backtop


Print 90 comment(s) - last by enlil242.. on Oct 6 at 10:30 AM


  (Source: WireImage)
The President blasts critics as site experiences service outages amid high traffic volume

With the government-backed public healthcare markets opening on October 1st (better known as the much awaited and much debated "Obamacare"), much curiosity and scrutiny was direct at the government's web portal for that effort: healthcare.gov.

I. Gov't Site Suffers Service Issues

The results delivered when the switch was flipped today were at times impressive, with visitors greeted with a modern page design with live chat support, an intuitive layout to help users navigate the myriad of options available in different states, and even support for modern mobile platforms like Google Inc.'s (GOOG) Android and Apple, Inc.'s iPhone.

On the other hand, many of the estimated 1 million plus Americans to visit the webpage today were greeted with timeouts and other glitches.  Given that the massive volume of visitors was as high or higher than many distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks by hackers, it isn't particularly surprising that the site would have performance issues.
Other problems -- such as forgotten registration information -- seemed to be errors with the government's page code.  On Twitter the government's official acccount apologized for these errors, writing:
Healthcare.gov
This is what users should have been seeing...

II. Obama Likens Obamacare Site to Apple's OS

Soon after President Barrack Obama took a dig at critics, while making a reference to a security bug found in the recent release of Apple's iOS 7, which allows iPhone and iPad users to bypass the lock screen with a simple command sequence.  (The iPhone 5S's fingerprint sensor was also found to be dangerously insecure within a day of its launch.)  The president remarked:

Like every new law, every new product rollout, there are going to be some glitches in the sign-up process along the way that we will fix.  Consider that just a couple of weeks ago, Apple rolled out a new mobile operating system, and within days, they found a glitch, so they fixed it."

I don't remember anybody suggesting Apple should stop selling iPhones or iPads or threatening to shut down the company if they didn't.  That's not how we do things in America. We don't actively root for failure.

Apple fanboy
Many love Apple, but it's also a controversial company, so it's an interesting choice for the President to pick. [Image Source: Nokia]

Leave it to the President -- never one to shy from controversy -- to compare one of his most controversial policies to one of America's most successful, but most controversial companies.

Apple's late CEO and cofounder Steven P. Jobs served served as the digital campaign coordinator during President Obama's 2012 election bid.  In fact, Steve Jobs' efforts to reelect his close friend were one of the last major project he embarked on before his death in Oct. 2011.

Obama dinner with Steve Jobs
President Obama sits next to late Apple CEO Steve Jobs at a White House dinner on Feb. 2011.  Mr. Jobs was a major donor/campaign advisor to the president.
[Image Source: White House]

The President is developing a growing relationship with Mr. Jobs' successor current CEO Tim Cook.  Mr. Cook not only donated $2,300 USD to the President's campaign, but has also met with the President on numerous occasions to discuss policy issues.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By stm1185 on 10/1/2013 10:45:14 PM , Rating: 5
If they passed an individual mandate to buy iPhones I'd buy one of them, because you know I have too or I get fined!

It's either get insurance and pay for that, or don't and pay a fine.




RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By spamreader1 on 10/2/2013 9:32:47 AM , Rating: 4
Well that's really the heart of issue why the majority of republicans and democrats that are opposed to this. There are some good things in the bill, and some bad things, but it is still unbelievable that for the first time in our nations history we are forced to purchase something by the government. I'm still shocked that it made it through the judicial branch, I still can't imagine how this is constitutionally legal.

The sad fact is nobody really understands the bill yet. I have family that works as a teachers aid, makes 14k a year, the State of Texas is telling her she has 2 options, pay a 2k a year fine for not having insurance on herself, or pay 6k a year on thier sponsored insurance plan. She didn't have a clue that because she earned below the povertly line that she should be able to get financial assistance on it. She can't afford a lawyer, so she only gets what free advice she gets from the schools HR persons.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By Rukkian on 10/2/2013 10:24:41 AM , Rating: 4
I don't think that this is necessarily the best approach, but the mandate was neccessary. There is no way you can require insurance companies to cover all pre-existing conditions if people do not have to have insurance. If the mandate was not in the law, it would have been possible for people to just go without insurance, and once they get a big illness (say cancer), then they enroll, and it has to be covered.

