×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HealthCare.gov Can't Handle Appeals of Errors

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the that's-some-good-work-there-lou dept.

United States 208

PapayaSF writes "The Washington Post reports that roughly 22,000 people have claimed they were charged too much, steered into the wrong insurance program, or denied coverage, but the HealthCare.gov website cannot handle appeals. They've filled out seven-page forms and mailed them to a federal contractor's office in Kentucky, where they were scanned and entered, but workers at CMS cannot read them because that part of the system has not been built. Other missing aspects are said to have higher priorities: completing the electronic payment system for insurers, the connections with state Medicaid programs, and the ability to adjust coverage to accommodate major changes such as new babies. People with complaints about mistakes have been told to 'return to the Web site and start over.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

208 comments

Coders (5, Insightful)

Stolzy (2656399) | about 3 months ago | (#46145589)

Maybe they should have hired actual coders to do the job.

Re:Coders (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145669)

Don't hire a coder to do a software developer's job. Developers Developers Developers.

Re:Coders (5, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | about 3 months ago | (#46145709)

Accenture...

Yesterday's technology, tomorrow.

Re:Coders (4, Informative)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about 3 months ago | (#46146449)

Whoa, there's reason to give the Healthcare.gov developers a hard time. But Accenture to be fair has been on the job what... 2 weeks? You can't turn around a 3 year project in 2 weeks.

Re: Coders (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146795)

Not with that attitude you can't.

Re:Coders (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145783)

Yeah, because that changes everything, moron.

Re:Coders (4, Interesting)

sexconker (1179573) | about 3 months ago | (#46145903)

Don't hire a coder to do a software developer's job. Developers Developers Developers.

Quite backwards, in my experience. The more shit you feel the need to add to your title, the less capable you probably are.

If you're a programmer you can probably program.

If you're a software engineer, you probably think you can program, but really rely almost entirely on other programmers, an IDE, someone else's libraries, tools, APIs, etc. to do the real work while you focus on promising users and PHBs functionality and changes without understanding how shit actual works or what the impact of those changes you promised will be.

If you're a project manager, you probably programmed something a decade ago and have unrealistic expectations of how shit and people will and should work.

If your title includes references to "as a service", "cloud hosting", "rich media", etc., then you're really nothing more than a middle man selling someone else's shit to idiots who don't realize they're buying marketing fluff they don't want or need.

This applies to all sectors. You can be the regional head of marketing and development for social media by being a 38 year old overweight lumpus if you've been at the company a while and have a nephew who has a Twitter account.

BTW, I thought I was making "lumpus" up. http://dictionary.reference.co... [reference.com] That shit just sounded right.

Re:Coders (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145949)

You can be the regional head of marketing and development for social media by being a 38 year old overweight lumpus if you've been at the company a while and have a nephew who has a Twitter account.

You're absolutely right! Only a 25 year old hispanic veteran of Iraq is capable of being a coder.

Re:Coders (2, Insightful)

drpimp (900837) | about 3 months ago | (#46145679)

Or instead, maybe they should have hired architects, engineers, and/or developers and not "coders" or "programmers".

Re:Coders (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 3 months ago | (#46145745)

Or instead, maybe they should have hired architects, engineers, and/or developers and not "coders" or "programmers".

No. They need more people who know how to do this [programmin...fucker.com] .

Re:Coders (4, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about 3 months ago | (#46145795)

It always seemed to me that people who insist on the distinction are missing the fact that it's the "coding" part of the job that matters in the end. Yes, it's good to have a sane design and so on, but that only has value because it makes for better code. And save me from architecture astronauts who don't write code any more, and so produce designs of no value whatsoever.

Re: Coders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145859)

Ugh, Dijkstra would be furious.

Re:Coders (5, Funny)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | about 3 months ago | (#46145887)

Design without code is masturbation. Code without design...well, it's not masturbation, it isn't exactly sex either, but something gets fucked up, that much is for sure.

Re:Coders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145899)

Code without design is menstruation.

Re:Coders (3, Interesting)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 3 months ago | (#46146125)

hehehehe.

Laughed out loud. Very fresh and humorous.

For a project this size, you really need multiple layers of architects and then multiple layers of coders.

I'm sure this will be fine in another year or so. I'm amazed they got so much done under the conditions and constraints I've heard they worked under.

Re:Coders (1)

lgw (121541) | about 3 months ago | (#46146229)

I'm amazed they got so much done under the conditions and constraints I've heard they worked under.

