800,000 Using HealthCare.gov Were Sent Incorrect Tax Data 211
mpicpp sends this report from the NY Times:
About 800,000 taxpayers who enrolled in insurance policies through HealthCare.gov received erroneous tax information from the government, and were urged on Friday to hold off on filing tax returns until the error could be corrected. The Obama administration, under heavy pressure from congressional Democrats, also announced that it would give several million people more time to buy health insurance so they could comply with federal law and avoid tax penalties. The incorrect insurance information is used in computing taxes. Consumers can expect to receive corrected data in the first week of March. With the new data, officials warned, some taxpayers will owe more and some will owe less. Officials said they did not know why the error had occurred.
News (Score:5, Funny)
I'm tired of all this bad news about Obamacare. Could we maybe just all agree not to talk about it any more until there is some good news to report?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically, they are. Marketplace insurance is just a private plan with an extra layer of government collusion. Crony-capitalism at its finest.
Re:News (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically, they are. Marketplace insurance is just a private plan with an extra layer of government collusion. Crony-capitalism at its finest.
But here's the thing.
Other countries are somehow managing to give their citizen's healthcare. And Beelzabub hasn't risen to claim their souls.
We were in a death spiral, positive feedback loop regarding health insurance. As people fell off the bottom rung of the ladder, their healthcare was being provided by the Government anyhow. Small employers health insurance costs were occasionally doubling every year. And if you had a pre-existing condition, you were fucked - and not in th ehappy fun way either. But that's what happens when a lot of people use Emergency Rooms as basic healthcare - it gets billed back to insurers through billiong magic, and we pay for it, but eventually the system collapses as all positive feeback loops do.
The scary part for those who can't handle the idea of universal healthcare is that this cockamamie system we've implemented is just good enough to work, but tweaking it leads to the inescapable.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not other countries. Our government is the most corrupt institution on the planet.
Why would you think a government, that couldn't roll out a website, after spending over $2 billion, could effectively manage something far more complex?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you trust the US government as much as their governments? That's madness.
I do not "trust" any government - I know people well enough.
But that doesn't mean that we are supposed to turn into Somalia.
Since people are involved, there will be fraud. But that holds true whether it is Government, or the Private sector.
Our Private sector solutino was failing, and failing fast. Regardless - other countries manage. If our system is bad, it's our fault, not theirs.
Re:News (Score:5, Insightful)
But that doesn't mean that we are supposed to turn into Somalia.
I love how the idea of reducing the size of the federal government is always compared to Somalia. Guess what? In addition to a federal government, most people are also under a state, county, and city/township government. Removing power from the federal government isn't going to result in bands of roving warlords and pirates. It would simply shift the balance of services provided from a bloated federal government back to the state & local level, where they belong and people have more opportunity to provide input.
Re: (Score:3)
It would simply shift the balance of services provided from a bloated federal government back to the state & local level, where they belong and people have more opportunity to provide input.
Correction: It IS shifting services back to state and local level. The number of State bills to nullify overreaching Federal laws just so far this year is amazing. Many of them passed. And it's only just now really getting started.
Check out TenthAmendmentCenter.com's bill tracking pages if you haven't already.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, all of the "nullification" laws get thrown out by the courts, but it gives the state legislatures a chance to grandstand for their dumber voters.
Note also that in reality the state and local governments are less competent and more corrupt (on average) than the federal government. Because there's _way_ less oversight the more local the government is.
The big picture (Score:3, Insightful)
Marketplace insurance is just a private plan with an extra layer of government collusion.
It's a private plan with regulations to keep the price reasonable because it wouldn't be otherwise. Now your ability to get health insurance is not tied to your continued employment. No one should lose health insurance just because they lost a job. Criticize the details all you want but that part of the ACA is unequivocally a Good Thing.
Crony-capitalism at its finest.
Since these insurance companies wouldn't insure millions of people at a reasonable price until the government forced the issue it eludes me how this is "crony capitalism"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a private plan with regulations to keep the price reasonable because it wouldn't be otherwise.
