Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Obamacare Predictions for May 2015 (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  46  47  48   
Author Topic: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg what I am saying is that it is a bad law. Period. Statistics indicate at least someone must have gotten a benefit. I'm sure people who were in favor of Jim Crow laws could point to people who incidentally benefited.

That doesn't mean its a good law.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3: I didn't think so, but I just wanted to make sure. In the same vein, do we agree that there could be a wave of utopian good-feeling stemming from all the suddenly healthy people running around, feeling happy, and some hyper-partisan ideologues would still call it an unqualified failure?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How many suddenly healthy people running around, feeling happy do you expect? A dozen? 150 million?

My prediction is that the hyper-partiscan ideologues here and around the US will tell us ObamaCare is working great and needs to be fixed and is wildly popular and it's the GOP's fault.

Pretty much all in one breath like that.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How many suddenly healthy people running around, feeling happy do you expect?
It is possible that you failed to understand my point. In fact, given your second paragraph, it is likely.

I asked if you agreed that it is as likely that hyper-partisan ideologues would claim that the ACA was a miserable failure if in fact it was a resounding success as it is that hyper-partisan ideologues (on the other side of the aisle, of course) would claim it as a runaway success if indeed it were a miserable failure.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is possible that you failed to understand my point. In fact, given your subsequent post, it is likely.

What would a "resounding success" be?

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps you are still failing to understand. Do we agree that it does not matter what a "resounding success" is, in much the same way that it does not matter that you don't really expect bodies to be piling up in the streets? That, no matter what happens, you and others will call the ACA a failure?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If we're going to call it a success, then defining what success means matters quite a bit. How can you call it a success if you don't know what a success would be?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If we're going to call it a success, then defining what success means matters quite a bit.
Except that your own claim -- your claim, mind you -- is that people will call it a success regardless of whether it is or not.

Do you not believe that different people will call it a failure regardless of whether it is or not?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Red, are you literally saying that not a single person has a better deal because of ACA? Because that statement would be as arrogant and incorrect as any statements of any who denied the entire truth of your own experience.

I think we all acknowledge that there are individuals who will receive better "deals", and generally speaking the rest of us are going to pay higher taxes and premiums to support them.

I predict that no matter what, people will continue to pretend that a post subsidy price is the "cost" of healthcare so they can claim that costs are down. I predict that if you get the fully loaded expenditures, federal, state, and private on healthcare you won't see a decline in costs or savings, absent a reduction in quality of care (personally, I think we'll end up with both a higher cost and a reduction in care). I predict we'll be stuck with the law for a while, and it will serve it's "purpose" by further enshrining a permanent voting bloc to support the Progressives that they can use scare tactics to motivate whenever they like.

And I'm with G3, no matter what the result we'll see partisans declare it a resounding success.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
no matter what the result we'll see partisans declare it a resounding success
And a resounding failure, yes?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If we're going to call it a success, then defining what success means matters quite a bit.
Except that your own claim -- your claim, mind you -- is that people will call it a success regardless of whether it is or not.
Your refusal to put even the most minimal definition around a success for this goes to my point. By refusing to define even what a success might look like, you can point to any outcome and claim it was the goal all along and it is, thus, a massive success.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Do you not believe that different people will call it a failure regardless of whether it is or not?

I believe that would be very difficult, if not impossible to do, if there is a actual success with this program. Thus the need to avoid all definitions of success - or if you're Obama, lie about it. Without any idea what a success would be, everything is a success.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3: Whether or not the Obama Administration provides the metric for determining whether the ACA is a success is irrelevant. We can determine that for ourselves using our own metrics, and we can compare metrics with one another to see which are fair and which aren't.

Tom's point seems really simple to me: despite the outcome of the law (whether it turns out to be a success or failure) there is always going to be a group of pundits who call it what it's not. If it's a success, a certain group will insist on calling it a failure. If it's a failure, a different group will insist on calling it a success. Do you agree or no?

What's your metric for success for this bill?

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I believe that would be very difficult, if not impossible to do, if there is a actual success with this program.
Why would this be harder than calling it a success if there is no actual success? It seems to me that these are equally difficult.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
no matter what the result we'll see partisans declare it a resounding success
And a resounding failure, yes?
Not sure, probably some of them. I don't think its a resounding failure, just a resoundingly bad policy.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
G3: Whether or not the Obama Administration provides the metric for determining whether the ACA is a success is irrelevant. We can determine that for ourselves using our own metrics, and we can compare metrics with one another to see which are fair and which aren't.