I agree: the blame here falls at the highest levels, where the "conditions and constraints" come from.

maybe they should of give the them time and other (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 3 months ago | (#46145753)

maybe they should of give the them time and other stuff needed to do there job.

I head QA only had a week and the backend was a big mess with it taking a long time to get info on data formats.

Re:maybe they should of give the them time and oth (3, Funny)

nbauman (624611) | about 3 months ago | (#46145833)

Maybe if they got 9 women pregnant they could have had a baby in 1 month.

Re:maybe they should of give the them time and oth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145885)

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of women.

Re:maybe they should of give the them time and oth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145979)

Didn't the aliens try that in Duke Nukem Forever?

There, their, they're (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146087)

... to do their job.

FTFY

"There" is the antonym (opposite) of "here". "Their" is plural possessive.

("They're" is a contraction of "they are". The apostrophe stands for missing sounds or letters.)

And if QA sits around twiddling their thumbs, waiting for a final product to review, they're doing it wrong... not that they're the only ones in this mess.

Re:Coders (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 months ago | (#46146259)

Or real managers who know how to manage projects rather than just setting deadlines and telling the powers that be that everything's under control.

I have been advising (2, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about 3 months ago | (#46145601)

I have been advising anyone who will listen to keep their personal information the hell away from that site. My assumption is the fraudsters that eventually got hold of it would be criminals, not the government and the insurers themselves.

In retrospect I am really not surprised.

Re:I have been advising (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about 3 months ago | (#46145663)

I have been advising anyone who will listen to keep their personal information the hell away from that site.

Fortunately, it plugs into the Federal databases for all sorts of information to verify account info (from what I understand). So the website has access to your information by default.

Re:I have been advising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145907)

I have been advising anyone who will listen to keep their personal information the hell away from that site. My assumption is the fraudsters that eventually got hold of it would be criminals, not the government and the insurers themselves.

In retrospect I am really not surprised.

There's a difference?

Nice to know we're having this abomination forced down our throats by a President and a political party who damn well know what's best for YOU!!!.

Whether you agree or not.

Sad to see how the Republicans have killed this... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145617)

by not providing a sufficient budget to provide service.

Re:Sad to see how the Republicans have killed this (5, Informative)

ichthus (72442) | about 3 months ago | (#46145661)

Yeah, $634 million and counting (as of... way back in 2013-10) ceartainly isn't enough to develop a website. What price would you have us pay, ridiculous, partisan one?

Re:Sad to see how the Republicans have killed this (3, Informative)

lgw (121541) | about 3 months ago | (#46145805)

And didn't 3 guys make a working front-end site in a few weeks (the part that lets you browse for coverage). This project went quite well if the goal was to funnel $600 MM into the pockets of well-connected contracting firms, but otherwise it's hard to see how anyone could fail so badly at what's effectively a storefront website. (Yes, the backend's a bitch, and 3 guys couldn't do it in a month, but it's not that hard).

Re:Sad to see how the Republicans have killed this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146569)

Yes, I believe it. I believe it would take a good month or two for planning depending on how many tools are needed for the project and all the tax info it needs to deal with but the website itself won't be too much trouble to build. Anyone with a few years of experience at least could build a front-end website like theirs (but better) in less than a week or two on their own. The difficult part is the back-end, and how to efficiently run server-side programs without much of a security risk. Unfortunately that healthcare website is nothing but a giant security risk, everything is bad. I would say with my limited knowledge on the type of tools they need, this project would take no more than 6 months to complete from start to beta, where start is planning and design documents and beta would be when it is finally being tested for security by say the cia or something. I would imagine the team wouldn't be much bigger than 12 or 15 individuals and would cost no more than 1.5mil to develop with the right people at the helm. But that's just my opinion after working in the field for over 10 years

Oh, but there's also one more thing to consider and that's probably the company itself is likely involved in a lot of government programs. I've seen this happen from time to time where a company will ask for an outstanding amount of funds for a pitiful project, take for example a database project that just needs to manage people and if it's time for them to be getting a raise or what have you. The quote? $500,000. Timeline? A ridiculous 6 months to build. After 6 months, what do these companies do usually? "Oh, we encountered issues and need more funds" so $500,000 becomes $1mil and $1mil becomes $5mil and then people vote against the contract so at that point the company keeps the money and doesn't have to complete the project. Seen it happen too many times, and you can blame the irresponsible people making the contracts for the government. Bad policies and bad companies all around. Just give me the contract and I'll build it in 2-days for that sum of money haha

Re:Sad to see how the Republicans have killed this (3, Informative)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 3 months ago | (#46146611)

i'm pretty sure they got a decent version [healthsherpa.com] up and running in a long weekend...I actually used it to scan available plans in my state, the insurers involved, and to run what-if numbers quickly.

they did a real bang-up job.