Right, that's why a lot of middle class families are now paying more for worse insurance than they were before Obamacare...
Nice revisionist history there.
Re: (Score:2)
prices go up and obamacare is NOT there to stop or help with that.
how can it? with this near-religion we have about bowing down to 'free markets', the gov won't ever force the HC companies to have reasonable prices and limit the price increases. they SHOULD step in, but the republicans would throw yet another fit and since they're mostly in control now, we won't get anything else out of this system until a new guard comes in.
of course, you are IGNORING the fact that every single year, prices of HC go up
Re:The big picture (Score:4, Interesting)
prices go up and obamacare is NOT there to stop or help with that.
we were told that the avg family would see 2500 a YEAR in savings. when the trust is they are spending about that much more.
Re: (Score:2)
Healthcare costs have always gone up every year. The reality is that healthcare costs have gone up under ACA at half the rate of the pre-ACA increases (3-4% under ACA, vs. the 6-10% annual increases every year for decades!). That's better.
As for worse insurance, that's unlikely. For example, the insurance companies aren't allowed to waste more than 15% of what they are paid, when previously there was no limit. And they were allowed to take insurance away from people that had been paying for it, if they beca
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"people are getting better coverage cheaper than before"
a lot of people are making this claim too......can you back it up? :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Since these insurance companies wouldn't insure millions of people at a reasonable price until the government forced the issue
Also, the government introduced the insurance mandate, thereby sharply reducing the adverse selection problem associated with the individual insurance market.
Re:The big picture (Score:4, Insightful)
"Now your ability to get health insurance is not tied to your continued employment"
Help me out here, because I really don't understand how it works....but how are you supposed to pay for private health insurance if you lose employment?
Re: (Score:2)
Help me out here, because I really don't understand how it works....but how are you supposed to pay for private health insurance if you lose employment?
I think that the argument was that you could leave your job and become self-employed or join a small business without a company plan. I did that. I left my job to start my own business, and I insure myself and my family through the marketplace.
It has not been a particularly pleasant experience. While yes, I am able to get insurance, the marketplace has an extremely limited number of options. For 2014, I had 3 choices in my state. For 2015, it's better and bigger, but choice basically amounts to "choose your
Re: (Score:3)
It's a private plan with regulations to keep the price reasonable because it wouldn't be otherwise.
Right, because my insurance was going up by 10-15% each year, severely outpacing inflation. But thankfully, Obama put a stop to that with the Obamacare plan, which only made it go up 400% the first year and 25% the next year. Those are the only two years of data points so far. I admit there is every possibility that next year, my insurance could drop by a factor of 6 putting it in line with what my insurance formerly was trending.
Re: (Score:2)
Since these insurance companies wouldn't insure millions of people at a reasonable price until the government forced the issue it eludes me how this is "crony capitalism". It's not as if the insurance companies were lobbying in favor of insuring poor people.
Actually, the insurance companies wrote much of the bill and are estatic about insuring anyone, especially when the government is paying them. Effective compeitition (a pubic option) or allowing medicaid to negotiate drug prices with the drug companies might have helped with cost control, but those were both nix'd extremely early in the process.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are so funny, my friends working for small and mid sized companies had their premiums more than double thanks to obamacare.
Re:News (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you ave any evidence to cite that justifies this as the reason for the increase? Or is it possible their employer saw an opportunity to screw the workforce and blame the President?
Obamacare did little to change most employer plans, so unless your friends had extremely limited insurance coverage, a > 100% increase seems implausible.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Let us all look at this and note-
THE EMPLOYER MANDATE HAS NOT GONE IN TO EFFECT YET.
Oops. Looks like your employer decided to screw you and blame it on Obamacare. This has happened a lot. Time to confront your boss, eh?
Re:News (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because they dont have to yet, it made more sense to get there sooner instead of later
Re: (Score:3)
Obamacare REQUIRED insurance policies to cover conditions that were not previously required (ex: maternity care for a 60 year old woman). It also forced insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions that weren't covered before. It also forced insurance companies to cover young adults on their parents' policies. All of these policies HAVE gone into effect and have increased premiums.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
fallacy of omission, right there.
probably a few of them would not be ABLE to get ANY healthcare if they had 'pre-existing' conditions. at least they did get rid of that big problem!
