly 1900 would rather attempt suicide than sign up. Nice.

By now I think more people have opted for lobotomies than signed up for Obamacare.
 
People don't have a "right" to healthcare, they don't have a right to food, or housing, or much of anything. We strive to build a society that provides basic needs because we're not a bunch of fucking animals.
 
Stiletto said:
No amount of money can prevent this from happening to some people.
Click to expand...

But there are plenty of cases where some amount of money will. I know a lot of people that have been seriously ill with cancer, have had heart attacks, have had their bodies mangled in vehicle accidents and they are all alive and kicking today due to the wonders of modern medicine.
 
heatlesssun said:
But there are plenty of cases where some amount of money will. I know a lot of people that have been seriously ill with cancer, have had heart attacks, have had their bodies mangled in vehicle accidents and they are all alive and kicking today due to the wonders of modern medicine.
Click to expand...

So what should the limit to spending on each case be? Or are you proposing that unlimited amounts of money must come from somewhere?
 
InternationalHat said:
Yep.



I'm hoping you're not doing exactly what I said above.

Regardless, they're not "In the red" as was said. They're underfunded if anything from what that article says - but admittedly almost every healthcare institution will say something to that effect.
Click to expand...

Do you realize what you just said? How else can they justify healthcare rationing except by saying that they are underfunded? No amount of money is enough because universal healthcare is not about providing healthcare, it is about control.

As far as the website goes, the fiasco associated with it is a good thing. It shows government incompetence on the front page of every news outlet and with 2014 elections next year, it will be a referendum on this horrible mess.

This website will be Exhibit A. Soaring premiums will be Exhibit B.
 
heatlesssun said:
So then what is the alternative, people just go home and die? This is more than just the idea of rights, it's how we as a society deal with the sick and injured. If there's no social obligation here and people are on their own then fine. But no one on the right ever says this. It's always about attacking ideas, not promoting them.
Click to expand...

Yes, some people are doomed to go home and die, and this will not change regardless of any health care system we set up, even 100% government controlled and funded. Medicine and health care are limited, and demand is always going to exceed the supply. Nobody on the right or left would ever say this, because it's one of the many realities that are not politically amenable, and I think you're savvy enough to realize that.

The best hope for society is for those with histories of health problems and risky lifestyles to purchase insurance policies to protect against costs that will inevitably occur, and those with healthier, safer lifestyles to only purchase insurance if they feel they need it. No, that doesn't mean that people in each category will make the right choice, but if you believe that politicians and bureaucrats know how people should live their lives better than the people do, then go ahead and say so. That's something else you won't ever hear from anyone on either side of the political aisle.
 
Stiletto said:
So what should the limit to spending on each case be? Or are you proposing that unlimited amounts of money must come from somewhere?
Click to expand...

These are fair questions which are part of what the debate is about here. But you keep phrasing the issue completely around money and there's more to it than that. Clearly in the US we have provided expensive medicine to people regardless of ability to pay before the ACA. My position on this issue isn't all what you probably think. I'd have no problem with people dying or living in pain if they had no ability to pay. But that's not a tenable situation. Even a Tea Party member couldn't honestly run on that platform.
 
InternationalHat said:
Current plans that do not meet obamacare requirements do not expire until the end of they year.

You've been misinformed or did not properly review and renew your son's coverage during the last enrollment period. Your provider dropping family coverage is not "thanks to odumbocare" if that's what happened.
Click to expand...

Actually, its not all that far fetched. One of the ACA provisions is that companies CAN drop customers from their healthcare if their existing plan changes (Read: the provider changes the plan, not the customer selects a new one). The OP could have had a plan that is not compliant with the ACA and the provider changed it and dropped him. These exact situations have been front page news all week.
 
heatlesssun said:
These are fair questions which are part of what the debate is about here. But you keep phrasing the issue completely around money and there's more to it than that. Clearly in the US we have provided expensive medicine to people regardless of ability to pay before the ACA. My position on this issue isn't all what you probably think. I'd have no problem with people dying or living in pain if they had no ability to pay. But that's not a tenable situation. Even a Tea Party member couldn't honestly run on that platform.
Click to expand...