Re:Sad to see how the Republicans have killed this (2, Informative)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 3 months ago | (#46145893)

It didn't cost $634 million.

The $600+m is what you get if you simply add up every contract given to the original contractor (CGI Technology and Solutions) since 2007. You know, when Bush was in the Whitehouse. They're a reasonably large, reasonably well-used contractor for things so they do other stuff too.

Since Congress dicked around with actually providing specific funding for it's creation, the estimate is that it probably cost about $120 million, with an original budget of ~$55 million + auxiliary spending (after changes to the various bills by Congress and states) of $63 million. For a total of ~$120 m. That's probably at the high end.

Re:Sad to see how the Republicans have killed this (5, Informative)

approachingZero (1365381) | about 3 months ago | (#46146159)

Where did you hear that?

'The health department has provided some information on spending. It paid $174 million on contracts tied to Healthcare.gov and supporting technology through August, a sum that jumped to $319 million by the end of October, according to Albright of the Medicare agency.

The figures suggest a late surge in spending before the website’s opening. Only $18 million was spent in October, Albright said in an e-mail.

The Medicare and Medicaid agency owes $630 million for the work through September, Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the health office, has said. The agency didn’t provide updated information on the amount owed, or obligated, for work since the October debut of healthcare.gov.'

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]

Re:Sad to see how the Republicans have killed this (4, Informative)

crunchygranola (1954152) | about 3 months ago | (#46146069)

Yeah, $634 million and counting...

Nope. It is more like $174 million [snopes.com] and counting (still plenty of scratch though).

For those that don't follow the link (and are unfamiliar with government contracting practices - which is most everybody): CGI Federal was a successful bidder on an HHS umbrella contract in 2007 (Bush Administration, in other words) to provide IT services to HHS, along with IBM, Computer Sciences Corp., and Quality Software Services. These same four companies were the bidders (under said long term contract) for the specific task of site implementation, and the $634 million figure is for all of the services from CGI Federal under that contract. Only 25% of that total, dating back to 2007, was for the website.

Re:Sad to see how the Republicans have killed this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146179)

You information is quite a bit out of date... During October they roughly doubled the tab "fixing" Healthcare.gov spending over $300m by the end of the October. [bloomberg.com]

Re: Sad to see how the Republicans have killed thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145675)

Didn't they spend $600 million tax dollars on it so far and you still want blame the Republicans? Just blame former President Bush and be done with it

Re:Sad to see how the Republicans have killed this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145695)

Exactly! This is what all of the "small" government CONservatives want. They want to strip government down so much that it can no longer help people.

Re:Sad to see how the Republicans have killed this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145797)

Progressives: "The governments too small until it owns and controls us all."

Re:Sad to see how the Republicans have killed this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145969)

Exactly! This is what all of the "small" government CONservatives want. They want to strip government down so much that it can no longer help people.

Government HELPS!?!?!?!

What color is the sky on your planet?

Re:Sad to see how the Republicans have killed this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145739)

Cut to the chase and blame Bush, after all Obama inherited this mess. Ohwait...

Re:Sad to see how the Republicans have killed this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145951)

> Cut to the chase and blame Bush, after all Obama inherited this mess.

You're correct that Bush did create this problem, and Obama did inherit it. The $600+ million contact numbers quoted from the CGI contract start in 2007. Obama was just a senator at that time. It was Bush that created this. Or are you CONservatives going to make-up more garbage about time machines and disguises again? You people watch too much TV.

Re: Sad to see how the Republicans have killed thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145977)

LOL, the OP points out how much money the Dems have blown on a nonfunctional Obamacare website and you manage to find a way to blame Bush. Yep, Bush sure is responsible for that law passed by the adminstration after he left office!

Is there nothing progressives can find some way to blame on Bush?

Re: Sad to see how the Republicans have killed thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146061)

Bush is a Pussy.

Re: Sad to see how the Republicans have killed thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146129)

Pussy has a bush.