I have a PEC that made it (past tense!) very hard to get private insurance, so this is an issue near and dear to my heart. I know I won't have a low price on my insurance, but I will at least be able to GET SOME AT ALL.
for those that don't have PEC's, you will never know the pain of being rejected, for no fault of your own, si
Re: (Score:2)
probably a few of them would not be ABLE to get ANY healthcare if they had 'pre-existing' conditions.
How come the supporters of PelosiCare don't know the difference between health insurance and health care?
I'm asking you because you appear to be an expert at not knowing the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the employer mandate has not gone in to effect yet.
Who's the dumbfuck, again?
Re: (Score:2)
Already small and mid business employees hurt hugely by Obamacare because of added costs to insurance companies. They didn't get to keep their doctors or their plans, and their premiums have been jacked up.
In 2016 things will get even worse, especially as the assumed number of healthy young people to float Obamacare of course aren't and won't be there.
So the answer to your question is, you are.
Re:News (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, no. There were tons of us saying our government could not be trusted with shit this important, and we were right. "But Europe!" they said. Well, we don't have a European government. We have an American government, with all the heft and agility of the Titanic. Crony-capitalism under a veneer of pretend-socialism and you have a recipe for guaranteed disaster. Now, is it the end of the world? Not really, just for the poor marks that bought Marketplace insurance plans.
Re: (Score:2)
Our government is filled with bad and/or stupid people.
Unlike the private sector?
Re: (Score:3)
Think Lerner emails, in the private sector during let's say an audit what would happen if emails were requested and they mysteriously were destroyed due to "hardware failure" of the users drive no less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Now, "filled" doesn't mean a majority, but enough to make a sizable impression - so this probably applies to all human activities involving a large more-or-less heterogeneous group. Now this is a good thing, because it implies that there are probably good and/or smart people in the groups as well.
Re:News (Score:5, Insightful)
In what universe is this an "insightful" comment. Let's just take it apart:
"I just don't understand how Slashdot can be flooded with stories of US government incompetence and malfeasance at every level"
-- That's called bias. Slashdot can be flooded with stories about anything as biased by story submitters. There is no implication that the frequency of stories is directly correlated with the truth or severity of an event. Moreover, can you show that Slashdot is actually "flooded" with stories of government incompetence? How does the frequency of those stories compare to the stories of government competence. Or are stories ever really written about government competence?
"yet people swear up and down they can be trusted with healthcare"
-- But they're not entrusted with providing healthcare. The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is not a healthcare system. It is not a set of hospitals. It does not train or employ doctors or nurses. It's a set of laws that requires actual insurance providers (who in turn employ healthcare providers) to abide by certain standards and creates a mandate that all citizens be enrolled in a qualifying healthcare plan or pay a fine (equal to the cost of enrolling in a qualifying healthcare plan). Setting health and safety standards and fining people for not meeting those standards is directly in line with the role of the US government.
"Our government is filled with bad and/or stupid people"
-- Really? And how did you come to that conclusion? Survey? Records analysis? Extreme bias? Who is "our government"? Are you considering just elected and appointed officials? What about day-to-day employees? Secretaries, analysts, programmers, coders, engineers, etc. Are they all bad and stupid as well?
"The US government does not have your back. Ever."
-- That's funny, because the various levels of US government has provided me with roads, plumbing, housing, access to safe water, electricity, dial-up and then high-speed internet. The US government made sure I had schooling, food in my belly, a roof over my head, and sufficient health care as a child. The US government paid for a major portion of my college education and made sure that I paid minimal interest on the loans I needed to fill the gap. The US government will also (eventually) help me buy my first home and provide the standards that will require the person selling me the home guarantee the safety of said home. Chances are that it has done all of the same for you.
If someone fires a gun at my home, guess who will show up to assist in the capture of that person. A government employee.
If I ever get thrown in jail and need representation despite having no money to pay for representation, guess who will try to protect my rights. A government employee.