The main issue I have with this is that it does not fix the skyrocketing health care costs. We need to find a way to get the costs down so we are not paying so much more than in pretty much every single other country out there.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By Reclaimer77 on 10/2/2013 11:48:28 AM , Rating: 5
Insurance IS a major factor in healthcare costs. Its a third party between healthcare providers and the consumer. This, naturally, leads to higher costs. Because there's no longer any incentive to keep costs down.

This is why Obamacare fails at its basic promise of making healthcare "affordable". Its just mandatory insurance! Not a reform of any kind.

At this point we might as well had done nothing, we would actually be better off.

But of course Obamacare is great for redistributing this nations wealth. Obama and the radical Lefts primary agenda.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By stm1185 on 10/2/2013 12:53:28 PM , Rating: 3
Why did insurance companies even need to cover people with pre-existing conditions?

We have a Government program for that, it's called PCIP, Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan, I know this because I am on it! Now with Obamacare coming into effect I am losing that insurance Jan 1 and have to buy a private plan.

I doubt I will be better off going from a plan created to help people in my position to a plan created to provide profit to shareholders.


By Monkey's Uncle on 10/2/2013 6:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
Wait until you see the premiums of that private plan because you HAVE a preexisting condition (if they will actually cover you).

Most insurance companies in Canada won't cover you if you have a preexisting condition. Not sure if the same holds true in the U.S.

Now that whole thing may change because of this obamacare business by making it illegal for an insurance company to deny you coverage due to preexisting conditions. But I doubt it very much that it will stop the insurance company from raping you financially to get it. After all if they know what it is going to cost them to keep you in drugs and medical care each month, you can bet they will be charging you at least that above the regular premiums.

Good luck.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By mhains on 10/2/2013 7:15:15 PM , Rating: 1
PCIP is a component of Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act. It was created to be a stopgap from the time ACA was passed by Congress to the time the health insurance exchanges go into effect in 2014. It was only designed to be temporary and for a limited number of enrollees (maximum 350,000, though I think far fewer were ultimately allowed to enroll).

Also, under ACA, you can't be charged differently than anyone else based on a pre-existing condition.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By Iaiken on 10/2/2013 1:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Insurance IS a major factor in healthcare costs. Its a third party between healthcare providers and the consumer. This, naturally, leads to higher costs. Because there's no longer any incentive to keep costs down.

This is why Obamacare fails at its basic promise of making healthcare "affordable". Its just mandatory insurance! Not a reform of any kind.


On one hand, Obamacare implemented some serious legal regulations and made health care more accessible to around 60 million Americans. On the other hand, it does absolutely nothing to curb the runaway costs at the private hospital level that made it so inaccessible in the first place. That said, the CBO report that went into the United States National Health Care Act (H.R. 676) showed that not only would everyone be covered, but the immediate savings alone would be on the order of $200 billion per year (or $350 billion once you take insurance overhead into account. The other major side effect of Obamacare was that it sidelined has sidelined all discussion of H.R. 676 and has virtually guaranteed that the private-private system will remain in place for years to come.

quote:
But of course Obamacare is great for redistributing this nations wealth. Obama and the radical Lefts primary agenda.


That's a somewhat misleading statement since it's not wealth redistribution in it's traditional sense. The subsidy money is not going into the hands of people (who are still going to be out of pocket), but rather the insurance companies who wouldn't have otherwise had those subsidized customers.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By Reclaimer77 on 10/2/2013 9:17:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That's a somewhat misleading statement since it's not wealth redistribution in it's traditional sense.


Obamacare raises the rates of health insurance for those of us who were ALREADY paying for health insurance, and uses that money to give free or heavily subsidized insurance to those who "couldn't afford"/didn't want insurance before.

Smells like wealth redistribution to me. Or Socialism -shrug- take your pick. Both are bad.

quote:
That said, the CBO report that went into the United States National Health Care Act (H.R. 676)


That's been heavily debunked. There IS no "immediate savings" will there be long-term savings. Obamacare will only lead to MORE debt both public and private.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By Iaiken on 10/3/2013 10:27:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's been heavily debunked. There IS no "immediate savings" will there be long-term savings. Obamacare will only lead to MORE debt both public and private.


