Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Worth a try

November 10, 2013

I have a suggestion for our current health care plan. First, let me say that the HC website is not the president’s faul....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(41)

ArtFold

Nov-10-13 3:17 AM

The ACA website is a project held by one of Michelle Obama's classmates on a no-bid contract. Crony capitalism? YOU BETCHA! Good luck on getting that contract cancelled.

14 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Nov-10-13 3:54 AM

Mike McDevitt-"First, let me say that the HC website is not the president's fault."

Yeah, OK. He is responsible for who HE hired to build the web site. And, as Art suggests, it being awarded to one of Michelle's acquaintances without being bid screams impropriety.

12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Nov-10-13 3:59 AM

Agree with Mike and Art on this one. Michele's old college buddy got the contract without bidding.

I don't know who writes the actual purchase orders, but from the way the taxpayers are continually getting screwed, its obviously people who never made it past 8th grade!

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Nov-10-13 5:21 AM

Sorry Mike but if you lock that bunch in a hotel room the 5 small business people would end up killing the rest.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Nov-10-13 5:49 AM

"We could have a one- year delay on HC...." - Mike McDevitt

*

So...during the 2014 mid-term elections...you can say, "SEE!! We TOLD-you-so!!!"

No...more-and-more people have (finally) caught-on to the T-Baggers' sophomoric-tactics.

2 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Nov-10-13 6:04 AM

Whatta bunch o' rookies!!!!

The Obamacare roll-out was (merely) one, MORE example of what's killed manufacturing, in this Country; "professional managers" who've traded quality/accuracy for short-term "attaboys" (i.e. bonu$e$, for making-schedule).

Eventually...as usual...the code-writers will start sounding-off...and, expose Teabaggers' "skill" of knowing absolutely nothing about that which they'd criticized.

*

See:

Daily Kos: A Software Developer's View On The HealthCare Glitches

2 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Nov-10-13 6:09 AM

MrShaman-"So...during the 2014 mid-term elections...you can say, "SEE!! We TOLD-you-so!!!" No...more-and-more people have (finally) caught-on to the T-Baggers' sophomoric-tactics."

As opposed to Obama delaying the employer mandate for insurance until after the 2014 elections so the Dems won't get hit when millions more people lose the insurance they now have with their employers.

Yeah, a lot of us are on to that tactic also.

12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Nov-10-13 6:12 AM

MrShaman-"Eventually...as usual...the code-writers will start sounding-off...and, expose Teabaggers' "skill" of knowing absolutely nothing about that which they'd criticized."

Yeah, because up until this point no other web site has been designed to handle millions of people, right? Rev Sullivan (AKA Sham) is talking out of his arse again, because his head should know better.

11 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Nov-10-13 6:30 AM

Shaman it is you that know NOTHING about how government contracts work. As usual, instead of placing any of the blame on government, you place all the blame on corporate management. I agree that they hold some of the responsibility but you obviously have never been involved in working with government with regards to fulfilling contracts, especially when dealing with software at this level. I guarantee dozens of changes were requested after contract award because no one involved with the contract could have possibly understood legislation of this size. There is also government reps that are assigned as liaison that follow the development at every stage that were responsible for managing cost and scheduling overruns. The administration KNEW long before roll out that there were going to be problems just like they knew millions of people would lose their policies and doctors.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Nov-10-13 6:41 AM

The President neither named or called AHA Obamacare, until the opponents ran with the label. I agree the web site has far too many issues although this maybe the most massive program ever initiated online. I know everyone thinks of Facebook, Google etc. These sites were much smaller at inception and grew over time. In fairness, the IRS online works very well and is safer and more efficient than mail. I asked last week, does anyone know anyone who lost their insurance? If so, what type of policy and what were the deductibles?

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Nov-10-13 6:54 AM

Spike, I agree that this had to be a very intensive contract, with many change requests throughout. But my point was, Obama was NOT blind to the progress of this contract and the problems they were having because they have government reps working with the contractors at every step, many times right on site. It was Obama that chose not to budge on the rollout date in spite of the fact that the software obviously wasn't fully tested and there were obvious problems. For him to agree to wait until the software was tested and proven reliable, would make him look like he was caving in to the republican requests for delay. Government and politics hold the majority of the blame for this debacle. But trust me, it's not restricted to just this contract.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Nov-10-13 7:14 AM

"I asked last week, does anyone know anyone who lost their insurance?" - spike2

Yea, Ritty.