It is perhaps one of the most relevant parts of this program. How can we know if it's doing what we intended it to do if we do not have some criteria against which to measure it? Sure, we can compare metrics with one another to see which are fair and which aren't but you know what that will be called? Highly anomalous and/or anecdotal. See upthread for the proof of that.

quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
Tom's point seems really simple to me: despite the outcome of the law (whether it turns out to be a success or failure) there is always going to be a group of pundits who call it what it's not. If it's a success, a certain group will insist on calling it a failure. If it's a failure, a different group will insist on calling it a success. Do you agree or no?

Tom's point is really simple. Some will claim it's a failure no matter what therefore we must not define success criteria. That way it's always, by definition, a success. If a true, measurable success criteria were defined, it could be objectively determined if it succeeded or failed but the supporters of this program would very much like to not have any criteria for it. Ask yourself why that is.

quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
What's your metric for success for this bill?

Wait, are you now saying it's relevant to have a metric for success?

Here's a reasonable first take at a criteria:
quote:
There are at least six ways to possibly judge Obamacare and it is only using the most generous criteria that you can make the case it will succeed.

1) Comparing the ACA to other first world countries – Under this criteria it will be a clear failure. Even the supporters of the law admit after it is implemented the United States will still have the most expensive, complex, and wasteful health care system on earth.

2) Compared to Obama’s original promises – Again by this standard the law is a failure. While the ACA does contain several provisions Obama campaigned on in 2008, such as guaranteed issue and subsidies to buy insurance, the law lacks/broke many of his biggest promises. It does not contain a public option, a national exchange, drug re-importation or Medicare-direct drug price negotiation. It will not save the average family $2,500 a year. Thanks to the Cadillac tax, many people who like their current insurance will not be allowed to keep it, directly contradicting Obama’s promise.

3) Compared to the smaller promises made when the law was signed – Even by this modest benchmark it would be hard to argue that current indicators point to the law being a success. The law will cover significantly fewer people than originally projected, although that is mainly the fault of Supreme Court and Republicans at the state level.

The news about what the law will do to premiums in the individual market is a mixed bag. We still don’t know if a critical mass of people will actually use the exchanges or if they will turn into a dumping ground for the sick. The design of the employer mandate now seems very problematic. On the plus side, there are some signs the law might be helping to bend the cost curve.

Most damaging though is that the law won’t fulfill one of President Obama’s most cited justifications for the law. Evidence from Massachusetts is that the law will not stop people from going bankrupt if they get sick.

4) Compared to the status quo – This is the low criteria by which many supporters of the law use to predict it will be a success. Since the law will significantly expand Medicaid and Medicaid is a good program that helps many people, on that provision alone a decent argument can be made.

That said, there will also be many losers as a result of the law. Rich people will see higher taxes. Some young professionals will see a big increases in their premiums. The poor design of the employer mandate could result in part time workers getting their hours cut. Insufficient subsidies combined with a bad employer mandate could leave some people in a no man’s land where they can’t really afford insurance but are forced to pay the individual mandate. The Cadillac tax will also cause people with good insurance to see their benefits cut and deductibles increased. Most concerning, the law basically locks in place our broken private for-profit insurance system.

5) Compared to the conservative dystopian nightmare – Some conservatives have gone so over the top by claiming that Obamacare will be the beginning of a Stalinist state, that it will be impossible for the actual implementation of the law not to seem mundane by comparison.

6) Will it ever become popular – This is the purely political way to judge the law and no one honestly knows the answer. Opinions about the law have remained remarkably stable since it was first approved, but that could change when the law is implemented.



[ December 02, 2013, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I predict that no matter what, people will continue to pretend that a post subsidy price is the "cost" of healthcare so they can claim that costs are down. I predict that if you get the fully loaded expenditures, federal, state, and private on healthcare you won't see a decline in costs or savings, absent a reduction in quality of care (personally, I think we'll end up with both a higher cost and a reduction in care).
Is it roughly you opinion, then, that the US population is simply so large that it's effectively impossible to provide everyone with a reasonable level of care? That there's an absolute maximum capacity of care that can be provided that we've already exceeded such that some people have to be denied a basic level in order for others to have it?

