NYT investigation into Heathcare.gov failure

SilverCreekSilverCreek Senior MemberPosts: 131 Senior Member
Tension and Flaws Before Health Website Crash

By ERIC LIPTON, IAN AUSTEN and SHARON LaFRANIERE

Interviews and documents offer new details into how the rollout of President Obama's signature program turned into a major humiliation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/us/politics/tension-and-woes-before-health-website-crash.html

Replies

  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    News Flash......
    January 18, 2006

    President Bush's top health advisers will fan out across the country this week to quell rising discontent with a new Medicare prescription drug benefit that has tens of thousands of elderly and disabled Americans, their pharmacists, and governors struggling to resolve myriad start-up problems.

    Clearly this disaster will never be fixed.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,988 Senior Member
    36fd3bab2b0b3f104034e5e880c0a80d.jpg
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    joekrz wrote: »
    36fd3bab2b0b3f104034e5e880c0a80d.jpg

    Perhaps 80 years administrating the Social Security System, 50 years doing the same with Medicare/Medicaid, another 60-70 years running the VA hospital system might suggest running a healthcare system is something the government can do. What makes you believe building a website is anything like running a healthcare system?
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,988 Senior Member
    dryflie wrote: »
    Perhaps 80 years administrating the Social Security System, 50 years doing the same with Medicare/Medicaid, another 60-70 years running the VA hospital system might suggest running a healthcare system is something the government can do. What makes you believe building a website is anything like running a healthcare system?

    Don't get too excited about those programs.


    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-23/social-security-fund-to-run-out-in-2035-trustees-say.html


    http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/23/news/economy/social_security_medicare_trustees/
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    joekrz wrote: »

    We were talking about the administration of these programs not their funding or financial status. They are well run, easy to apply for, and seamlessly support millions of Americans every freak'n day. However we have a congress unwilling and unable to do their job to address the funding issues. No one involved in the day to day operation of these programs can do a **** thing about the ineptitude in congress, other than vote for better legislators.

    The web site issues will be resolved but more importantly the actual flaws with the law need to be addressed. I have as little regard for the ability of congress to fix Obamacare as they have demonstrated for SS and Medicare.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • swizzswizz Senior Member Posts: 2,559 Senior Member
    ... that darn congess
    All of your Trout are belong to me.
  • dryflie wrote: »
    The web site issues will be resolved but more importantly the actual flaws with the law need to be addressed.

    Interesting. What makes you think the law is flawed?
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Interesting. What makes you think the law is flawed?

    The kerfuffle with cancelled polices for one thing. I'd also like to see the actual polices better configured to the buyers actual needs. I suspect there are a number of adjustments that should be considered. What I'm afraid of is the lack of serious commitment by this congress to do anything positive...on any matter.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Interesting. What makes you think the law is flawed?

    Free gas, but only the cheap octane crap that is going to ruin the engine in our Obamaghinis.
  • dryflie wrote: »
    The kerfuffle with cancelled polices for one thing. I'd also like to see the actual polices better configured to the buyers actual needs.

    These aren't flaws in the law.

    The law can't work if existing policies aren't canceled or the policies are better configured to the buyers actual needs. You need me to have a policy that covers pregnancy so that 20 and 30-something married couples can afford pregnancy coverage. You need me to buy a policy with mental illness coverage so that coverage is cheaper for families that might actually need it. You need me to buy a policy that covers drug addiction treatment so that it's cheaper for everyone else.

    The fact is that there are no flaws in the law; it's working exactly as meant.
    The problem is the law is flawed and the President lied to the American people about it.
  • Hextall wrote: »
    Free gas, but only the cheap octane crap that is going to ruin the engine in our Obamaghinis.

    Yes. 'cuz how else you going to get to the hospital?
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    There no rush cause your Hospitals are going to be filled with poor people plugging up the system..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,988 Senior Member
    dryflie wrote: »
    The kerfuffle with cancelled polices for one thing. I'd also like to see the actual polices better configured to the buyers actual needs. I suspect there are a number of adjustments that should be considered. What I'm afraid of is the lack of serious commitment by this congress to do anything positive...on any matter.

    The only way to correct that is to repeal the parts that are making that happen. The problem is we have a community organizer, turned politician with very little political experience and zero business experience that pushed forth this legislation without thinking about the millions of people lives that it would affect in a negative way.