"If so, what type of policy and what were the deductibles?" - spike2

Why does that matter? Why should a young healthy individual be required to purchase a policy they don't need? If I were young and healthy I would have a minimal plan that only covered catastrophic illness/injury.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Nov-10-13 7:30 AM

I agree Cap. This should have been tested extensively, no excuse. I also agree as to contracts. Gavin, it matters because a policy with a huge deductible is essentially worthless. Those who have the assets to pay huge deductibles will carry insurance that does not require the same. Why should young, healthy people have insurance? Are you serious? Because illness happens to everyone. Catastrophic illnesses cost all of us money. is it hard to understand we pay on one end or the other. If we maintain our current insurance , prices increase independently or to employers. Your employer compensates by raising wages at a lower rate among other options. The bottom line is we all pay, the issue is which way we prefer to pay. Nothing stays the same and neither have/will medical costs.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Nov-10-13 7:31 AM

Capricorn1 - You sent this out of the ballpark with this statement, "For him to agree to wait until the software was tested and proven reliable, would make him look like he was caving in to the republican requests for delay." It had nothing to do with what is best for Americans but what was best for party and politics.

11 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CaveFelem

Nov-10-13 7:34 AM

@gavinf56 "Why should a young healthy individual be required to purchase a policy they don't need?"

For the same reason a healthy 55 year old person, with no dependent children, has to purchase a pediatric dental plan and pay for maternity and pre/post natal coverage.

It makes about as much sense as my car insurance company requiring me to purchase a motorcycle policy when I don't own or ride a motorcycle.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Nov-10-13 8:09 AM

Spike:

You do not understand these high-deductible plans.

For routine healthcare needs and minor injuries, you pay out of pocket.

But, when you have the catastrophic accident or disease, the policy pays.

The deductible is set by every person balancing their personal financial needs with their healthcare risks.

Now, these people are being forced into a one-size-fits-all plan (OK, four plans) that base your monthly cost and deductible on what the gov't thinks you should pay.

The individual has no say other than to choose from one of four plans.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Nov-10-13 8:10 AM

Scrap the whole plan and start the process all over again. That's your plan?

The right has no interest of solving the health care problems in this country at all.

People would be losing their insurance policies without the ACA with no options to get another. Some people had their policies cancelled because they did not cover enough for medical care. You know what they still can get another policy and with subsidies.

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Nov-10-13 8:15 AM

"You know what they still can get another policy and with subsidies." - CMReeder

Everyone, or just those who qualify?

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CaveFelem

Nov-10-13 8:41 AM

About the subsidies - don't they come once per year, when the recipient files a tax return? Premiums will be due every month. What happens if there is a serious medical issue in the meantime, and the deductible has to be paid as well?

You could encounter a scenario where (1) you've missed work (and rec'd disability pay or perhaps no pay) because of a medical issue, (2) the premiums are still due, and (3) you have to meet the deductible. Let's say the deductible is $6000/year before the insurance pays 70/30 or 80/20 as an example. That works out to $500/month, for an entire year, just to pay that off, and you're still months away from filing a tax return to get the subsidy. After that's paid, you'll still have to come up with the extra 10, 20, 30% of what the insurance doesn't pay on top of that.

How is this going to affect people who can't afford the premiums in the first place, and are eligible for subsidies? How will they pay the deductibles as well?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Nov-10-13 8:41 AM

"You know what they still can get another policy and with subsidies."

Where?

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Nov-10-13 8:58 AM

"You know what they still can get another policy and with subsidies." - CMReeder

Everyone, or just those who qualify? -Gavin

I've read where the Obama administration is thinking about expanding the qualification limits for subsidies so more people qualify as a peace offering for so many that lost their insurance. This would mean that those in middle class incomes would qualify. Question is, who is going to pay for all these subsidies? They did the same with SNAP and some other assistance programs and we can see the result of that and the cost it has on tax payers. I haven't heard any recent cost predictions for Obamacare since rollout but I'm pretty sure it's not even close to what this administration tried to sell us.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Nov-10-13 9:05 AM

"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future." - President Obama, Sept 2009

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Nov-10-13 11:31 AM

Late headline: The nation’s largest health insurer, UnitedHealthcare, claims the Affordable Care Act is responsible for forcing it to boot doctors.....

Anyone remember how AARP set in on the writing of Dumbamacare?

Anyone remember just who UnitedHealthCare is?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Nov-10-13 3:14 PM

Mr. Reeder said:

"People would be losing their insurance policies without the ACA..."

True, but they were exceptions.

The ACA has created millions losing their insurance.

Millions more will lose when the employer mandate goes into effect....after the 2014 midterm election.

Unless you have a better explanation for the delay in the employer mandate?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Nov-10-13 3:57 PM

Art, Good comment.

The letter writer has a great idea as for perhaps revisiting the Healthcare system. At least, with the reduction of hundreds of people in both House and Senate, and a minority of persons who actually deal, in some capacity with the system, more would be accomplished. I would suggest leaving the insurance companies out of the process.....just

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 41 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web