We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404 • Hacker News Board

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#211

Post by brown9-2 » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 5:15 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #159

brown9-2 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the argument though is "we can't have nice things because we screw it up", perhaps we need to look more at why America tends to screw these things up instead of taking away the lesson that we shouldn't try to have nice things.

While many of us would argue with the "nice things" concept (ScottWhigham grossly overestimates the nation's enthusiasm for socialism at the beginning of this thread), it doesn't take away from his point that it's stupid to try such grand projects while we have a demonstrated inability to do them. I mean, the government is taking control of 1/6 of the nation's economy , why ever did the Obamacare enthusiasts think th…

To be fair, the government isn't "taking control" of healthcare - they haven't assumed control over every private health insurance company.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#212

Post by JPKab » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 5:20 PM UTC

ScottWhigham wrote: post #85

This is what frustrates me about many of our non-USA HN'ers here: every time the state sponsored health care issue comes up, the non-USA folks can't wait to talk about how their country has it, or how it costs this little to get coverage for this or that problem in their country, and then they wonder why "you Americans" put up with the system you have currently in place (self-insured, no state plans - pre-Obamacare).…

As if Obamacare is state-sponsored. Its a government program that helps people buy private health insurance. At no point is somebody's doctor taking orders from the government. Naturally the Republicans messaging on Obamacare resulted in Americans being against it, yet simultaneously being in favor of every actual aspect of the law provided it didn't include President Blackenstein's name with it. After all, our seniors have been enlightened with Fox News, and in their all-knowing wisdom seek to protect us from being a vassal state led by a rogue Kenyan.

The vastly more efficient thing to do would be to expand our current socialist single-payer medical system (Medicare) to cover all. However, we live in a country where large financial interests our capable of preserving themselves, irrespective of the value they provide. The health insurance companies ensured that any solution to universal coverage included them, which is an automatically bad thing. They financed ad campaigns to scare the senior citizens into thinking that any expansion of Medicare would mean less care for them. Health insurance companies (in their current role of acting as payment middle men as opposed to a necessary role of covering catastrophic costs) provide no value. They interfere with the free market, and are less efficient than a Canadian style single payer/private provider model.

Anyone who thinks the current system is acceptable has never experienced the current system: they likely are covered by a large company's health insurance company, and haven't had to watch a family member try to buy themselves insurance.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#213

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 5:20 PM UTC

ScottWhigham wrote: post #85

This is what frustrates me about many of our non-USA HN'ers here: every time the state sponsored health care issue comes up, the non-USA folks can't wait to talk about how their country has it, or how it costs this little to get coverage for this or that problem in their country, and then they wonder why "you Americans" put up with the system you have currently in place (self-insured, no state plans - pre-Obamacare).…

[deleted]

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#214

Post by hga » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 5:23 PM UTC

brown9-2 wrote: post #211

hga wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While many of us would argue with the "nice things" concept (ScottWhigham grossly overestimates the nation's enthusiasm for socialism at the beginning of this thread), it doesn't take away from his point that it's stupid to try such grand projects while we have a demonstrated inability to do them. I mean, the government is taking control of 1/6 of the nation's economy , why ever did the Obamacare enthusiasts think th…

To be fair, the government isn't "taking control" of healthcare - they haven't assumed control over every private health insurance company.

And how many of those "private" insurance companies can still write "major medical" high deductible catastrophic coverage polices that so many of us have used in time past as ... gasp, insurance, as opposed to a tax advantaged benefit + originally a way to get around WWII wage controls? Etc. etc.