    Right now there about 100,000 enrolled and 5 million (and counting) that have been cancelled. The sad part about those that have been cancelled, is that some of them make $1 too much to qualify with subsidy, now throw in the premium increases that have been implemented due to the law, and they just can't afford it and will go without insurance. Democrats are going to have a lot of votes to buy back. I predict another republican sweep next year just like 2010. Americuns are pissed!!
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,988 Senior Member
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    joekrz wrote: »
    without thinking about the millions of people lives that it would affect in a negative way.

    But what about the millions affected in a positive way??

    I agree there must be revisions/improvements but the initial goal of this new law was to deal with the 30-40 million people with no insurance at all and with the millions of people excluded from the insurance market. Yes there are victims and yes we should do everything possible to mitigate the impact on them.

    I find it deplorable that a person with cancer or any disease should lose their insurance because of the new law but why didn't others find it just as deplorable that millions lost their insurance when they got sick before the law was passed. Not a **** thing was said when that happened every day.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • swizzswizz Senior Member Posts: 2,559 Senior Member
    Obamacare is a dumpster fire that keeps getting bigger.
    I think the whole thing was well intentioned but not very well thought out and certainly poorly implemented. The logistics for this type of "law" may or may not exist.
    This has all the makings of EPIC FAIL. How much more tax money will be pissed away trying to figure it out? I was excited about it until I realized it wasn't even close to being ready for primetime (obviously).
    No thanks. This is destined to fail and take a lot of govt spending along the way.
    All of your Trout are belong to me.
  • dryflie wrote: »
    why didn't others find it just as deplorable that millions lost their insurance when they got sick before the law was passed. Not a **** thing was said when that happened every day.

    Urban myth. Insurers could never cancel somebody covered by major medical just because they're sick. Insurers could not raise rates for an individua just because he or she was sick. Do you think state insurance regulations would allow that?
    Insurers have certain cancellation rights - such as for non-disclosure of a pre-existing condition - but they can't cancel somebody just because they're sick.
  • Don't get confused. Obamacare isn't about insuring people with pre-existing conditions or about the poor, although it might have been sold this way. We have programs for that and most certainly could have come up with more.
    Obamacare isn't about bending the cost curve; it does nothing for that.

    Obamacare is about a collectivist notion of fairness - everybody should pay the same for healthcare. Male, female, healthy, sick, young and old.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,988 Senior Member
    dryflie wrote: »
    But what about the millions affected in a positive way??

    That hasn't happened yet. There are roughly 100,000 enrolled and 5 million cancelled that may or may not be able to afford to keep their insurance due to the higher premiums and higher deductibles. All of these higher premiums and deductibles are the result of the requirements set forth by ACA. If the poor, sick and uninsured are the winners then the middle class end up being the losers becauase they make too much to qualify for new federal subsidies, but not enough to absorb the rising costs without hardship.
    I agree there must be revisions/improvements but the initial goal of this new law was to deal with the 30-40 million people with no insurance at all and with the millions of people excluded from the insurance market. Yes there are victims and yes we should do everything possible to mitigate the impact on them.

    That figure is a little blown up since it also includes ~10 million that are not citizens of the U.S., thus not eligible for insurance. The rest are those that can't afford it, or have never bothered to look for it or those that can afford it, but have never bought any.
    I find it deplorable that a person with cancer or any disease should lose their insurance because of the new law

    I agree.
  • SilverCreekSilverCreek Senior Member Posts: 131 Senior Member
    Time Magazine is Piling On....

    360_cover_1202.jpg

    "... the sign that the Obama presidency had reached a turning point came not when his poll numbers sank or his allies shuddered or the commentariat went hunting for the right degree of debacle to compare to the rollout of Obamacare.

    It happened when he started apologizing. In triplicate. For not knowing what was going on in his own Administration. For failing to prevent his signature achievement from detonating in prime time. For not telling the whole truth when he promised people that Obamacare would not touch them without permission: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.

    How could a White House appear so confident and incompetent at the same time?
    "

    http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2158133,00.html
  • Steven wrote: »

    Obamacare is about a collectivist notion of fairness - everybody should pay the same for healthcare. Male, female, healthy, sick, young and old.

    assuming arguendo that this is true, I think we conservatives have some explaining to do. The individual mandate was originally a conservative idea. Why is it now considered to be the equivalent of Stalin's land reform or Mao's great leap forward?