I was not talking about Obamacare (H.R. 3590), I was talking about a different law that was shelved because of Obamacare. The United States National Health Care Act (H.R. 676) would have moved the US to a universal single-payer system (though hospitals themselves would remain private and the single-payer would be the state) and would have been able to cover everyone for less than the cost of medicare/medicaid combined in only it's first year. The CBO also found that over time H.R. 676 would realize further savings via cost containment (particularly on drugs).

It's patently ridiculous that Americans continue to pay more taxes towards healthcare per capita than the people of any other G8 nation in exchange for healthcare that is provided to only a subset of the population. Obamacare not only continues this trend, but further cements the existing multi-tiered private system (into which massive amounts of public money is poured into) and all of the inefficiencies that plague it.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By Skywalker123 on 10/2/2013 10:46:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
TextThat said, the CBO report that went into the United States National Health Care Act (H.R. 676) showed that not only would everyone be covered,


No, millions will NOT be covered under Obamacare


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By Iaiken on 10/3/2013 10:01:01 AM , Rating: 1
The United States National Health Care Act (H.R. 676) and The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590, a.k.a. Obamacare) are two different laws. Maybe you should actually learn to read and comprehend before spouting off with your fingers?


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By Reclaimer77 on 10/3/2013 3:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you should be more clear? Just call it Obamacare or ACA you asshole. Nobody knows what (HR 3590) is off the top of their heads!!!

Anyway the idea that you think we would be better off with a single payer straight up Socialized medicine system disqualifies you entirely.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By senecarr on 10/2/2013 10:30:49 AM , Rating: 5
Already been said, it isn't the first time the government has mandated people buy something. The Militia Act of 1792 required every "free able-bodied white male citizen" to own a firearm and ammo. An act of 1798 require anyone employing seamen to pay a 20 cent fee used to provide health care for all seamen.
On top of that, at the state level, Massachusetts already had the same kind of mandate requiring individuals to get covered.

On the flipside, we already had laws (passed by Reagan) requiring doctors have to provide care (so forced to sell something) to people in emergency situations, regardless of ability to pay.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By spamreader1 on 10/2/2013 11:37:42 AM , Rating: 1
The problem with that is the Militia Act of 1792 paid and provided allowances for that service, must like a drafted soldier. It wasn't an unorganized rabble of people with guns, it was a non-commissioned military organization, similar in nature to the National Guard today.

"Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war: And that no officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia shall be compelled to serve more than three months in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which be belongs."

Massachusetts state law could also be construed with the same problem, forcing citizens to purchase something. It would be one thing to tax it and remove insurance companies alltogether and provide equal service to all. Several other nations have done this successfully. This is a bandaid at best that hurts many of the poor, and confuses healthcare laws further than they already are. Again, there are some good things about it, and there are some bad things. For instance those that have pre-existing conditions, that's a great thing to change when enrolling for health insurance to change. I'm not saying that it should just be left alone, just that it never should have been passed in it's current form. Many items in it should be law, or at least regulated requirements of insurance companies.

The Reagan loaws you mentioned if I recall, was largely to prevent law suits on doctors/respondants helping people in emergency situations.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By Ringold on 10/2/2013 4:07:13 PM , Rating: 4
That's an act of desperation, right there, digging down to the militia acts. The constitution makes specific allowance for conscription. Not for compelling just any old purchase under the sun.

If you really think the Framers were ultra libertarian on all other matters but intended to allow the government to compel the purchase of virtually anything (because if it can compel the purchase of one product, it can compel the purchase of any) then you're absolutely insane -- or being dishonest, because it fits your agenda.

I'd have 10x more respect for liberals if they were just honest. Admit it. You all hate our libertarian constitution. Just say so, propose a completely rewritten behemoth like the EU treaties that are so long and complex it takes a legion of lawyers to comprehend*, and then we can all have a real debate about what history shows us and what we want.

* You all already partly accomplished this with the ACA. It was so long and complex that, especially for the year or so following passage, most people reasonably thought that China and its small legion of people who are tasked specifically with monitoring everything we do probably had more individuals who had read our law in its entirety then we did ourselves.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By Reclaimer77 on 10/2/2013 8:49:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Militia Act of 1792 required every "free able-bodied white male citizen" to own a firearm and ammo.


Who the hell actually enforces that exactly? And where in the militia act are you fined for NOT owning a gun??