Nice try (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146267)

Obama Reid and Pelosi jammed this law through with absolutely NO Republican input (Republicans wer physically locked out of the rooms where the law was negotiated and written and heve never even been able to get the names of the lobbyists and lawyers and coproprations who were in the meetings with the Democrats, so they are under NO obligation to support it. That said, however, in every year since the GOP took back the House in 2010 they have had SYMBOLIC votes to repeal Obamacare (symbolic because Reid will never bring any such bill for even a VOTE in the senate (to protect his "moderates" from having to take a stand)) and then they have voted to give Obama all the funds to implement Obamacare (much to the outrage of the TEA Partiers).

Obamacare has been fully-funded; the GOP has failed to repeal it and failed to de-fund it... this is FACT

In those states where GOP governors have not driven their states further into debt by having their states implement state exchanges, those GOP governors are faithfully following Obama's law. If you think this is "wrong" or "unfair" or a form of "sabotage", do not blame any Republican... blame the Democrats who wrote the law with provisions that specifically enabled this choice of actions. The GOP is obeying the law that the Democrats wrote, Obama Reid and Pelosi are just incompetent.

Re: Nice try (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146679)

There is so much factually wrong with your long diatribe I don't where to start

fools (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145641)

Only a fool would use healthcare.gov. Of course, only a fool would have voted for Obama in the first place.

Re:fools (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145699)

Regardless of who you voted for, you're a fool for assuming either option was a good choice.

Re:fools (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145737)

There were more than two choices. You know why Democrats and Republicans keep winning? Because fools like you keep voting for two choices.

No one should be surprised here: (0)

MobSwatter (2884921) | about 3 months ago | (#46145659)

The system is not broken, it's "Fixed"... Probably would have cost less money to just put up a web page that says; "We can't help you, but we will gladly take your money."

Re:No one should be surprised here: (3, Funny)

lgw (121541) | about 3 months ago | (#46145813)

Probably would have cost less money to just put up a web page that says; "We can't help you, but we will gladly take your money."

Not really, as the "take your money" part also doesn't work reliably.

Re:No one should be surprised here: (1)

MobSwatter (2884921) | about 3 months ago | (#46146519)

First, "The People" need to have it, observation of a growing number living under freeway overpasses would indicate "Fish in a barrel" is growing pretty thin. But no, their logic would dictate that even approaching 20% unemployment rates (counting those that have fallen off unemployment benefits this number is optimistic) is not the magic number.

in the private sector (4, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 months ago | (#46145697)

If you created this huge of a disaster you would have lost the contract, and most likely have to pay back any payments made. You would also be on a virtual blacklist as being completely incompetent.

But here in the federal government.. it doesn't work that way. You get rewarded.

Re:in the private sector (5, Informative)

Jaime2 (824950) | about 3 months ago | (#46145809)

When I worked for a Fortune 50 company, we once had corporate IT charge us $1.7 million to tell us that it would cost $4.5 million to make a simple e-commerce web site for a division that had a catalog of 2000 products and did about 250 orders per day. Everyone on that team was praised and the local GM that refused to go forward with the project was eventually pushed out. The project eventually happened.

They now have a maintenance team of five people dedicated full time to that web site.

Re:in the private sector (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#46146239)

Yea, our vendor now charges us $10,000 to give us a QUOTE on potential projects. It's kind of a joke at this point.

Re:in the private sector (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145815)

Exactly. The Republicans don't hold corporations accountable. They use these sort of things as an opportunity to funnel money dishonestly to their friends.

Step away from the pudding! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146375)

Climb out from beneath the purple napkin and drop the poisoned pudding - there's no mothership in the comet's tail, your cult leaders are lying to you.

You seem to be spouting the cult line that GOP==BigCorporations..... a line that the left used all through the banking crisis and the 2008 election cycle (when the big bankers shovelled more cash into the Obama campaign than into any other campaing in US History). Obama took so much corporate cash he became the first modern President to not take the matching funds (and live within the associated limits) and it's likely he ended modern campaign finance reform; no Republican is likely to ever again be as stupid and gullible as McCain who tried to beat Obama while staying under the campainf finance caps. Obama took giganting steaming stinking piles of cash from health insurance and prescription drug companies (who saw his big government health insurance mandates as a guarantee that young healthy people would be forced to funnel money their way).The TRUTH is that government is now so big and so involved in the economy that many companies see government as a manipulatable thing to help them defeat competitors. Big Government and Big Corporations are natural allies. As a result, ALL "establishment"/career politicians who support big government (regardless of party) take money from big business and use government to help the big businesses that help them get elected.