If not, then your argument about absolute cost is pure nonsense. Sure given more care will consume more resources (increase the absolute cost) but that' would be the explicit point-0 to actually utilize those resources productively instead of wasting them by leaving them idle when there are people with a clear need for them.

The point is to reduce the sticker price to a point that everyone can afford to fully realize the proper total cost necessary to provide an adequate level of service. The only way that properly adjusting the global cost profile to providing that level of care would be because there's a hard and fast limit to the total amount of care that we can possibly provide and thus, implicitly, that we are unsustainable overpopulated as there aren't enough resources to meet our total needs..

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So it's a wealth transference? And because we have inadequate global resources it can't work until we reduce population demand?

So if we see the needs if the many satisfied by taking from the few with surplus resources and we see a population reduction the ACA is a success?

Is the left even aware of what they are advocating? Small c communisim and eugenics as a basis for measuring the effectiveness of the ACA?

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3,

obviously it is likely to succeed on criteria 4, 5, and 6.

It is impossible in the US political climate with such powerful monied interests to succeed on the grounds of 1.

On 2 - it seems absurd to judge it a failure because he couldn't get other politicians to allow those aspects to be part of ACA. Given the severe political opposition and monied interest opposition those goals - while viewed by many as desireable - probably won't change unless we have campaign finace reform.

On 3 - I think it might end up a 'success'. This largely depends on what specific state legislatures and governors do. I think once state populations realize that their governors and legislatures are screwing them over for the purpose of trying to prevent an Obama 'success' you will see a lot of them voted out of office and the medicaid and medicare expansion take place in those states. I suspect this will be a major campaigning stick to be used in those states. Combining this and anger over the shutdown (most red states have a much larger percentage of government employees than blue states) and I think you will see a lot of seats go 'blue' that have historically been 'red' (of course many seats will be saved by gerrymandering).

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RedVW on a Laptop:
So it's a wealth transference? And because we have inadequate global resources it can't work until we reduce population demand?

Only if you assert that we have inadequate resources. On, the other hand, if you believe that we have, or can easily develop adequate resources, then it's simply a means to provide the financial incentive to utilize them.

quote:
So if we see the needs if the many satisfied by taking from the few with surplus resources and we see a population reduction the ACA is a success?
Perhaps, again, if you're attempting to assert that there is a real, insurmountable limit to the total amount of providable care. If you believe that we are capable of providing sufficient care, then it means success is that the total amount of care that it provided increases in response to the additional demand that it allows to be expressed because the individual price of expressing demand has been sufficiently reduced such that it can be communicated to the market.

quote:
Is the left even aware of what they are advocating? Small c communisim and eugenics as a basis for measuring the effectiveness of the ACA?
Are you asserting that the left's position is that we're unable to provide sufficient care? It was Serati, not anyone advocating a liberal position that made the remarks that only work if you assume a strictly limited potential capacity for medical care.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
JoshuaD: Whether or not the Obama Administration provides the metric for determining whether the ACA is a success is irrelevant. We can determine that for ourselves using our own metrics, and we can compare metrics with one another to see which are fair and which aren't.
G3:It is perhaps one of the most relevant parts of this program. How can we know if it's doing what we intended it to do if we do not have some criteria against which to measure it? Sure, we can compare metrics with one another to see which are fair and which aren't but you know what that will be called? Highly anomalous and/or anecdotal. See upthread for the proof of that.
I don't agree. The general goal of this law was to improve the quality, availability, and cost of medical care in this country (as opposed to how things would have turned out if we didn't pass the law). It that happens, then I would call the law a success. If it doesn't happen, then I would call the law a failure.

I don't need President Obama to outline the metric of success for me. I use the metric to evaluate this law as I do every single law: did it make the country a better place?

quote:
quote:
JoshuaD:Tom's point seems really simple to me: despite the outcome of the law (whether it turns out to be a success or failure) there is always going to be a group of pundits who call it what it's not. If it's a success, a certain group will insist on calling it a failure. If it's a failure, a different group will insist on calling it a success. Do you agree or no?
G3:Tom's point is really simple. Some will claim it's a failure no matter what therefore we must not define success criteria. That way it's always, by definition, a success. If a true, measurable success criteria were defined, it could be objectively determined if it succeeded or failed but the supporters of this program would very much like to not have any criteria for it. Ask yourself why that is.
I don't see that he has said this so far in this thread. In either case, I'll leave it to him to clarify.