If I find out that a neighbor's child is being abused and I need to get that kid to safety, guess who will be there to help me do so. A government employee.
If I want to travel from Los Angeles to New York in 5 hours with a near 100% guarantee of my safe transportation, guess who will make that possible. A crap ton of government employees partnering with private industry.
You say that the US government does not have "your" back. I assert that the only reason most of us have the opportunity to to read or write such comments online so frivolously is the effort of a massive amount of government employees.
Yes, the US government, from the president to the lowest municipal worker, is massive. Yes, it hemorrhages money at many points because bad people get employed (everywhere). But the only reason that our government is so massive is because you want such an extremely luxurious life and aren't willing to put in all the effort to sort it out yourself.
Want to try it? Go ahead. Don't use ANY public services. No running water. No roads. No products affected by safety standards or food grown/raised with government-based safety standards. See how long you live and how happy your life is.
Re: (Score:2)
-- That's funny, because the various levels of US government has provided me with roads, plumbing, housing, access to safe water, electricity, dial-up and then high-speed internet.
Do you understand the differences between state, municipal, and federal government?
Do you understand how that is relevant to this conversation? If so, please share it with the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
All the things he listed were due to local and state, not federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't understand how Slashdot can be flooded with stories of US corporate incompetence and malfeasance at every level, and at everything, and yet people swear up and down they can be trusted with healthcare. No, they cannot. The private sector is filled with bad and/or stupid people. CYA. The US private sector does not have your back. Ever.
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Re: (Score:3)
In the free market, I am allowed to not purchase products from companies I cannot trust. Or, at least, I could.
Re: (Score:2)
In the free market, I am allowed to not purchase products from companies I cannot trust. Or, at least, I could.
Well, first, there is no such thing as a free market. And never will be. As soon as a business in a marketplace gets big enough, the last thing it wants is a free market, it wants the entire market.
So unless there are checks and balances a free market will destroy itself. But checks and balances are regulations and denial of freedom, so that means the market wasn't free. A paradox for sure.
Re:News (Score:4, Insightful)
Walmart can't haul me out of my bed in the middle of the night for questioning. Amazon can't use a drone to kill me without due process. Microsoft would get shut down if they spied on people as much as the NSA.
The government has power over a person's freedom, privacy, and very life. Therefore, they MUST be drastically limited in power and completely transparent in all that they do. The people who founded this country understood that concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Walmart can't haul me out of my bed in the middle of the night for questioning.
Amazon can't use a drone to kill me without due process.
You must not Know about the Homestead Strike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org] when Private security agents (Pinkerton) were making war. Or the Battle of Blair Mountain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
And to directly reply to your statement: Union organizer Frank Little was pulled from his bed and lynched in 1917 because of his union activities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
In 1903 there was a company called Corporations Auxiliary Company.
This might be the earliest Astroturfer group, as well
Re:News (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa there. Just because we don't want the government running every little detail about our health care, doesn't mean we want anarchy.
I'll put it the way a friend put it to me: "Regulations aren't bad. Bad regulations are bad." The ACA is a regulation that has good parts but where the bad outweighs the good.
Not only is it bad, but it's not likely to get better. It was passed in such a polarizing fashion that nobody wants to fix it; the Republicans want nothing except to repeal it completely, and the Democrats feel it is so sacred that it should not be touched.
Give FIXES, not gripes (Score:2)
The reality of healthcare politics is that a majority have and still do want some kind of gov't managed insurance to pool risk. Only about 1/4 want to go back to the way things were before ACA (link below).
IF a political entity rants to change or repeal it, they need to first specify in detail what to replace it with or change.
Every known non-trivial change will sock it to one group of people in order to benefit another, and thus wouldn't be an easy sell.
Griping is easy; presenting viable alternatives is no
Re: (Score:2)
It is an attack they use all the time. Someone will say, "The government is too big, it is too invasive," and the immediate response is, "You are stupid, you don't want government, you're an anarchist!"
Is that what the first person said? No, it isn't.