And no Tea Party member, or anyone else except for possibly anarchists would run on such a platform. However, when you pass massive legislation that restricts liberty, and we see within the arguments for said restrictions a denial of unspoken but known reality, we're going to bring that into the debate. All liberty carries with it a cost that will come as a result of human ignorance, and in the case of health care that can range from a McDonald's-eating obese tub of lard with no interest in improving his health, to a child with a rare type of leukemia, few options for treatment, and a low chance of survival. The liberty-over-safety argument relies on the belief that communities will rally to save the latter case, though charity, fundraising, and whatever other means exist to help...and this is actually a common thing in America.

You keep misinterpreting our argument as being about money, when it's actually about the freedom to spend our money the way we wish, because there are many, many people who spend it on people who would otherwise suffer. You trust politicians and bureaucrats more to spend money on those who need it than regular, ordinary, everyday citizens...and I'm not even stating that as two invalid choices. I understand that some people think those in charge of government are smart and caring people, because they constantly laud their credentials, and they're very good at telling people things that sound good and appeal to their sensibilities. People of both political parties do this on a regular basis, and are usually willing to surrender some form of liberty for whatever cause their guy fires up. Politicians are no more going to say that some people will suffer and die to argue against the ACA than they were going to say that some Americans will die at the hands of terrorists to argue against the Patriot Act. Well, some of us have looked back on history and realized that these zip-lipped overpaid talking heads should have as little control over as few aspects of our lives as possible. The recent debate over NSA surveillance has drawn battle lines on both sides of the political spectrum.

Ultimately, for many of us, this is not about money. This is about us not accepting the claim that government bureaucrats can handle a crisis better than free people can.
 
So the NSA breaks into google's cloud servers and now wants their help to fix a busted website? Hope google gives them the middle finger.
 
samm said:
This is a complete messup, especially after hearing internal memos of how no decided to test the system before launch. Heck even companies that offer cheap websites do a test before publishing to the web...?

This is either:
1) a bureaucratic failure: Lets get the cheapest way to design this website, aka people who arent competent and end up making it more expensive then even the higher priced bidders.
2) A gross underestimation of user traffic:
3) Political favoritism to the vendor used.
4) A mixture of everything.
5) People in power abusing it to steal money from average (non-exempt) citizens via forced Health Care or FINES

But its ok...the people are ok with giving out handouts to corps anyways. this should be no different.
Click to expand...

Fixed
 
heatlesssun said:
There is difference between these things and not dying or living in excruciating pain. 7,000 foot mansions aren't handed out, but if one has a heart attack, even under the old system and don't have insurance, we typically don't just let that person die without any care even if they don't have the money.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this picture describes what you're asking for.

28vv9zo.jpg




You do realize that 85 percent of Americans are already insured, and that includes those on Medicare and Medicaid, right?

Now they are asking the 85 percent of Americans that are already insured to subsidize the other 15 percent.

It's not about providing healthcare, it's about control.
 
heatlesssun said:
There are exceptions: http://www.autoinsurancetips.com/new-hampshire-auto-insurance-laws-minimums-requirements

And it is recommended. Otherwise you will be sued to Kingdom Come in a Torte State.
Click to expand...

There are exceptions, but not exceptions that affect the majority of drivers in the state. And it is usually just the liability portion, And of course it's recommended. But that wasn't the point. You asked what states didn't require it, I told you one. Most people get insurance, though I have known many that didn't. It usually depends now how broke they were or the value of the car.
 
griffinhart said:
There are exceptions, but not exceptions that affect the majority of drivers in the state. And it is usually just the liability portion, And of course it's recommended. But that wasn't the point. You asked what states didn't require it, I told you one. Most people get insurance, though I have known many that didn't. It usually depends now how broke they were or the value of the car.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I would also suspect that you're required to get it if you're financing a car. But still, since NH is a Torte state, you get the ticket and cause damage to other people's property, you pay.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
If you're dying of cancer, insurance isn't going to foot the whole bill under the ACA either.
Click to expand...

Depends on the insurance as to how much of the bill gets covered. Again, I don't think too many people here have seen a medical bill for non-catastrophic things like a knee or hip replacement. You're talking $50k even for procedures like this these days. Even if the deductible is $5 to $10k that's STILL much better.
 