quote:
quote:
JoshuaD:
G3: Wait, are you now saying it's relevant to have a metric for success?
You missed the nuance of my post, it seems. I said it doesn't matter whether this administration provides a metric of success. The law will either be a success or failure, and the metric they provide will mean almost nothing to me when I judge the law for myself.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Some will claim it's a failure no matter what therefore we must not define success criteria.
I fail to see where I've made any argument against defining criteria for success. I have merely pointed out that your observation -- that there are partisans who will call the program a success even if they have to step over bodies on the streets -- would seem to apply equally to the reverse.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
[QB]
quote:
I predict that no matter what, people will continue to pretend that a post subsidy price is the "cost" of healthcare so they can claim that costs are down. I predict that if you get the fully loaded expenditures, federal, state, and private on healthcare you won't see a decline in costs or savings, absent a reduction in quality of care (personally, I think we'll end up with both a higher cost and a reduction in care).
Is it roughly you opinion, then, that the US population is simply so large that it's effectively impossible to provide everyone with a reasonable level of care?
What exactly is "reasonable"? I expect that your definition of that will result in a reduction in the quality of care for more than a majority of the population.
quote:
That there's an absolute maximum capacity of care that can be provided that we've already exceeded such that some people have to be denied a basic level in order for others to have it?
There is a current "maximum" capacity. Healthcare isn't a manufactured or a mined resource, it isn't a factory sitting idle. Healthcare is first and foremost a human resource, are doctor's complaining about being underworked? Are hospitals running light?

We can train more doctors, but with lower compensation overall (to get those "cost savings" reimbursements will be cut), what exactly is going to motivate enough top people to take that difficult career path? Do you really think that this is going to incentivise medical school more than the current system (where it can make you rich)? Or is it you plan to just lower the standards and certify more doctors (ie lower quality again)?

I'm not adverse to solving this puzzle, but I get tired of the fake claim that it's going to cost less money and not have impact on quality. So drop the hyperbole that I want people to go without so others can gorge, or that I think we need to push granny into the cold. This is going to be a more expensive lower quality product and that is the trade over for a larger coverage map.
quote:
If not, then your argument about absolute cost is pure nonsense. Sure given more care will consume more resources (increase the absolute cost) but that' would be the explicit point-0 to actually utilize those resources productively instead of wasting them by leaving them idle when there are people with a clear need for them.
Since the "resources" are people and not being under utilized this part of your argument is something that doesn't make any actual sense. Even in the best case where we could train more doctors without a drop in average quality, you'd still need a minimum of about 10 years to ramp up the medical school rates to meet need (and that's assuming that all the doctors who've stated they're ending their practice are actually lieing).
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you really think that this is going to incentivise medical school more than the current system (where it can make you rich)? Or is it you plan to just lower the standards and certify more doctors (ie lower quality again)?
My understanding is that the American Medical Association is currently limiting the supply of doctors to keep prices high, rather than to ensure quality. If you remove artificial (by which I mean non-quality related) constraints on the supply of health care providers you can increase capacity and lower costs without affecting quality. You seem to imply that the options are a Rolls-Royce and a Ford (of the Fix Or Repair Daily years). But in truth, the choice may be between a Rolls and a Toyota. Both fill the core functions equally well, but one is greatly more expensive than the other.

[ December 02, 2013, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
G3,

obviously it is likely to succeed on criteria 4, 5, and 6.
.

Obviously you will claim that no matter what.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OUt of curiosity, G3, do you think that anyone here thinks you would ever say that a plan or idea of Obama's had succeeded?
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe. You know how people in romantic comedies say "I hate you" over and over again and end up in bed together at the end of the movie? Ima gonna wait and see how this turns out.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Compared to the status quo – This is the low criteria by which many supporters of the law use to predict it will be a success.
I love this quote - it somehow manages to imply that it's merely a cheap trick if Obamacare just merely makes things better, because... because... No, it actually makes no sense - the foundational measurement for the worth of a change in policy is the degree to which it generates improvements as compared to what would have happened under the original policy.