In a system that's structurally rather close to Original Formula Italian fascism, how "private" nominally non-government companies are when so much of what they can and cannot do is highly debatable, to the point where I think your quibble is very very minor.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#215

Post by wikiburner » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 5:42 PM UTC

somebehemoth wrote: post #167

wikiburner wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey spiffyman, reasonable points, but it really looks to me like josefresco is implying that the launch is getting unduly harsh treatment in the media, but maybe I misread it. Also, regarding the 20 million figure, here's the quote: Seven percent of Americans report that somebody in their household has tried to sign up for insurance through the health care exchanges, according to an AP-GfK poll. While that's a small…

"As many as 20 million "tried to" sign up, based on their extrapolation of some polling data." The quote refers to "single digits" and it is ridiculous. If even close to 20 million people tried to sign up then that means many millions of citizens need this coverage and will likely end up getting it because having health insurance is critical to their livelihood. Am I to believe 20 million people needed health insuran…

We seem to be having completely different arguments. At no point did I say there was no demand for Obamacare. I'm saying the government has shown a remarkable level of incompetence at running what's essentially a simple lead gen website. I'm also suggesting that this probably doesn't bode well for the successful administration of the program.

Regarding your second point, it's become somewhat of a meme in the press that no reporter has been able to verify or interview a single Obamacare sign up. That's what I'm referring to - not that I myself haven't by chance come across such an interview.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#216

Post by GVIrish » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 5:47 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #200

somebehemoth wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very questionable whether a tax penalty is equivalent to "gun-to-the-head tactics". Speaking of a tax penalty: where did you get $3000 from? "The fee in 2014 is 1% of your yearly income or $95 per person for the year, whichever is higher. The fee increases every year. In 2016 it is 2.5% of income or $695 per person, whichever is higher." - from https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-someone-doesnt-have-healt... Som…

Even if it's just $95, the point is the same: if you don't buy this product, you are fined and the police power of the state can be brought down upon your head if you don't pay up. Endless stories abound of people losing homes, savings frozen/confiscated, incarcerated, etc. over non-payment of seemingly trifling amounts. Heck, the whole Branch Davidian incident (50+ day standoff, dozens shot or burned to death) boile…

Well, if someone doesn't want to pay for health insurance they should either have to pay out of pocket when they have to go to the emergency room, or not receive medical attention at all.

Since we've collectively made the choice to not turn away people who show up to the emergency room, here we are. I'd be all for axing the individual mandate if we decided to shut people out of the emergency room.

On balance, it seems far more humane to go with the individual mandate and penalties than it does to let poor people die on hospital door steps. Although it is possible that after people realize a ignominious death awaits them if they don't buy health insurance, maybe everyone will be scared into buying it.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#217

Post by RockyMcNuts » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 5:54 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #191

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medicare is more efficient than private insurers. of course it helps that it just says, F u, we're paying X, instead of making everyone jump through hoops and hoping they screw up and provide an excuse for denial, and Medicare doesn't need to market or grow profits. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-ef... sounds like this project is a colossal clusterf *k. Innovation and customer service are n…

I think only the weakest level of "market-based" can apply here. The government has grossly intervened in the health care market since the WWII wage and price controls implicitly created the business model of employers playing for health care as non-controlled additional compensation, to the explicit post-WWII requirement for emergency rooms to treat everyone who entered. Now Medicare shifts quite a bit of additional…

insurance doesn't work unless it's universal. it just falls apart once either side picks and chooses. the young people don't buy it, and then they fall off their bike and they're screwed. and the insurers can't get stuck with just sick people, they have the whole pre-existing condition thing, so your kids get sick and you can't leave your job.

a sick person looking for treatment is the opposite of everything that makes a market efficient, there's no perfect information, non-coercion etc.

if people want to say, I'd rather people be sick and die and have the freedom to not pay for universal insurance or get vaccinated, that's a values choice. but it's a serious error to say that the free market will result in optimal health outcomes.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#218

Post by hga » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 5:55 PM UTC

JPKab wrote: post #212

ScottWhigham wrote: post #85

This is what frustrates me about many of our non-USA HN'ers here: every time the state sponsored health care issue comes up, the non-USA folks can't wait to talk about how their country has it, or how it costs this little to get coverage for this or that problem in their country, and then they wonder why "you Americans" put up with the system you have currently in place (self-insured, no state plans - pre-Obamacare).…

As if Obamacare is state-sponsored. Its a government program that helps people buy private health insurance. At no point is somebody's doctor taking orders from the government. Naturally the Republicans messaging on Obamacare resulted in Americans being against it, yet simultaneously being in favor of every actual aspect of the law provided it didn't include President Blackenstein's name with it. After all, our senio…

"Anyone who thinks the current system is acceptable has never experienced the current system: they likely are covered by a large company's health insurance company, and haven't had to watch a family member try to buy themselves insurance."