Obamacare IS radically different than any other regulation we've ever seen. This IS the first time the Government has directly forced you to purchase a commercial product under threat of some form of direct punishment. And you can call it a "tax" all you want, it's bullshit, this is a straight up FINE and you all know it.

This is America goddamnit. If someone doesn't want or need healthcare, as stupid as that is, it should be their right to go without. Stop trying to tell everyone what to do and how to live!

Your argument is horrible, incorrect, and the people who voted you up should get rapid-cancer (tm) in their sleep tonight and never wake up.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By Skywalker123 on 10/2/2013 10:51:14 PM , Rating: 1
Unfortunately you are wrong on this Reclaimer, there was the 1798 act requiring insurance for seamen.

Section one of the Act directed each master of a vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States to pay to the Collector at the arrival port twenty cents per month from each seaman on board the vessel, which sum he was authorized to withhold from the wages of said seamen.[1] Section two of the Act forbid Collectors from renewing the license of vessels in the coasting trade unless the master of said vessel complied with the provisions of the Act and provided a penalty of a one hundred dollar fine for a master's failure to comply.[14] Section three of the Act directed Collectors to deliver funds collected under the Act to the Secretary of the Treasury on a quarterly basis. It further authorized the President of the United States to use the funds for the treatment of sick and disabled seamen in existing hospitals and facilities.[14] Section four of the Act authorized and directed the President of the United States to use surplus funds collected under the Act to build additional hospitals at the ports of the United States.[14] Section five of the Act authorized the President to appoint directors for each port, to direct the spending of funds at each port and to account for the use of said funds. The directors were appointed solely by the President and served at his pleasure.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By Reclaimer77 on 10/3/2013 2:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
Is the United STates made up ENTIRELY of seamen???

You know, you people using obscure and ancient regulations like the militia act, which was NEVER enforced, just reeks of desperation.


By Skywalker123 on 10/4/2013 4:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
s the United STates made up ENTIRELY of seamen???

You know, you people using obscure and ancient regulations like the militia act, which was NEVER enforced, just reeks of desperation


Doesn't matter, the point is there is a precedent for this, "you people"? I'm against Obummercare as much as you, unfortunately there is a precedent,and I never mentioned the militia act,but the Seamen act which WAS enforced.To ignore it just reeks of desperation.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By flatrock on 10/2/2013 2:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are some good things in the bill, and some bad things, but it is still unbelievable that for the first time in our nations history we are forced to purchase something by the government. I'm still shocked that it made it through the judicial branch, I still can't imagine how this is constitutionally legal.


It's really not all that different from having to pay taxes and then have those taxes be used for government programs. It's kind of like a new tax but we get more input on how the tax dollars are used than usual and there is more of a direct connection between the tax and what it is being used for. It's kind of government healthcare by proxy.

My issue with Obama care is that it has already significantly raised the cost of healthcare. Lots of people who had healthcare have had benefits cut, higher copays, or higher deductibles. Others have lost access to doctors.

The quality of healthcare you can get for your money has been significantly decreased. You are either paying more, or losing options.

Rising costs of healthcare were already a problem before Obamacare, and it was sold as a solution to those rising costs, which was a lie from the start. The only people able to get health care cheaper than they were before are those who are getting huge subsidies from the government. But the lower end of the middle class and the upper end of the lower class are getting squeezed.

Small businesses and the self employed are getting squeezed. The American dream is getting squeezed. Many of the things they claimed to be trying to fix were made significantly worse, and there was never any rational reason to think that wasn't going to be the case. They just told people what they wanted to hear to push through what they wanted to do.

Our healthcare system definitely has problems. However, Obamacare is making things worse, not better. And please don't tell how wonderful government health care can be. I'm a US citizen that has been living in Canada for the past few years and the mess that is the US health care system is still far better than what is in Canada. Fortunately I work in the US and at least for the time being have US Health Insurance from my employer.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By spamreader1 on 10/2/2013 4:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
If it was a regulated tax, I'm sure many more americans might be behind this, but just as many might be just as angry. There's also a ton of problems with that method as well, it would take the money, and control away from the insurance companies. And there's already complaints of how medicare and medicaid are run, so who can say the government would do a better job than insurance companies are now?

