The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[meazza]

Wasn't the ACA supposed to prevent this sort of thing?

 

Could they remake Breaking Bad with the ACA in place?

[B-Man]

Spanish Obamacare Website Is ‘Written in Spanglish’

 

On Wonkblog, Ezra Klein reports that “Obamacare’s Spanish-language Web site is ‘written in Spanglish’”:

 

 

HealthCare.gov’s October 1st launch was a disaster. But at least it was a punctual disaster. The site’s Spanish-language version – CuidadoDeSalud.gov — launched more than two months late. It doesn’t look like the Obama administration used the extra time wisely.

 

ABC News

reports

”the translations were so clunky and full of grammatical mistakes that critics say they must have been computer-generated.” The situation is even worse when applicants begin digging into then nitty-gritty of the plans. ”When you get into the details of the plans, it’s not all written in Spanish. It’s written in Spanglish, so we end up having to translate it for them,” Adrian Madriz, a health care navigator in Miami, told ABC.

 

The Web site, for instance, translates the word ”premium” into “prima” — a word more typically used in Spanish to denote a female cousin. Veronica Plaza, a professor who teaches medical Spanish at the University of New Mexico, told ABC that the site should’ve used ”cuotas,” ”couta mensual” or “costo annual.”

 

 

Oh, and the website doesn’t work:

 

 

{snip}

 

Can you imagine the reaction that we would see in Salon, the New York Times, and on MSNBC if this were a Republican administration’s mistake? The “lack of care” would be “indicative of an attitude” and of an “Anglo-centric” worldview that smacked of “white supremacy.” Republicans would be accused of treating Hispanics as “second-class citizens” and of condemning them to unequal “separate but equal” status. Then we would get the endless discussion of how this was going to hurt the party with a group whose votes they already struggle to win.

 

The full story here.

 

 

 

.

Edited January 13, 2014 by B-Man

[Nanker]

Common man! Get off his back! B. O. said he was personally gonna take charge of fixin' that damned website once and for all.

Furthermore, he had a 15 minute conference call with the top IT minds in the country... the CEOs of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Oracle and even had Michelle's college chum in on it too. They all told him to just use Google Translate. I'm sure of it. ****. He could get it launched in 30 different languages using that tool.

 

So don't quibble with the executive decision to use Google Translate. If it isn't right, well... someone else made that happen.

 

"Now I've got to get back to my mop and pail, and finish cleaning up this mess that George Bush created," said B. O. "Sweet Jesus. You'd think signing up for healthcare insurance wouldn't be this difficult. It's hard to sign up for insurance in America. But it's not MY fault!"

[OCinBuffalo]

Well Democrats? Now you're F'ed: http://www.bloomberg...nt-website.html

 

Should have gone with one of the Bigs from the beginning. $45 million on day 1. Get used to it. Accenture will rob you blind, and, the Rs will be killing you for it. There's practically nothing that will change this dynamic.

 

Bringing them in now? Oh man...I'm just shaking my head here. Accenture: "hey, we're coming into a mess, that we didn't create, therefore...this thing over here is necessary to the success/presents a threat to success...blah, blah = pay us more money/we need another 50 people!"

 

That's the theme of every single document from now until forever...or...when this terrible law goes away.

 

However, there's one upside for Ds: now that Accenture is involved, they will protect this endless fountain of billable hours. That means whatever lie, cheat, or steal has to occur? Will occur. Ds can benefit from real consultants in those Committee meetings.

 

But, remember: what seems like an upside, can turn into a downside very quickly. Reality: Accenture will turn on anyone, especially the people that hired them. I've seen this 3 times out of 3. Every single damning email, every single status report, will be forwarded to the media. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that had already started. That's merely the competent approach, especially for this kind of project. Accenture's managers aren't going be left holding the bag here. No chance.

 

It's going to be interesting. What exactly happens when a large, unaccountable, because they believe they are above it all, organization in Accenture, meets another large, unaccountable, because they believe they are above it all, organization in the Obama Administration?

 

----------------------------------------

 

Hmmm I wonder: whatever happened to Google, Apple and the rest of the Valley people? Somebody seemed to think they were the answer.... Never.