I'll be pleased in insurance companies have to re-assign all of their employees who used to work finding post facto pre-existing conditions to deny coverage to people when they need it. I'll be glad when kids with childhood cancer don't have to plan their lives around getting insurance because of the ban on limits due to pre-existing conditions. I'll be pleased when millions of Americans between 23 and 25 who need to can stay on their parent's health insurance. I'll be pleased that in a few years 10's of millions of Americans have health insurance that they would not otherwise have had; this will provide benefits both for more people getting preventative care as well as helping a much smaller percentage of that population from getting help with catastrophic illnesses (both medical and avoiding bankruptcy). I'll be pleased when earlier medical care saves thousands on lives. I'll be pleased when data on outcomes and prices at different hospitals becomes more visible to the public, which can start to emulate some features of a market-type system that have been absolutely moribund in the previous so-called market-based system.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok so if the stated goal was for the bill to cover the pre law estimate of insuring the 40,000,000 estimated people without health care, and the post bill estimate is that the law will successfully manage to enroll only 10,000,000 of those people- is that success?

It was suppossed to cut federal budget outlays for gealthcare. They have incteased- is that success?

It was suppossed to lower costs for individuals for nearly all individuals due to the mass expansion of number of insured. Costs on average have increased for individuals by at leasy 50% using the lowest estimate availible- is that success?

It was suppossed to allow people to keep their insurance and their care providers and even expand their care provider options. Instead nearly 2/3 of insured americans are losing their insurance, their care providers, and are seeing a curtailment of provider access and options- is that success?

Im very sorry but almost every statement touting the benefit of the law to consumers and providers has turned out to be false. At what point do its supporters admit the law is a failure?

At what point is the cutoff reached where we state it is fair to judge this law a failure? 2017? Apparently that is the new Democrat party talking point. The system will work by 2017?

Really?

Id like to hear more excuses...

And on a lighter note the administration stated the system could maintain 50,000 users at once. It crashed just above 30,000. And apoarently to make matters worse, the insurers are not getting enrollment information as well as being unsecured.

Right.... Hope, Change. Obama.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And on a lighter note the administration stated the system could maintain 50,000 users at once. It crashed just above 30,000. And apoarently to make matters worse, the insurers are not getting enrollment information as well as being unsecured.
Just a quibble: in the last week, we've seen a rather dramatic increase in submissions via the online exchange. Either more people are barreling through it despite the problems or the problems are being fixed at a fairly impressive rate.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom: "Just a quibble: in the last week, we've seen a rather dramatic increase in submissions via the online exchange. Either more people are barreling through it despite the problems or the problems are being fixed at a fairly impressive rate."

However, Tom, until every problem is fixed and there are no anecdotal reports from people that have thwarted the system, we can't really call it a success.

Red: "And on a lighter note the administration stated the system could maintain 50,000 users at once. It crashed just above 30,000."

Not perfect, but better, yes?

"And apoarently to make matters worse, the insurers are not getting enrollment information as well as being unsecured."

Not good. This is a separate issue that apparently has its own team working on it. This will have to be addressed in the next few weeks or policies won't be able to go into effect. I don't know where the team stands on current progress.

On a lighter note, I was once at a party with the CTO for the state of Michigan. I had my own consulting company at the time focusing on medical informatics and analytics. She thought I would be interested to hear that the state was so committed to improving these areas for the citizens of the state that she had just committed to a $17M project to revamp the database technology to manage information the state collected and disseminated. I didn't know a thing about the project, but with a drink in my hand and no hesitation in my voice I told her I could get it done for $12M in half the time. She laughed and said she was sure that was true, but it took her two years to get this contract in place and cost her a lot of political capital to get the vendor that was selected (that was a major contributor to the then Governor's campaign, btw). As I recall the project was canceled after another two years having spent close to $25M and producing no results. I can't remember if the program was called a complete success or just a partial success that will fundamentally change and improve the way data is handled in the future.

Bottom line, government is not good at innovation and works increasingly badly with shorter and shorter time frames. It's sad that Obama allowed it on his watch, but not surprising given the nature of bureaucracies everywhere.

I heard that the CEO of SalesForce.com offered to apply his staff to rewrite the whole thing from scratch for cheap and maintain it for 5 years at no cost to the government. His reason for making the offer was that revamping how health care is managed in the marketplace is the defining issue for our age, and that for all of our future's the ACA must succeed.

That sounds like a good plan to me, and given the success SF.com has had over the past several years I'm sure he could back up his words with action. But then it was discovered that the CEO had been a contributor to Obama's campaign and Obama can't touch it because the GOP would attack it as cronyism. No word if Benioff also contributed to Romney's campaign, but he did donate to Boehner.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Just a quibble: in the last week, we've seen a rather dramatic increase in submissions via the online exchange. Either more people are barreling through it despite the problems or the problems are being fixed at a fairly impressive rate.