These attacks are infantile and they speak volumes about the person making them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:News (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
11.7M people who were uninsured now have healthcare coverage.
Goodbye doughnut hole. Medicare drug plans (Part D of Medicare) stop providing insurance to people after their claims for covered drugs hit a certain level ($2,970 in 2013), and coverage doesn't resume until spending hits another level ($4,750 in 2013). Health care reform is closing this doughnut hole in annual stages, and it will be totally closed by 2020. Savings to Medicare beneficiaries will be in the tens of billions of dollars.
Free Medicare
Re: (Score:3)
thats it, would have cost next to nothing to the people, and would accomplish the only good thing that obamacare has going for it. The rest of your list is fluff
Re: (Score:2)
Because then the insurers couldn't make money and the system would have collapsed. Anything that you did to the system would have had to be balanced by other players in the system, lest it collapse. This means a complicated law.
Want a simple law? Here's one: Everyone gets Medicare and the government surcharges your taxes x% to pay for it. That's a simple law - no muss, no fuss, and done. No, all of the complication comes from the fact that we have this fu'ed system with a bunch of asshats sitting in the mid
Re: (Score:2)
thats it, would have cost next to nothing to the people, and would accomplish the only good thing that obamacare has going for it.
Re: (Score:2)
thats it, would have cost next to nothing to the people, and would accomplish the only good thing that obamacare has going for it.
[cite needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm tired of all this bad news about Obamacare. Could we maybe just all agree not to talk about it any more until there is some good news to report?
I, for one, do not want to take a lifetime vow of silence.
Amended Returns (Score:2)
I fear this will not end well for those who happened to already file. I have previously dealt directly with the IRS for three filings, two of which were multi-month-long processes. In the worst case, I spent the better part of 13 months corresponding via phone and U.S. Mail regarding an amended return -- they owed me money.
I'm not sure what percentage of filers end up owing taxes versus owed refunds. I imagine the number is fewer, so perhaps less than 400,000 people were even motivated to file early. Bu
Methinks healthcare.gov may need some new staff (Score:3)
They seem to be having some difficulties.
Re: (Score:2)
methinks .gov needs to get some new staff, the two-party bitches of mega-corps seem to be having some difficulties
IRS + medical (Score:2, Interesting)
(we can go into why other entities (twitter/google/etc) need to know, but that was a previous slashdot article)
Re: (Score:2)
watch it, sounds like Joe Stack / Timothy McVeigh talk there
Re: (Score:2)
Because you get tax credits based on your income level and healthcare situation. That's how the whole "government subsidizing the poor's healthcare" happens.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't, but if you're going to get federal tax credits that subsidize your insurance, and those credits are income-based, then it does.
You could sign up at healthcare.gov without involving the IRS at all, but you'd have to forego the opportunity to get any subsidy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, there's that too. Still, however, if you get your health insurance without any subsidy, the IRS only need to know that you have it.
Re: (Score:2)
I know the reason, but good grief.....how far do we allow multiple departments to intrude into other areas?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, there's that too. Still, however, if you get your health insurance without any subsidy, the IRS only need to know that you have it.
Why didnt you address the part in his post which refutes what you are now saying? Seems like you large amount of intellectual dishonesty on your part. (why so dishonest? is it that you are uninformed and don't realize just how dishonest you are being?) You have to have the right kind of health insurance. Many people had plans much more responsible than so called qualified plans, that dont qualify.
When I was growing up the plans were called Major Medical, and later on they were re-tokened High Deductible.
Oh darn... (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama administration, under heavy pressure from congressional Democrats, also announced that it would give several million people more time to buy health insurance so they could comply with federal law and avoid tax penalties.
I really hope the King v. Burwell case goes against the government. The executive branch needs to learn they implement the law congress passes not the one they wish congress passes. If Obama and lefties suddenly are not allowed to continue to make up the rules as they go along maybe the other half of America will realize this law for the ill considered, abusive over reach of authority and corporate give away that it is.
Regulatory discretion (Score:4, Insightful)
The executive branch needs to learn they implement the law congress passes not the one they wish congress passes.