    But beyond that, I think the onus is on those of us on the right to present a compelling alternative to the ACA. Its certainly been amusing to watch the law of unintended consequences play out, but "Obamacare sucks" is only going to get us so far. The US health system is second to none in health outcomes--if you can afford it. What is the GOP's answer to the issue of access? I don't think we can argue that the healthcare system that existed prior to the ACA was just hunky-dory.
  • The individual mandate may be a conservative idea, but is the mandate that we all get the same insurance and pay a price that can't be justified actuarially for each individual?

    The Republican Study Committees Common Sense Plan is a good start.
  • bakerloobakerloo Banned Posts: 980 Senior Member

    Time magazine is racist..
    "So what is big is not always the Trout nor the Deer but the chance, the being there. And what is full is not necessarily the creel nor the freezer, but the memory."
    Aldo Leopold
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,988 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    assuming arguendo that this is true, I think we conservatives have some explaining to do. The individual mandate was originally a conservative idea. Why is it now considered to be the equivalent of Stalin's land reform or Mao's great leap forward?

    But beyond that, I think the onus is on those of us on the right to present a compelling alternative to the ACA. Its certainly been amusing to watch the law of unintended consequences play out, but "Obamacare sucks" is only going to get us so far. The US health system is second to none in health outcomes--if you can afford it. What is the GOP's answer to the issue of access? I don't think we can argue that the healthcare system that existed prior to the ACA was just hunky-dory.

    I think the law should have only been implemented with the following conditions

    1.) No more denial of pre-existing conditions

    2.) Kids allowed to stay on parents insurance until 26.

    3.) No lifetime benefit cap.


    Outside of that, the consumer should have been left with the option to taylor their insurance to their own needs

    Simple legislation that would easily have had more support from both sides and resulted in very little increase in premiums compared to what's happening now.

    As Steve pointed out, we already have programs in place for the poor and uninsured. Why not continue to use them?

    So far, nothing has been really affordable about this program unless you define more expensive as affordable. All the ACA has done is shuffle around who pays for what, but does little to reduce the cost of healthcare.


    Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    joekrz wrote: »

    So far, nothing has been really affordable about this program unless you define more expensive as affordable. All the ACA has done is shuffle around who pays for what, but does little to reduce the cost of healthcare.

    This is not entirely true, for many signing up their costs have been reduced. It does the conservative argument no good whatsoever if they completely ignore the positive aspects of Obamacare.

    One example of many.

    Judith Silverstein, 49, a Californian who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2007. Her family helps her pay the $750 monthly cost of her existing plan--which she only had because of federal law requiring that insurers who provide employer-based insurance continue to offer coverage if the employer goes out of business, as hers did. Next year she'll get a subsidy that will get her a good "silver" level plan for $50.

    For Silverstein that coverage is indispensable. Her case is relatively mild, but MS is a progressive condition that typically has made its sufferers pariahs of the individual insurance market in the past. "I researched the options," she says. "Nobody's going to sell you insurance in the individual market if you have MS." But these customers can't be excluded or saddled with big premium markups any more.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-obamacare-success-20131125,0,1801769.story#ixzz2lm2IwMiE
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,988 Senior Member
    I should have been more clear. More expensive for the middle class folks and in some cases the premiums are now out of reach for some of them.

    Yes, there will be a few that benefit from this program. I don't deny that. But at the expense of how many in the middle class that are now priced out of the market and will now go without insurance?

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
  • dryflie wrote: »
    This is not entirely true, for many signing up their costs have been reduced. It does the conservative argument no good whatsoever if they completely ignore the positive aspects of Obamacare.

    One example of many.

    Judith Silverstein, 49, a Californian who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2007. Her family helps her pay the $750 monthly cost of her existing plan--which she only had because of federal law requiring that insurers who provide employer-based insurance continue to offer coverage if the employer goes out of business, as hers did. Next year she'll get a subsidy that will get her a good "silver" level plan for $50.

    Cost hasn't been reduced, HER cost has been reduced. Like Joe said, "all the ACA has done is shuffle around who pays for what."
    Judith Silverstein isn't paying, the taxpayer is. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, but one thing it ain't is a free lunch.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.