Yeah, and that was the promise made - that by Nov 1 the problems would be fixed at a fairly impressive rate. This is what I mean when you refuse to define success, you start claiming that anything is a success.

The reality is that problems are being *hidden* at a fairly impressive rate. The difference between a error page and the waiting room page is nothing more than UI changes. A estimated one third of enrollees are not really enrolled, they only think they enrolled. The system cannot process them properly. And then, the thing is a security nightmare.
quote:
It could take a year to secure the risk of "high exposures" of personal information on the federal Obamacare online exchange, a cybersecurity expert told CNBC on Monday.
"When you develop a website, you develop it with security in mind. And it doesn't appear to have happened this time," said David Kennedy, a so-called "white hat" hacker who tests online security by breaching websites. He testified on Capitol Hill about the flaws of HealthCare.gov last week.

"It's really hard to go back and fix the security around it because security wasn't built into it," said Kennedy, chief executive of TrustedSec. "We're talking multiple months to over a year to at least address some of the critical-to-high exposures on the website itself."

<snip>

Another online security expert—who spoke at last week's House hearing and then on CNBC—said the federal Obamacare website needs to be shut down and rebuilt from scratch. Morgan Wright, CEO of Crowd Sourced Investigations said: "There's not a plan to fix this that meets the sniff test of being reasonable."

So if you can access the site, if it stays up and running while you put all your personal information in there and maybe you will be enrolled but who really knows. The one sure thing is that your information will get taken by hackers soon.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The reality is that problems are being *hidden* at a fairly impressive rate.
When I said "we," I specifically meant my company, the insurance company for which I work. We are seeing much larger numbers coming from the online exchange than in previous weeks, which suggests that either people are more determined now or the site is working better. "Hidden" problems would not be producing more applicants.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
your situation appears to be highly anomalous
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's not what I'm given to understand. I know at least two of our regional competitors are also seeing an upswing in applications, although of course I don't know their numbers. I'm sure the totals are still way off what the government was hoping, but the volume we're seeing now is pretty close to what we had projected.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
your situation appears to be highly anecdotal
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, that's why it's an anecdote. It's funny how anecdotal anecdotes are, when you think about it.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
your idea of "funny" appears to be highly anomalous
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3: Please see your email.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know when Obamacare is going to be a success?

When it is replaced by a system that insures more people than Obamacare, at lower overall rates than Obamacare, and with higher overall care than Obamacare. That would be success in my book.

And the Republicans are working day and night to ensure that never happens. [Razz]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
“It doesn’t appear that any security fixes were done at all,” David Kennedy, CEO of the online security firm TrustedSec, told the Washington Free Beacon.

Kennedy said fundamental safeguards missing from Healthcare.gov that were identified by his company more than a month ago have yet to be put in place.

“There are a number of security concerns already with the website, and that’s without even actually hacking the site, that’s just a purely passive analysis of [it],” he said. “We found a number of critical exposures that were around sensitive information, the ability to hack into the site, things like that. We reported those issues and none of those appear to have been addressed at all.”

After warning Americans when testifying before Congress on Nov. 19 to stay away from Healthcare.gov, Kennedy now says the situation is even worse.

“They said they implemented over 400 bug fixes,” he said. “When you recode the application to fix these 400 bugs—they were rushing this out of the door to get the site at least so it can work a little bit—you’re introducing more security flaws as you go along with it because you don’t even check that code.”

“I’m a little bit more skeptical now, and I would still definitely advise individuals to not use the website because it’s definitely something that I don’t believe is secure and neither did the four individuals that testified in front of Congress,” Kennedy said. “I think there’s some major security concerns there around privacy and information, and they haven’t even come close to being addressed, and won’t be in the short term.”

The current best advice is advise individuals to not use the website. Sounds likes it done got fixed reel good.

So here's another ObamaCare prediction I will make - healtcare.gov will be hacked (if it hasn't been already) and the personal information of most, if not all, enrollees will be exposed to identify theft and fraud.

quote:
“States are required to notify in the event of a breach, the federal government is not,” he added. “So in the event that Healthcare.gov gets compromised and all their information gets taken out of it they don’t have to notify anybody.”
My next prediction, the hacking will be covered up and not reported. It will come out as some type of leak.

Enrollees that report their identity stolen will, no doubt, be called "highly anomalous" or "anecdotal" cases.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  46  47  48   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1