Don't like this? Then vote Libertarian or TEA Party (people who actually want to CUT government and get it out of many areas it has gotten into). If you vote for Democrats or "establishment"/"moderate"/"rino" Republicans then YOU support all this big corporate greed and you should stop pretending to be anything other than a crony-capitalist-supporting hack.

Republicans not in charge of anything for years (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 months ago | (#46146589)

The Republicans don't hold corporations accountable

Wake up man. Corporations have MORE of a hold over Democrats these days. There are some anti-corperation Republicans but there are NO anti-corp Democrats left.

Obamacare itself is a law designed to FORCE you to buy the most expensive insurance policy possible from "government chosen" private insurance companies. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about the current relationship of corporations to government, you are to thinking.

Re: in the private sector (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145881)

Why is this funny.

Re: in the private sector (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146373)

Because everyone here who has worked in the private sector knows that it's not true...

Re:in the private sector (1)

litehacksaur111 (2895607) | about 3 months ago | (#46146037)

Ok. The problem is that the government is not allowed to sue the firms to get their money back. For example see the case with Oregon and Oracle. Oregon paid Oracle the money and got shit in return. The blame lays squarely at Oracle's feet.

Re:in the private sector (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 months ago | (#46146057)

Actually, they can sue. Does not mean they will win, but they can. They just don't, at least at the federal level that i have heard of.

Re:in the private sector (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146303)

If you created this huge of a disaster you would have lost the contract, and most likely have to pay back any payments made. You would also be on a virtual blacklist as being completely incompetent.

Sorry, I have to call Bullshit on this. Shit like that is common place in private sector, too. The bigger the project, the more waste and nonsense. Biggest projects don't even make it. There are fortune 500 companies that pay millions into projects that never get delivered, are delivered with lack of working aspects, or have their scope severely rolled back. But because this information is in private sector, it get's buried away from where the public, or especially the investors might see it.

Dependents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145779)

A friend of mine has tried a couple of times and he always get an error from the system. The people who have called him to followup have also been baffled He has 8 dependents, so that probably has something to do with it.

My application breezed right through. The website was flawless for me, even from firefox on linux, and wicked fast.

And all that being said ... (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 3 months ago | (#46145789)

... I personally know several people, in several states that have not established their own exchanges, who have signed up for "Obamacare" using the federal site and are now taking advantage of much better coverage, at a much lower price, than they could have received before the ACA went into effect. The problems are real and clearly need to be fixed, but beware of confirmation bias--every single problem is going to get lots of press, while successes go unnoticed because they don't fit the "if it bleeds, it leads" paradigm.

Re:And all that being said ... (4, Informative)

Frobnicator (565869) | about 3 months ago | (#46145875)

I agree, I also know people who have saved money. For them it worked out. Yay, them.

However, I was laid off and needed to use the system in December. Unemployment sucks, especially in the US. In early December I was told my application went through and I would get coverage, and was given a bunch of information that I printed. The second week of January (remember: I was in before the date when I was "guaranteed" to get coverage by Jan 1st) I was told there was an error in the site, all the information had been sent to the wrong place, asked to start the application process over. This is exactly what the original story complained about.

But that isn't all.

Saturday (this weekend) I got some snail mail that I was not covered, could not be covered through them, and told that there were numerous errors in my data. (For example, my wife was listed as a paid employee of my wife, a corporation based in my state, and was required to provide six months of pay stubs.) Today I spent most of the day on the phone with agents who could issue apologies but could not issue policies nor modify the data. They again instructed me to apply again (the third time).

Unfortunately I have some medical needs that cannot be put off, so I'm facing the horrible prospect of being a recently laid off tech worker who is being forced into medical debt while unemployed. (Currently only about $1,800 that would normally be covered by the insurance I lost with the layoff.) My little nest egg is vanishing surprisingly fast as I hunt for a job.

Just like the original story, I was advised to simply start the process over. Multiple times, including today.

As is frequently pointed out, the US medical billing system is badly broken.

Re:Here is a Job Application (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146321)

Hate Groups Grow as Racial Tipping Point Changes Demographics...!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/militias-hate-groups-grow-response-minority-population-boom/story?id=16370136
You got laid off becaue they thought you were racist...!
Application: -->http://www.kkk.com/...!

Re:And all that being said ... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146071)

Better care? People, such as myself, who had to sign up under Obamacare only have a small fraction of the doctors available to them compared to everyone else using regular insurance. 15% of the doctors in my county now take my insurance, down from over 70% that took my PPO before this law came into effect. And I'm paying 40% more than I was before with three times the deductible.