If Congress isn't specific in their statutes then it is to the discretion of the administration how they handle the regulations. Very few laws are passed with enough specificity that the executive branch doesn't have considerable discretion in the interpretation of the statutes.
If Obama and lefties suddenly are not allowed to continue to make up the rules as they go along maybe the other half of America will realize this law for the ill considered, abusive over reach of authority and corporate give away that it is.
You're accusing the left of corporate giveaways? Methinks you have the left and right mixed up. Abusive overreach of authority? I direct your attention to the actions of the previous administration, particularly post 9/11.
Re:Regulatory discretion (Score:4, Insightful)
You're accusing the left of corporate giveaways? Methinks you have the left and right mixed up.
No I don't have my left and right confused. I dare say most the GOP is confused about being on the right. Almost all regulation is a form of corporate give away. If it has no other effects, one certain effect is it creates a new barrier to entry in some way. Its a give away to the existing players because it keeps other out.
Think about this. Do you think it would be easier to setup a new health insurance company in 2015 than it was in 2009? I am not suggesting it was easy in 2009 but its certainly harder now. Who is that good for? -- existing insurers.
Re: (Score:3)
"The executive branch needs to learn they implement the law congress passes not the one they wish congress passes"
Except they ARE implementing the law congress passed. Nobody without a prior axe to grind, looking at the law as written, in the context of how and when it was passed, could reach the conclusion that the passage was designed to do what the plaintiffs claim it was. In cases of ambiguity in a specific phrase, the courts are obliged to look at the legislation as a whole and at the context in whic
Re: (Score:2)
By context, would you perhaps be talking about all of the quotes and video clips of the bill's authors, consultants and supporters in congress saying the exact opposite?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm aware of the one Gruber comment. Counterbalancing that is the weight of comments by all the key drafters and authors that this is not what they intended. It's poorly written, no doubt, but it's an incredible stretch to argue that the authors and backers of the law clearly intended to hide away a time bomb within it. Absent clear evidence that they did, the IRS's interpretation of the law looks entirely reasonable and in line with Congressional intent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I used to warn people against the Govt being so involved with our healthcare. I likened it to putting the DMV in charge of you if you got the flu. The long wait times, the surly and non-helpful govt employees there staring more at the clock than worried about you getting new plates.
But hell, I will at least admit the DMV does tend to get its mailings out on time and in proper fashion.
I know its a pipe dream, but I wish we could move the govt (especially the Feds) back more to their constitutionally mandated responsibilities. At the very least, my dealing with them could and should pretty much only be once a year.
1. Tell me how much tax to pay (simplify this).
2. Leave me the fuck alone.
I'd be 101% supportive of my federal overlords if they could just get to this point in their interactions with me. I'll be fine on my own to haggle and negotiate for my jobs, and my bill rates. I'l be happy to manage my own health care, and know what is important to save for (retirement, routine health needs, medical insurance for catastrophic needs, etc).
I seriously don't need you to play nanny state with me, I don't need you to suck up so much of my money and waste it.
I don't need you spying on me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I am a student of history and I am not a Rand fanboy but I did like Fountianhead but I also know that it is fiction.
Like most things in life it is all a matter or degree.
The goal of government is to put in just enough regulation to keep a free competitive marketplace that works but so much regulation that it makes doing business a nightmare.
For example why is crap like Airborne "cold medicine" allowed to be for sale when the label says it does nothing. On the flipside when one of the military services wanted to buy a piece of software I worked on the "bid" came in a 50 pound box.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No matter what, we benefit by having more people with quality insurance. Just with the number of reduced trips to the ER for preventable issues, it will pay itself back in spades. Trips to the ER a
Re: (Score:2)
Here in CA, especially around the LA area, this hasn't been so true this year. There have been a few news reports about how people are finding that they can't even get an appointment inside the (usually) 3 month window the mailer gives them, because the DMV is so overloaded. So, to make the deadline (what I saw reported was for license renewals) people have to go in without an appointment and usually wa
Re: (Score:3)
so you want people to live shorter more painful lives and the system to cost 10-100x more than countries that handle healthcare responsibly
the simple truth is healthcare and healthcare insurance is not voluntary. it's mandatory
because you can spout eloquently all you want about independence and freedom, but you don't understand the subject matter. when you break your arm, you're not shaking it off and going on with your life, you're going to the hospital
and we're not refusing you if you can't pay, because w
Re: (Score:3)
You know, I used to warn people against the Govt being so involved with our healthcare. I likened it to putting the DMV in charge of you if you got the flu. The long wait times, the surly and non-helpful govt employees there staring more at the clock than worried about you getting new plates.