 

They've been moved aside: because the NFL in IT has now been engaged...as I said would happen. Valley people do a fine job making consumer stuff. They are good blacksmiths. But, when it comest to full-scale corporate? You need the best = the people with factories, who know how to run them.

[Keukasmallies]

The Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) gives rise to a new word, "fustercluck." It's so bad, in so many ways, that no prior terms encompass the enormity of its failure.

[B-Large]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/14/single-payer_is_not_dead_121220.html

 

 

I'd love to see this implemented in some States and see how performs. Gotta love Colorado, getting ahead of the curve on things...

[IDBillzFan]

Another day, another Obamacare deadline extended. This time it's for those with pre-existing conditions...its second extension in as many months after less than 30,000 participate.

 

As they say in NJ: Damn this traffic jam.

Edited January 15, 2014 by LABillzFan

[JuanGuzman]

Another day, another Obamacare deadline extended. This time it's for those with pre-existing conditions...its second extension in as many months after less than 30,000 participate.

 

As they say in NJ: Damn this traffic jam.

 

Honestly who cares about this? Is extending a deadline bad thing? Must all previous dates be set in stone even if your priors have changed. Enrollment got of to a shakey start no wonder they are extending deadlines to give people more time to sign up. Do you want governments to commit to arbitrary deadlines, to me the extension sounds like a good idea.

[Azalin]

Do you want governments to commit to arbitrary deadlines

what is an extension if not another arbitrary deadline?

[IDBillzFan]

Honestly who cares about this? Is extending a deadline bad thing? Must all previous dates be set in stone even if your priors have changed. Enrollment got of to a shakey start no wonder they are extending deadlines to give people more time to sign up. Do you want governments to commit to arbitrary deadlines, to me the extension sounds like a good idea.

 

Enough extended deadlines will lead to the collapse of an insurance industry trying to adhere to one set of rules while the fools in DC change them over and over. This will lead quickly to the upcoming insurance industry bailout that will cost us untold billions of dollars before the fool-in-chief starts pushing single payer.

 

So to answer your question...I care about it, and will continue to care about it, because when this law implodes, it will hurt way more than it ever had a chance to help.

[B-Man]

LIBRE has put out this ad out against Joe Garcia in Florida. You see, Rep. Garcia – when he’s not hiring chiefs of staff who later get convicted for election fraud – has been recently trying to quietly distance himself from Obamacare. Presumably this has been because Obamacare has been generally awful… and awful and arrogantly dismissive of Latino voters. So LIBRE has set up The Accountability Project:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INSKJhDY67o

 

“This law does not put patients first,” the physician, Grazie Pozo Christie, says in the ad. “My patients ask if I will continue to provide care for them, and it pains me to say, ‘I don’t have an answer.’”

 

 

I don’t mind theorizing about policy matters. It is, in fact, a necessary part of the process. But, in their enthusiasm, the Democratic party leadership seems to have forgotten that real people have to live with the consequences of poor political decisions. Joe Garcia’s prior support of Obamacare has resulted in people getting scared and worried; he has materially made people worse-off, and there is absolutely no reason to let him or any other Democrat hide from the consequences. Garcia is trying, of course (the usual declined-to-comment), but he should not be allowed to succeed. We absolutely must hold our politicians responsible when they do their constituents wrong, whether those politicians like it or not.

[DC Tom]

what is an extension if not another arbitrary deadline?

 

A complete lack of deadline.

 

Honestly who cares about this? Is extending a deadline bad thing? Must all previous dates be set in stone even if your priors have changed. Do you want governments to commit to arbitrary deadlines

 

Yes, when the deadlines ARE CODIFIED IN FEDERAL STATUTES.

 

"Do you want the President to be bound by the law?" Jesus...

[meazza]

http://youtu.be/gxRTFkQtQYs Edited January 16, 2014 by meazza

[FireChan]

Is anyone here against the ACA philosophically? Or just against it's (failed) implementation?

[DC Tom]

Is anyone here against the ACA philosophically? Or just against it's (failed) implementation?

