Former Microsoft Exec To Lead HealthCare.gov

Antipater writes "NBCNews reports that Kurt DelBene, former head of Microsoft's Office division, will take over operations of Healthcare.gov on Wednesday. DelBene will replace Jeffrey Zients, who stepped in to lead the team fixing the health insurance website when it crashed and burned on its Oct. 1 launch. Zients is set to take over next month as senior White House economic adviser from Gene Sperling.'"

Re:Polilitical Link

[bluefoxlucid]

We don't say "Congressperson" anymore because that implies these are people, and not soulless monsters. The correct term is "Congresswench".

Microsoft

[roman_mir]

So a former MS exec is now in charge of USA 'health insurance' system. I wonder, how much time before MS is hired to write a secondary system that will replace the original one (at a hefty price tag, of-course)?

Can we just have single payer yet?

[TheSpoom]

Please? How much more complicated do we have to make it before we do what the rest of the civilized world is doing?

I know Americans like to be different but it's gone too far.

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

That is not the only way they were blaming everything on Obamacare. They carefully cancelled all the grandfathered plans that did not have to be ACA compliant. Now they can use the whipping boy, Obamacare.

Obamacare is taking tax dollars and giving it to these private companies that have absolutely no compunctions about denying coverage, shifting responsibility and shirking responsibility. This is the system Republicans want. Left to the Democrats we would have simply expanded the medicare, paid for it with taxes.

Americans with employer provided health insurance pay oodles and oodles of money to the private healthcare companies till they are 65. They pocket all the case, once they are no longer young, no longer as healthy, they are all passed on to Medicare with we the tax payers holding the bag. Remember this folks, more than 50% of the healthcare you are going to receive in your lifetime, comes from the government. All the premium you are paying when you are younger and healthier goes to private companies. "Privatize the premium collection, Socialize the benefit payments", systematically. Bank bailout is nothing compared this bail out given to the healthcare companies. And they are somehow the paragons of virtue and the government is the personification of evil. Once they have their rank and file drink this cool-aid, nothing is impossible for them.

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[Venotar]

The socialists in Canada pay almost $4500 per capita for healthcare, or more than 11% of GDP. Because of the waste inherent in socialist systems, we should not be surprised that healthcare costs in Canada are 7th highest on the planet, yet for all this outrageous expense, they are only tied for 4th in life expectancy and something like 24th in infant mortality

I'm sorry - how is 7th highest cost for 4th highest life expetancy not a deal?
If life expectancy was less than 7th, I might see your point. Beyond that, the US already spends 17.2% of it's GDP on healthcare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]) and has an infant mortality rate around 34th in the world , so moving to an infant mortality rate of 24th in the world for a cost of 11% of GDP is a huge improvement for your southern neighbors.

Re:New meaning to blue screen of death?

[vux984]

A lot of the people who had very cheap insurance which was cancelled had "hospital gown" policies (which means that their ass wasn't covered). Others could prove that they were "healthy" and could show that they didn't need insurance.

Bingo.

The main 'losers' under the ACA are:
a) people who didn't actually have coverage; are being forced into plans that actually cover things.

b) lowest risk, healthiest people -- they got better rates before because the insurance industry figured they wouldn't have to pay out on them. Now with more (and less healthy) people being added to the system, the rates are rising slightly to accomodate the overall higher insurance costs to the industry.

But insuring all those extra people is a net gain. At least in my books. And I'm speaking as someone still comfortably in the first half of my life, with no significant health concerns, who makes a decent living -- aka someone the insurers love to insure.

The big win is for people who couldn't get insurance or who had very expensive policies. They will be able to get affordable insurance under ACA since the scumbag insurance companies can't refuse to insure them.

Exactly. But its inevitable that there will be some "losers" at the other end of the spectrum whose rates are going up to offset this. But as I said before... its net gain for society.