But hell, I will at least admit the DMV does tend to get its mailings out on time and in proper fashion.
I know its a pipe dream, but I wish we could move the govt (especially the Feds) back more to their constitutionally mandated responsibilities. At the very least, my dealing with them could and should pretty much only be once a year.
1. Tell me how much tax to pay (simplify this).
2. Leave me the fuck alone.
I'd be 101% supportive of my federal overlords if they could just get to this point in their interactions with me. I'll be fine on my own to haggle and negotiate for my jobs, and my bill rates. I'l be happy to manage my own health care, and know what is important to save for (retirement, routine health needs, medical insurance for catastrophic needs, etc).
I seriously don't need you to play nanny state with me, I don't need you to suck up so much of my money and waste it.
I don't need you spying on me.
I live in Quebec Canada and I love our system. It is one reason I would never relocate to the USA. My health care costs me about $100/mo each for my wife and I. My daughter and her husband pay about three thousand in taxes for the two of them and their three kids. And we have a drug plan too. I could go private or public, and chose public. Our plan will never bankrupt me or require me to choose between drugs or food.
Drugs
It costs me about $15/mo each for my wife and I plus I get my prescribed drugs at
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Self-insurance is a concept.
Re: (Score:2)
What's weird to me is that insurance companies aren't at all incentivized to reduce costs. In fact, they're blatantly incentivized towards raising costs. It really doesn't matter whether they're capped at 20% profit - their profit scales with larger overall numbers, so they're incentivized to keep costs high and push them higher in all situations. If healthcare costs rise 10%, they can push their insurance prices up 10%, and have a 10% increase in profit, even under the same percentage cap. Doctors like it
Re: (Score:2)
wrong century. Democrats control Seattle 80 years (Score:5, Informative)
Seattle hasn't had a Republican mayor for about 80 years. The city council is all Democrats except for the one socialist.
If you don't like the government there - surprise you don't actually like Democrats, regardless of what your govrrnment-school teacher told you.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like that changed as of January 2015 [wa.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
No clue about Seattle, but where I live (Michigan), I can't even renew my driver's license until they send me the renewal thing approximately a month prior to my birthdate.
Not even online, because that requires a code number from the form they send you (because, you know, someone might randomly log in using the number off my driver's license and pay it for me or something).
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point, they talked of single payer and robust public option, but instead delivered....what? another layer to insurance, healthcare chain and big insurance cycle? And claimed it would be payed for by a certain quota of young people signing up, which hasn't happened either (so the thing will not sustain itself).
I laugh at people who somehow imagined this would be a European style socialized medicine, ha as if!
Re: single payer yes, but baby steps... (Score:2)
Oh noes, socialism!
Sign me up. We are the only first world country WITHOUT single payer, and we have the most fucked health care. I don't think that is a coincidence.
good grief, think about what you're saying! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look closely at the "tin foil" which the government allows you to buy in stores.
There is _no_tin_ in it. Anywhere.
What are they afraid of?
No, MSNBC did not (Score:2)
Check the last paragraph in this article. [msnbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Several ACs here have misunderstood my post. Rather than responding to each of them, I'm responding to my own to cover each of them. No offense intended.
First of all, I'm far from a Republican shill. I happen to like MSNBC. And although she's obviously biased, I think Rachel Maddow is an insightful commentator and I enjoy watching her show.
My point was that MSNBC has not done what greenwow claims. I can find no evidence that MSNBC "exposed" as a "lie" the report of 800,000 healthcare.gov users receiving f
Re: (Score:2)