 

Fallacious question. It's failed implementation is part and parcel with its philosophy of being one of the worst possible compromises between a free market and a socialist system.

 

I said it when the law was passed, and I'll say it again: I'm philosophically opposed to socialized medicine, but even that would be preferable to this ridiculous abortion. In as much as I'm "philosophically opposed" to the ACA, it's because I live in reality and am philosophically opposed to wishful thinking.

[FireChan]

Fallacious question. It's failed implementation is part and parcel with its philosophy of being one of the worst possible compromises between a free market and a socialist system.

 

I said it when the law was passed, and I'll say it again: I'm philosophically opposed to socialized medicine, but even that would be preferable to this ridiculous abortion. In as much as I'm "philosophically opposed" to the ACA, it's because I live in reality and am philosophically opposed to wishful thinking.

I meant in a broader scope of government funded national health care.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I meant in a broader scope of government funded national health care.

I am absolutely philosophically opposed, because centrally planned systems have always been far less effective than the market.

[3rdnlng]

I meant in a broader scope of government funded national health care.

 

I am against socialized medicine. I am also against people who can't make things work. Originally the small fines for non participation were a tell-tale sign that the ACA would never get the young and healthy participation that it needed to even somewhat work. The rollout and subsequent edicts by Obama have made this thing of theirs a gigantic FUBAR. Now your statement that I bolded is idiotic. The government doesn't fund anything, the people do. Anytime someone in this country receives a subsidy or something for free it is part of wealth redistribution.

[FireChan]

I am against socialized medicine. I am also against people who can't make things work. Originally the small fines for non participation were a tell-tale sign that the ACA would never get the young and healthy participation that it needed to even somewhat work. The rollout and subsequent edicts by Obama have made this thing of theirs a gigantic FUBAR. Now your statement that I bolded is idiotic. The government doesn't fund anything, the people do. Anytime someone in this country receives a subsidy or something for free it is part of wealth redistribution.

 

Didn't mean funded, meant run. That's on me.

 

I am absolutely philosophically opposed, because centrally planned systems have always been far less effective than the market.

 

Effective for the poor too?

[Keukasmallies]

Two of the goals of the ACA are to decrease insurance costs and decrease emergency room visits. Just check out the most recent numbers related to both objectives; how's it working'? Well, for me, my premium has increased each of the past two years and this year as well. This years increase is 9.6%. Additionally, my co-pay for seeing a specialist has increased 14.2%. Sorry, no link to validate these figures as my checkbook isn't on line. (Increased means I pay more, not less, and increased is the opposite of decreased.))

 

Emergency room visits are slowly rising according to national trend figures. (Rising in this instance means growing in number; growing is the opposite of shrinking.)

 

So, yeah, I'm opposed to a program that is achieving the exact opposite of it's stated objectives.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Keukasmallies

[TakeYouToTasker]

Effective for the poor too?

Yes, effective for the poor as well. Central planning always hurts the poor more than anyone else, because the poor have the least acceptable margins for loss when the systems break down and fail.

[meazza]

Yes, effective for the poor as well. Central planning always hurts the poor more than anyone else, because the poor have the least acceptable margins for loss when the systems break down and fail.

 

I'd say the middle class become worse off (since the poor are already at the bottom) since the increased taxes are always passed on to the middle class. The wealthy can usually find the most effective methods of paying less taxes.

[4merper4mer]

I'd say the middle class become worse off (since the poor are already at the bottom) since the increased taxes are always passed on to the middle class. The wealthy can usually find the most effective methods of paying less taxes.

 

I don't think Tasker meant dollar for dollar. I think he meant the middle class takes a hit and yes, there poor were on the bottom, but the bottom gets lower and that sucks.

[Gary M]

Two of the goals of the ACA are to decrease insurance costs and decrease emergency room visits. Just check out the most recent numbers related to both objectives; how's it working'? Well, for me, my premium has increased each of the past two years and this year as well. This years increase is 9.6%. Additionally, my co-pay for seeing a specialist has increased 14.2%. Sorry, no link to validate these figures as my checkbook isn't on line. (Increased means I pay more, not less, and increased is the opposite of decreased.))