Sure, I'm one person in a system of millions. But I'm one of the ones that got screwed and I know plenty of other people in the same boat. In time, the 'people you know' will come to find that their insurance isn't worth a sh*t, because only a small fraction of the doctors out there will even take it. On top of that, those probably aren't the best doctors to begin with, and they now have many more patients to treat.

Things needed to change, but this whole thing is a sloppy scam with people pocketing money from both sides. Had I not fought cancer already I would go without insurance until it got cleaned up.

Re:And all that being said ... (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 3 months ago | (#46146149)

Washington post has a great article with lots of anecdotes about people who've suffered and now have covererage.

The ACA is great if you make about ~$15k to ~$45k.
It's a wash above $45k to about $80k- and you need medicaid below $18k.

From $80k up- or if you have a very large family with lots of kids, it appears to be painful until you make so much money that $12,000 a year doesn't matter- I'd say around $350k. It's more a philosophical loss there.

However- everyone benefits from the preexisting condition changes and you never know when you'll be suddenly poor again (None of those with Bernie Madoff thought they'd be poor again).

For me- it's incredible. I'm blessed.

Ever since the supreme court gutted age discrimination protection in 2009, I've known I'd be hosed at some point since I was getting to the age they put programmers out to pasture. I'd saved hard so I was okay there- but getting insurance was going to be difficult or impossible (survived cancer in 1993).

At best- I'd have had to be a slave to some corporation (if it would take me) and the last one worked me 70+ hours a week.

It's good to be free.

Re:And all that being said ... (2)

hambone142 (2551854) | about 3 months ago | (#46146333)

Actually the insurance premiums make a giant step function when one earns greater than approximately $47K. My partner's insurance went up 111.3% (Kaiser) with the cheapest "bronze" policy. Beforehand, she only sought major medical coverage and had about the same deductible. Her premium increased from a little under $300/month to about $590/month (I don't have the exact numbers here but I do recall the 111.3% increase number). She's 61 years old and now has the benefit of prenatal care/birth control and she can get a gender change with insurance should she decide to grow a dick. This whole thing is a catastrophe. The net result to the middle class (actually, anyone that is single earning over $47K) is getting to pay more than twice the premium for similar coverage.

Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146447)

First, if they're being massively subsidized then the new stuff is not at much better rates than before, it's just then the new law is stealing even more money from their neighbors and giving it to them....and that COULD have been achieved with a ten-page tax bill, without screwing up everybody else's insurance.

Second, having "better" COVERAGE is meaningless if you cannot afford the co-pays and deductibles. Neither I nor anybody I know has better insurance now than before Obamacare; ALL of us have had our rates skyrocket, and ALSO seen a rise in co-pays and deductibles. What most young Obamabots do not seem to understand is that the policies they are being required to buy are DESIGNED to be worthless (so they PAY into the system while getting nothing of value from it because the "young invincibles" are the primary funding stream to support the poor and the elderly). The policies most (paying) young people will end up with have such high co-pays and deductibles that a young person would need to pay $10K+ per year in health costs (ON TOP of the insurance bills) before the policy kicks in. This is not "confirmation bias", it is the DESIGN of the system, by the HHS's own admission. The exceptions are: [1] the young poor who are shunted into medicaid (which pre-existed Obamacare) and [2] the very small portion of the population with severe life-long medical problems (things like Lupus, or MS) who've alway had problems getting coverage and whose problems could have been better solved with a simpler targeted law that left everybody else's coverage alone.

Mission Accomplished (3)

some old guy (674482) | about 3 months ago | (#46145807)

Single-payer universal nationalized healthcare is right around the corner.

Just a few more insurance rate hikes and government regulatory fiascos should do the trick.

I used to be against it. Now it looks like a blessing.

Re:Mission Accomplished (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145829)

How soon is right around the corner? The uninsured want to know now.

Re:Mission Accomplished (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146641)

For the uninsured, they should go overseas to get their healthcare. I did it and it was less than it could ever be in the US. $1200 round trip and $600 for all medical fees including surgery and all at the best hospital in the country which is on par with the better if not best hospitals in the US. It's better than spending $900/mo. on insurance per individual, just save that money and go overseas :) But be warned, in-patients tend to cost around $20/day for the rent so save extra for that. Before obamacare I had 100% coverage on anything including (this is amusing) transgender reassignment. $80/mo. and everything from medial, therapy, dental, and vision. Obamacare came around and for the past 3-years it has been steadily increasing, and then they stopped paying our burden so the rise went up to nearly a thousand a month. I had quit before all of that happened but obamacare sucks balls. Now people will rely on the black market and going out of the country for help, especially if coverage is denied by the government's "death panel" which also exist in happy Canada btw.