Strange, a large number of us can remember buying individual "major medical" high deductible catastrophic coverage policies for quite reasonable sums of money, since they're true insurance ... policies which are now illegal. And a lot of self-insured people/families are finding their policies canceled or unaffordable, along with what they can in theory buy on the exchanges. Seeing as how Obamacare mandates 10? or so generally? new and expensive things, like coverage of your children till age 26. Or explicitly makes healthcare more expensive, like the 2.3% excise tax on medical devices: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Medical-Device-Excise-Tax:-Frequently...

As for "somebody's doctor taking orders from the government" ... well, what if they want to get reimbursed? Not quite the same thing, but just about the same effect.

As for Medicare ... well, seeing as how much it shifts costs to other customers, just how do you propose to pay for it as more and more people got moved to it? Being disabled, I'm on it, and track what my doctors get paid. Sometimes its reasonable, frequently its not, and I haven't needed anything really expensive yet....

And I do believe your race card has been maxed out: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-5-2010/race-car... ; why do you think we've opposed this since Truman made the first attempt? Was Clinton truly our "First Black President" as way too many said before Obama, back when Hillarycare crashed and burned?

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#219

Post by ScottWhigham » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 6:01 PM UTC

ScottWhigham wrote: post #174

brown9-2 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the argument though is "we can't have nice things because we screw it up", perhaps we need to look more at why America tends to screw these things up instead of taking away the lesson that we shouldn't try to have nice things.

The "why" is easy enough to figure out. The "problem" with a democracy (or rather America's in particular) is two-fold: 1) when you say "we need to look more at why", the answer is "Because you keep voting this or that yahoo into office and he/she is a career politician whose sole interest is in continuing to please the various lobbyists, PACs, and special interest groups that offer the most perks." You can then say,…

If you down voted the above, I'd love to hear the reason. It's fine to disagree but I don't think disagreeing on principle warrants a downvote.

Re: We paid $634 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404

#220

Post by JPKab » Thu, Oct 10, 2013, 6:06 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #218

JPKab wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As if Obamacare is state-sponsored. Its a government program that helps people buy private health insurance. At no point is somebody's doctor taking orders from the government. Naturally the Republicans messaging on Obamacare resulted in Americans being against it, yet simultaneously being in favor of every actual aspect of the law provided it didn't include President Blackenstein's name with it. After all, our senio…

" Anyone who thinks the current system is acceptable has never experienced the current system: they likely are covered by a large company's health insurance company, and haven't had to watch a family member try to buy themselves insurance. " Strange, a large number of us can remember buying individual "major medical" high deductible catastrophic coverage policies for quite reasonable sums of money, since they're true…

I had a HDHP from 2007-2009, combined with a tax-free HSA which I used for cash payments to providers. The problem is that you can't shop around with it. Nobody can tell you what they charge for anything.

Regarding what doctors get paid by Medicare, CMS.gov released those statistics. They are pre-negotiated with providers, and are prices which allow them to profitably operate. It absolutely doesn't shift costs to other customers for most procedures. The CMS.gov data shows this.

You are a beneficiary of a socialized medical system, and here you are railing against expanding care for others. If you hate socialized medicine so much, please get off of Medicare and go purchase private insurance. Put your money where your mouth is, instead of making the rest of us suffer a fate you are spared from. The idea that somebody who is receiving care from my tax dollars is arguing that members of my family who aren't insured shouldn't is infuriating.