I'll give credit where credit is due. They (Washington) are trying to figure out ways to change things for the better. There's massive disagreements on how to go about it, and that's really part of what a check and balance system is for. If there's so much disagreement then something shouldn't be changed until it's changed in a way that the majority can agree upon. Sometimes it's not easy, and it certainly shouldn't cause such anger, hatred, and fear mongering as has been over this debate.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By Reclaimer77 on 10/2/2013 8:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
Obamacare is MASSIVELY unpopular with the citizens of this country. It's being forced on us, of course people are reacting with anger, hatred, and "fear mongering". This is a GIGANTIC clusterfu*k that nobody wanted.

Not a SINGLE Republican voted for Obamacare. Now I know the Liberals just blow that off by saying "oh they're all racists", but come on, that's about as polarizing as you can get.

quote:
I'll give credit where credit is due. They (Washington) are trying to figure out ways to change things for the better.


Okay I don't mean to give offense, but reading this almost makes me want to give up on the human race. Do you honestly believe that?


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By BRB29 on 10/2/2013 11:32:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
but it is still unbelievable that for the first time in our nations history we are forced to purchase something by the government.


No it's not. You are forced to purchase government services by paying taxes. You are forced to purchase SS. You are forced to purchase car insurance if you own a vehicle. You are forced to pay for highway utility tax.

There's a lot of things we have to pay. Healthcare should be one of them. Instead we got a bunch of freeloaders and bunch of responsible who pays too much because of freeloaders.

Whether you hate Obama or not, ACA is actually a good thing for the vast majority of people.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By bitmover461 on 10/3/2013 10:10:22 AM , Rating: 2
Much of what the Federal government does in blatantly unconstitutional. Read it sometime (the Constitution, not the various 'interpretations'). They get away with it because too many Supreme Court justices believe their job is NOT to interpret it, but to expand it, which amounts to saying it says what it does not. Kagan actually stated this in an interview.


RE: I don't want to, I HAVE TO!
By bupkus on 10/2/2013 1:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
I believe as laws stand, emergency rooms must care for patients whether or not they have or can afford Medical coverage. Why should hospitals be forced to provide free care and patients not forced to provide some responsible party?


Its fundamentally flawed...
By stmok on 10/2/2013 3:53:16 AM , Rating: 1
Here in Australia, we have a public healthcare solution called Medicare . It sounds good in an ideal world, where we have "free healthcare for everyone".

But its fundamentally FLAWED...

(1) Health care is NOT free.

In Australia, it is PRE-PAID. We have what you call a "Medicare Levy" (a tax) of approx 1.5% to pay for it.

...It will be 2.0% next year, because the Former Prime Minister (a delusional Socialist-Feminist) was more concerned about leaving her own legacy in order to make herself look good. Trying to portray herself as a "pioneer" as Australia's first Female PM. ie: Look what I did! I helped the Disabled! I'm a pioneer for women! (She didn't do jack! Her "National Disability Insurance Scheme" has only been trialled in small implementations. NOT in full deployment, nation-wide!)

She is no different to Obama in the sense that you can swap out the gender card with the race card. They are both from the same generation of Left-Progressive idiots who like to impose on everyone by using victim-hood and grievance of the past. Their paradigm is to divide the nation in politically correct categories. In our case, it was Carbon Tax, increased Medicare levy, etc. In your case, its "Obamacare", heavy environmental related regulation, etc. They may be from different countries, but Leftism know no bounds and borders.

(2) A public health system is unsustainable in the long run.

The architect of the Medicare system openly admitted that after 20 years, he realised it becomes a massive burden. Costs keep growing at staggering rates. ie: Why would people look after their own health if they know its going to be paid by someone else? Its one thing to look after the elderly and disabled, but its another when the system is abused by people who want free stuff from govt.

To relieve pressure off the public system, Conservative govts have encouraged people onto Private health insurance and services.

Currently, approx 57% of Australians have private health insurance coverage. Its still not enough, as the takers will eventually overwhelm the makers in the long term.

(3) The waiting lists grow until they cause death.

Here in Sydney, four people (suffering from various forms of stomach cancer), literally DIED of waiting in the public system! The surgeon was the one who blew the whistle to the public...They cannot fire him because they need him for the procedures!

Obama framing Obamacare as a system with glitches is blatantly FALSE.

Its a poorly engineered piece of software that will cause major system faults with the consequences it causes upon the Nation. (I may not be American, but I have read this mess known as Obamacare. This is a disaster waiting to happen.)