This resource is no longer valid. Please return to the beginning and try again.
This resource is no longer valid. Please return to the beginning and try again.
This resource is no longer valid. Please return to the beginning and try again.
This resource is no longer valid. Please return to the beginning and try again.

Re:Mission Accomplished (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146647)

Just pointing it out there, I read it on the coverage plan, i'm not really trans, just making a point that it did cover just about everything hahaha

Re:Mission Accomplished (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146629)

Since the national debt dose not seem to matter to anyone. Yea, single payer would be great, government can just print money to pay for it.

How delusional can you get?!?!? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146789)

Let's see here: massive, corrupt, inefficient and unaccountable bureaucracy fails to build and operate a website to manage ACCESS to health INSURANCE....not even ACTUAL HEALTHCARE......and YOUR solution is to say "let's put it in charge of providing the ACTUAL care"?????

REALLY?????

Can I please have the names of the drugs you are on? I'd love to see the utopia you are seeing, but I suspect those drugs kill IQ points, are highly addictive, lead to hallicinations and will eventually either be banned as "too dangerous" OR be mandated by the political class as a way to make all voters as stupid, docile, and gullible as Obamabots. Aldous Huxley, here we come...

The real problem is... (3, Informative)

erp_consultant (2614861) | about 3 months ago | (#46145811)

that the government keeps hiring firms like Accenture. This is not the first time they have been involved in failed government IT projects. Here is just one of many examples: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... [theregister.co.uk]

Accenture has learned how to game the system. A system that, for large scale government projects, is very difficult to break into. The contract language makes it very difficult, or impossible, to bid on if you are a small company.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans know that the procurement system is broken and yet neither one of them have offered any concrete solutions.

The failure of Healthcare.gov is not news. It's business as usual. The difference is that healthcare.gov affects many people more directly so it has higher visibility. Many of the other failed projects do not have the same direct impact so they appear in the news for a little while and are then swept under the rug.

Enron's Accenture? (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about 3 months ago | (#46146073)

Accenture -- weren't they the company that worked for Enron but in the aftermath of the fraud and the role they played in it they renamed the company to "Accenture." Or did they rename again and this company took the name? I am pretty sure Accenture was the name they picked after the Enron disaster.

Government flops that involve voters are a good thing; they can hold somebody accountable which is far more than they can do with businesses they are bound to.

Politicians are made or broken on how they handle Medicare and Social Security; the result is that those programs run quite well despite attempts to sabotage them. This will likely end up in a similar situation which is why so much is being put into sabotaging it now because it gains too much momentum with the voters.

Re:Enron's Accenture? (1)

erp_consultant (2614861) | about 3 months ago | (#46146151)

Accenture used to go by the name Andersen Consulting. Not sure if the name change had anything to do with what you mentioned above.

Re:The real problem is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146153)

Not being an American, I am lucky, because our healthcare webservices do work (most of the time). The big difference is not that the projects were carried out smarter, or the number of people covered by health care are less, but because the systems had a long time to grow and the paper files disappeared over time.

I am baffled that there are people thinking that a huge project like that could have been built from ground up within just a few months.

Re:The real problem is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146291)

Both the Democrats and the Republicans know that the procurement system is broken and yet neither one of them have offered any concrete solutions.

Do you have any suggestions? It seems to be a fairly hard problem.

If you have the decisions made by people who know what companies are competent vs. incompetent, that works for a while... until a future government replaces those people with incompetent cronies, and they select their friends' companies. Or they just get bribed or threatened.

If you just take the lowest bid, you get underbidding and/or shoddy work.

If you take the lowest bid by a company that can prove they might actually be able to do the job, you get a bureaucratic mess of procedures for proving that you can do the job, and inevitably companies are chosen based on their ability to navigate the bureaucracy rather than their competence at actually doing the job.

campaign trail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145817)

I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message. Go Bears!

Re:campaign trail (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145867)

Now tell us all how much you approve of the Patriot Act and Guantanamo.

That Palin Thing says: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46145841)

"How's that 'hopey-changey' stuff workin' out for ya?"

:: winks ::

:: snaps gum ::

Obama has made Palin into a prophetess (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146575)

She predicted this chaos.