Aluisious said:
Bullshit
Click to expand...
I'm glad you think it's bullshit, but that's what happened, and to top it all off, when I called the insurance company, they confirmed it was canceled because of the ACA, and there was nothing they could do.
 
InternationalHat said:
Yep.



I'm hoping you're not doing exactly what I said above.

Regardless, they're not "In the red" as was said. They're underfunded if anything from what that article says - but admittedly almost every healthcare institution will say something to that effect.
Click to expand...

Right and no government agency has ever cooked the books, especially in the course of promoting the one true religion.
 
Fail said:
Unfortunately, this picture describes what you're asking for

You do realize that 85 percent of Americans are already insured, and that includes those on Medicare and Medicaid, right?

Now they are asking the 85 percent of Americans that are already insured to subsidize the other 15 percent.

It's not about providing healthcare, it's about control.
Click to expand...
Your maths is wrong, you included medicare and medicaid which are in that category of subsidized healthcare....
 
Semantics said:
Your maths is wrong, you included medicare and medicaid which are in that category of subsidized healthcare....
Click to expand...

Good point. I always find it interesting how right wing politicians rail against the ACA but love Medicare now. Which is socialized medicine that everyone that turns 65 goes on and yet I don't see 65 year olds complaining about not being able to go on fully private insurance.
 
heatlesssun said:
Sounds like someone who has never seen a 5 or 6 figure medical bill.
Click to expand...

The biggest drivers of the cost of healthcare is the fact we have government regulations and involvement in the healthcare sector that add bureaucracy that hospitals and private practices have to comply with in order to run, and to do that, they have to hire people to do the paperwork to comply with those regulations. Then we have the health insurance industry which adds ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy of it's own, and THAT adds to the cost of healthcare.

That's not all, insurance companies have a profit motive, and their profit motive has led them to engage in price fixing, which has made it so healthcare is so expensive that the average person cannot access it without insurance.

Another thing is Medicare and Medicaid do not reimburse hospitals, doctors, or clinics fully for the healthcare services they provide, so doctors, clinics, and hospitals make up the difference by overcharging private patients and insurance companies, it's a vicious cycle.

If not for government involvement, then the cost of healthcare would be lower. With the elimination of healthcare insurance, the medical industry would have incentive and reason to lower the price of healthcare not solely due to just competition, but because they would want as many people as possible to use healthcare services, so they would have to make it affordable since if the healthcare insurance industry didn't exist and if government healthcare programs didn't exist, the people would be the only buyers for their services, which is why costs would have to be lowered.


Now do you see why health insurance and government meddling in the healthcare sector is bad? I didn't even talk about malpractice insurance (there's that word again, insurance), or tort reform, those are red herrings basically which obscure the bigger problems, which is government involvement and health insurance industry.

You think healthcare.gov and Obamacare is going to solve all our problems? It won't, it will in fact make it worse, it already HAS made it worse . . . .
 
Fail said:
The biggest drivers of the cost of healthcare is the fact we have government regulations and involvement in the healthcare sector that add bureaucracy that hospitals and private practices have to comply with in order to run, and to do that, they have to hire people to do the paperwork to comply with those regulations. Then we have the health insurance industry which adds ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy of it's own, and THAT adds to the cost of healthcare.
Click to expand...

The biggest driver in healthcare costs is the availability of more medical procedures, pharmaceuticals and medical technology. Who got hip replacements 30 years ago? Now it's one of the most common operations out there. Plus there's a lot more specialization and training involved, and that's very expensive and a lot of these folks make 6 figures without an MD.

And sure it's easy to complain about government bureaucracy, but when we're dealing with pumping people with pharmaceuticals and inserting devices into their bodies on a mass scale, I don't think yelling "Deregulation!" is necessarily a good thing.
 
So 6 people were able to sign up on day one....
More people have tried "Kronidile" in the US than signed up.
Precious.
 
heatlesssun said:
Good point. I always find it interesting how right wing politicians rail against the ACA but love Medicare now. Which is socialized medicine that everyone that turns 65 goes on and yet I don't see 65 year olds complaining about not being able to go on fully private insurance.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people 65 and older are on fully private insurance, Medicare isn't compulsory. Plus, Medicare only covers about 50% of the bill for most people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top