 

Emergency room visits are slowly rising according to national trend figures. (Rising in this instance means growing in number; growing is the opposite of shrinking.)

 

So, yeah, I'm opposed to a program that is achieving the exact opposite of it's stated objectives.

 

Which anyone with any common sense knew would happen.

[Doc]

I'd still like to know what happened to the 40-odd million other people that we were dying in the streets because they were being denied health care and which necessitated ramming through this ****ty law?

[Azalin]

I am absolutely philosophically opposed, because centrally planned systems have always been far less effective than the market.

^ this

The government doesn't fund anything, the people do. Anytime someone in this country receives a subsidy or something for free it is part of wealth redistribution.

^ and this

[IDBillzFan]

Which anyone with any common sense knew would happen.

 

Something else everyone with common sense understood: if the entire scheme's success rests exclusively on getting young people to sign up, you don't give those young people three easy reasons NOT to sign up.

 

The first easy reason is to let them stay on their parents' plan until their 26. The second easy reason is in making the annual non-compliance penalty cheaper than a monthly cellphone bill. The third was ensuring they could escape the law altogether if they simply adjust their income so they owe no taxes at the end of the year.

 

Some brilliant work there, progs. No one can argue that when it comes to creating a surefire failure, no one delivers like a liberal.

[Nanker]

I'd still like to know what happened to the 40-odd million other people that we were dying in the streets because they were being denied health care and which necessitated ramming through this ****ty law?

The media has lost sight of them. I think they got lost in a time warp while watching a disgusting Internet video - which we had NOTHING to do with. So, at this point - what difference does it make?

[IDBillzFan]

I think they got lost in a time warp...

 

Happens quite a bit. Ironically it starts with a jump to the left.

[Azalin]

Happens quite a bit. Ironically it starts with a jump to the left.

you beat me to it.

[B-Large]

I meant in a broader scope of government funded national health care.

 

you have to be specific when posing the question, and in my mind there are 3 types "Government Funded" healthcare:

 

1. Socialized Medicine- the Government run the Hospitals, employs the Practicioners, collects taxes foe the cost of care.

2. Single Payor- the Government collects taxes to pay for care, people use private providers.

3. Subsidized Premium Support- Private system the government collect taxes and subsidizes premium payment for private health insurance- they do not pay claims, and don't own the means or care.

 

We doubled down on a system that really didn't work in the first place if you were not healthly, not young, had preexisting condition, etc. We fixed access, but did little to address cost of care in the grand scheme of things. Yes, there will be cost cutting measures and maybe those will help, but the key disconnect is that individuals/ hospitals do not have an efficient cost/ payment relationship because of third party payments. Its still almost impossible to get a cash quote for services at a hospital in this country...

 

I'd like to the States/Federal Government fund a risk pool that pays claims that are over a certain amont based on each person income. So the individual is charged with paying for their routine care, seeking out cost effective ways to do so... when they need the 50K surgery, the risk pool pays the provider. I'd like to see a system like this have an auto opt-in... so people would have to make a choice not to participate/opt out, so either go without coverage for which they could be denied care if needed and couldnt pay, or buy a private plan if they qualify. Fund the risk pool with taxes, each person has a deducitble and an HSA they could use if they wanted. You take TPA out of the mix, get a better relationship between consumer/ provider and get economies of scale in the process. The people of the Nation/ State could vote on how much they wanted to spend for care in the country, instead of now it seems like a open spigot free for all. People vote for no waits for anything, more spending. Americans decided a hip replacement wait of 6 months is acceptable, less spending. Seems reasonable to me.

[B-Man]

Democrats joining GOP efforts to alter troubled Obamacare.

 

For the second time in two weeks, House Democrats joined with Republicans to pass legislation that would require the Obama administration to report regularly to Congress on progress made implementing the new health care law.

 

In a 259-154 vote, the House passed the Exchange Information Disclosure Act, which would require the Health and Human Services Department to provide weekly reports to Congress on the sign-up data for the troubled healthcare.gov website.

While Democrats have generally dismissed the Republican attacks on Obamacare as politically motivated, 33 Democratic lawmakers broke with the party and voted for the bill that would increase scrutiny of the new law.