Oh, and those "death panels" (the IPAB) are indeed part of the ACA (I just KNOW some Palin-hater will bring that up). The IPAB members are to be unelected (appointed, and therefore unaccountable to the people) and are not required to have any medical knowledge but they get to decide what treatments are "cost effective" using whatever criteria they choose (their job is to put money ahead of lives) - and they may block any doctor or hospital or insurance company from providing any care they deem "not cost-effective" (this is in the law, giving them great powers of life-and-death over all citizens). Do you need some special drug or procedure? They can tell you "no, go away and die" if they do not approve it.... and you will not even be able to get it by paying out of your own wallet. This is not happening YET because, like most of the worst aspects of the new law, it has not yet kicked-in (many part of the law are written to start in later years after Obama does not need the voters any more, some parts like the "employer mandate" have been delayed by Obama until after the Nov2014 elections). The IPAB members have not yet been appointed, so nobody is yet being denied drugs and procedures - but the elderly and the handicapped will be first to feel this; it happens in all socialized health care. In Britain, the equivalent panel is called "NICE" and it kills thousands per year by simply withholding care (pretending the care is unavailable) - death by official neglect. When budgets are tight, it's not "bureacrats getting laid-off" that save the money, it's "old people dying a little earlier".

we can fix it since it's open source! (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 3 months ago | (#46145961)

"We’re making our source code freely available on GitHub" [healthcare.gov] and it's a promise they made good on... until the site launched. [theverge.com]

so... is it time to post the code again... or ever?

Re:we can fix it since it's open source! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46146031)

Maybe they were planning to move the source to a GovHub in the GovCloud, except that plan failed too.

Can you say (1)

reboot246 (623534) | about 3 months ago | (#46146195)

clusterfuck?

Best to scrap the whole thing, law and all, and start over. And this time please don't leave it up to a community organizer and his gang.

Re:Can you say (1)

tftp (111690) | about 3 months ago | (#46146617)

It's always a great idea to question architectural plans once you bulldozed the entire neighborhood :-)

The problem is that old policies are dead and buried. Any new policy that is issued under the "old" system would cost twice as much, simply because (a) insurers lost a ton of money already on all those changes, and (b) it's a good time to raise the prices across the board (now that all insurers are in a similar position.)

The only winning move was to not play. Leave the sleeping dogs alone. A change in healthcare should have started with one simple question: where is the money going to come from? Right now a government goon just puts a gun to your head and orders you to pay up - even if you, as a free person, may elect to not have an insurance. Maybe you are young and healthy; maybe you are rich; maybe you are a fatalist; maybe you are a gambler; maybe you just need the money.

The problem is very simple: (a) healthcare is expensive, and (b) many people are poor. Obamacare does not change anything here. Costs go even higher, and people do not get new jobs and new income. All that happens is that a small group of people gets the privilege to pay for healthcare of a much larger group.

Re:Can you say (1)

Idarubicin (579475) | about 3 months ago | (#46146687)

clusterfuck?

Not so much. 22,000 is a goodly number of people, but it represents almost exactly 1% of people who have signed up so far. It's aggravating and stressful and certainly not a good thing, but it's also not the epic disaster that you seem to think it is. (And honestly, prior to the ACA, how many of those people would have been dealing with different but equally frustrating problems from their insurers anyway--and how many just wouldn't have access to health insurance at all?)

This just in, from Belarus? (1)

approachingZero (1365381) | about 3 months ago | (#46146585)

The Belarusian Connection - Obamacare network vulnerable to cyber attack

'U.S. intelligence agencies last week urged the Obama administration to check its new healthcare network for malicious software after learning that developers linked to the Belarus government helped produce the website, raising fresh concerns that private data posted by millions of Americans will be compromised.'

http://freebeacon.com/the-bela... [freebeacon.com]

Just the beginning (1)

srichard25 (221590) | about 3 months ago | (#46146657)

If the government can't put together a website, what in the world makes people think it can manage the complex healthcare system? The pain is only beginning. The failed amateur website will be nothing compared to the government crashing our healthcare system.

Most gov't employees can't be held accountable (1)

marcgvky (949079) | about 3 months ago | (#46146659)

This is what happens when you give a huge project to a large group of government employees whom are protected from censure or being sacked for non-performance. You can't fire people from federal agencies, it's nearly impossible. So you collect incompetent people.... and then you give them a critically important project that is responsible for insuring peoples healthcare. FAIL!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...