 

Last week, 67 Democrats joined the GOP to pass the Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act, which would require HHS to tell healthcare.gov users about any security breach involving personal identity theft or unlawful access within two days of discovery.

 

 

 

Seems reasonable.

 

 

.

[Gary M]

 

 

Seems reasonable.

 

.

 

Election year CYA!!!!!!

[DC Tom]

For the second time in two weeks, House Democrats joined with Republicans to pass legislation that would require the Obama administration to report regularly to Congress on progress made implementing the new health care law.

 

 

Hey, wouldn't that have been a good thing to write into THE ORIGINAL BILL?????

 

Stupid !@#$ing law.

[Koko78]

Democrats joining GOP efforts to alter troubled Obamacare.

 

For the second time in two weeks, House Democrats joined with Republicans to pass legislation that would require the Obama administration to report regularly to Congress on progress made implementing the new health care law.

 

In a 259-154 vote, the House passed the Exchange Information Disclosure Act, which would require the Health and Human Services Department to provide weekly reports to Congress on the sign-up data for the troubled healthcare.gov website.

While Democrats have generally dismissed the Republican attacks on Obamacare as politically motivated, 33 Democratic lawmakers broke with the party and voted for the bill that would increase scrutiny of the new law.

 

Last week, 67 Democrats joined the GOP to pass the Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act, which would require HHS to tell healthcare.gov users about any security breach involving personal identity theft or unlawful access within two days of discovery.

 

 

 

Seems reasonable.

 

 

.

Going to die in the Senate though. Uncle Harry won't let anything happen to Obama.

[Keukasmallies]

The next tit-in-a-wringer component of the ACA would appear to be the "risk corridor provision." This provision is the current sword of Damocles over the head of the HHS department, BUT the good news is that it only has an impact if the act comes in over budget! Gee, what are the chances of that happening?

 

http://hotair.com/ar...o-single-payer/

Edited January 18, 2014 by Keukasmallies

[Doc]

The next tit-in-a-wringer component of the ACA would appear to be the "risk corridor provision." This provision is the current sword of Damocles over the head of the HHS department, BUT the good news is that it only has an impact if the act comes in over budget! Gee, what are the chances of that happening?

 

http://hotair.com/ar...o-single-payer/

Sorry but I can't accept any predictions made by insurance companies, considering they couldn't predict that the "invincibles" would avoid Obamacaid like the plague. They're just trying to scare Repubs (who won't be able to do anything until 2017 at the earliest) because they want their bailout if (more like when) they need it.

 

It was great of the Dems to stick those evil insurance companies, eh? I wonder how many millions they got to have their palms greased?

[Doc]

I'd still like to know what happened to the 40-odd million other people that we were dying in the streets because they were being denied health care and which necessitated ramming through this ****ty law?

And...it's even worse than I thought: Coverage Expansion Fail: Less Than One-Third Of Obamacare Exchange Enrollees Were Previously Uninsured

[OCinBuffalo]

Effective for the poor too?

Historically, central planning has always screwed the poor the most. Those closest to starvation, disease, etc. the most vulnerable, are always the people who take the brunt of the central plan FAIL. You look at China, and how much forced starvation occurred during the Great Leap Forward. Millions died for no good reason, other than: proving to the rest of the world that central planning is for morons.

 

The only question is: will you let their deaths be in vain? Will you continue support of central planning, even though we have gallons of historical evidence that it sucks, different flavors of its FAIL too, like Nixon Wage and Price Controls FAIL, and the 90% of the New Deal FAIL(most people don't even realize how big a failure the New Deal actually was) and NOTHING that shows any real success.

 

When you compare the sucess of markets vs. central planning, OBJECTIVELY, every rational human being comes away saying there is no comparison, markets are superior. So the other queston? Are you are rational human being, or not?

I'd still like to know what happened to the 40-odd million other people that we were dying in the streets because they were being denied health care and which necessitated ramming through this ****ty law?

As I understand it, not only are most of them against Obamacare, they are also not signing up.

 

Once again, we've bought an entire car...so that we could use the cigarette ligther and the radio.

you have to be specific when posing the question, and in my mind there are 3 types "Government Funded" healthcare:

 

1. Socialized Medicine- the Government run the Hospitals, employs the Practicioners, collects taxes foe the cost of care.

2. Single Payor- the Government collects taxes to pay for care, people use private providers.

3. Subsidized Premium Support- Private system the government collect taxes and subsidizes premium payment for private health insurance- they do not pay claims, and don't own the means or care.

 

We doubled down on a system that really didn't work in the first place if you were not healthly, not young, had preexisting condition, etc. We fixed access, but did little to address cost of care in the grand scheme of things. Yes, there will be cost cutting measures and maybe those will help, but the key disconnect is that individuals/ hospitals do not have an efficient cost/ payment relationship because of third party payments. Its still almost impossible to get a cash quote for services at a hospital in this country...

 

I'd like to the States/Federal Government fund a risk pool that pays claims that are over a certain amont based on each person income. So the individual is charged with paying for their routine care, seeking out cost effective ways to do so... when they need the 50K surgery, the risk pool pays the provider. I'd like to see a system like this have an auto opt-in... so people would have to make a choice not to participate/opt out, so either go without coverage for which they could be denied care if needed and couldnt pay, or buy a private plan if they qualify. Fund the risk pool with taxes, each person has a deducitble and an HSA they could use if they wanted. You take TPA out of the mix, get a better relationship between consumer/ provider and get economies of scale in the process. The people of the Nation/ State could vote on how much they wanted to spend for care in the country, instead of now it seems like a open spigot free for all. People vote for no waits for anything, more spending. Americans decided a hip replacement wait of 6 months is acceptable, less spending. Seems reasonable to me.

We sorta agree, but taking TPA out of the mix is patently retarded. You should know better. The entire point of TPA? Efficiency and cutting cost. Why do we want to cut out the thing that saves $? TPAs compete with each other. You want to get rid of the competition? How does that cut cost?

 

Taking TPA away means forcing either the insurer or the insured to hire somebody. Joe's Garage does car repair, not health insurance management, and the # of people on his staff mean hiring somebody to manage a 10 person plan, is never going to be an efficient use of Joe's resources. All you're doing by getting rid of TPAs is creating a costly and inefficient bottleneck in the policy management/claims business process. Either the government is the bottleneck, or the insurers, or the insured. Take your pick.

 

This solves nothing.

 

I want HSAs, same as you, for the same reasons. But, I want those HSAs managed by the 401k people. They already have all the resources, and the experience of doing this type of thing. HSA = the fastest way to create wealth. You don't need to try to buy a house or a big job that has 401k. All you need is pre-tax income. And, you can pass on your HSA to your beneficiary(ies), no taxes. Boom, wealth creation.

 

However, I want Walmat, Target, etc., to be a TPA for all catastrophic policies, and I want those policies sold across state lines. Walmart handles massive amounts of money, and they arleady have the resources in place to handle more. They can scale.

 

You start talking catastrophic pools that have 1 million people in them? That "bends the cost curve" down, big time. It's not phony state exchanges == wealth redistribution. It's smacking the hell out of cost, and pre-existing conditions? Spread across a pool of 1 million? Too many? How about 200k? Either way, nobody cares.

 

Walmart does what they always do: Buy health insurance policies for highway robbery prices, and re-sell them. Somebody is going to find a way to meet their price, especially if we are talking nationally. Hell if Walmart makes you squeamish? Then run a catastrophic public option alongside, and see who wins.

 

That is how you control cost, in both the day to day and catastrophic. You let the big guys fight it out for the one-size-fits-all catastrophic, because one-size-fits-all is what large companies/Federal government, is good at. Then, you let the doctors and patients and hospitals, and all the custom needs and issues, resolve itself in the local market....backed up by the county, and local employers, who can pay into HSAs however they want.

 

This is the superior approach, until I hear a better one.

Edited January 18, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

Remain calm, all is well.

 

Obamacare Document Reveals ‘Drop Dead’ Date for Back End Fixes.

 

“Apparently, Obamacare is in a lot bigger trouble than anyone has let on — or anyone has imagined.”