The biggest hint that its flawed can be seen by who it exempts from the system. ie: Senators themselves, their union friends, and "big companies" (those who made campaign contributions).

The concept is simple: They impose one rule for everyone. They have another rule for themselves and their friends. They BS to the world that this is a good thing.

Bare in mind, this forcing policy on people who don't want it is typical of Left leaning leaders. It does NOT matter if its in Australia or America. Leftism is a mental disease of the Political Elite Class . (PEC)

Who are the PEC? This is a generation of Left leaning politicians who have never owned their own business. Pretend they're your friend. Only know about academics (theory NOT real world experience). Have a history of radical groups association like radical, racial, environmental groups from the 1960s/70s. So they're all indoctrinated by some whack-job, anti-Western ideology. They always use political correctness to divide the people. They are often from privileged upper-middle class backgrounds. They lie about being in the working class. (They really do live in Ivory Towers). And finally, they always act like they know what's good for everyone! (They will ram policy through and ignore the public!)

The only solution is to keep pointing out their BS and vote them out. (Before that, one has to clean up the Republicans. Something is very wrong with this current generation. Why are some of them siding with Democrats and turning against fellow Republicans?)

This is where America and Australia diverge in the last 12 months.

America kept with Obama in 2012...And are paying for it.

Australia recently voted the Loony Left out on Sept 7. (In this case, its like having Democrats and radical Environmentalists getting their butts handed to them in favour of Conservatives and Libertarian independents.) ...The latter group has torn down the faux "Climate Change Commission" (taxpayer funded fear-mongering organisation).

The Left only know how to get elected. They have no idea how to govern! Its why they make a mess of everything! Waste money. Well intentioned but poorly executed policies...The good thing about them is that they cannot last long as their behaviour is the very thing that will eventually cause the public to turn on them.

...Yes, I know the Mainstream Media backs the Left. We see it in Australia as well.

For those who love their country, don't give up. The Left always rely on their opposition to give up. They will not stop until they get their way. That includes destroying an entire nation and get away with it!

Don't let this bastard destroy you. Stand your ground.




RE: Its fundamentally flawed...
By senecarr on 10/2/2013 10:42:27 AM , Rating: 3
It's funny because despite everything wrong you've listed, your system works better than America's system before the ACA.
1. America spends more per capita on healthcare for less results than other developed countries, period. I believe we even spend more per capita just in current government spending compared to other developed nations
2. Your claim that the costs are rising so it must be unsustainable has a flaw - PRIVATE CARE COSTS IN THE USA ARE RISING EVEN FASTER THAN ELSEWHERE. So if Government healthcare is unsustainable, private is even less so.
3. Yes, because no one ever died waiting to see a doctor here in the USA. This happens everywhere. People don't always get seen in time. In the good USA, we double down by also having people die simply because they couldn't afford it - including people already having insurance!

Basically, you're trying to listen a bunch of anecdotes as reasons a system is worse, when actual statistics will show Australia is doing much better than the USA in terms of healthcare.


RE: Its fundamentally flawed...
By jahwarrior on 10/2/2013 2:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
PRIVATE CARE COSTS IN THE USA ARE RISING EVEN FASTER THAN ELSEWHERE.

Duh, because the government underpays on medicare, and those in the private insurance market make up the difference!!
At least prior to ACA insurance companies could lose money on insurance plans, now ACA guarantees an 85% loss ratio, which will guarantee a massive premium increase each year.

Everything the government touches and taxes gets more expensive. Just wait a few years and see how large the bureaucracy grows to manage ACA.


RE: Its fundamentally flawed...
By flatrock on 10/2/2013 3:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
We also pay more for medicines because price controls in other parts of the world push drug companies to recoup their costs in the United States. The drugs cost less to produce than they can sell them for in other countries, but they pay off what it cost to develop the drugs and earn a reasonable profit at those rates, so the costs get shifted a markets without price controls (the United States).


RE: Its fundamentally flawed...
By flatrock on 10/2/2013 3:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever lived in another country that has government run health care? You are relying on statistics produced by people trying to justify government health care. He is relying on first hand experience. I lived in the US most of my life but have been living in Canada for the last few years. The US health care system is FAR better than Canada's. In the US if you lack insurance you could be forced to go to a hospital where they cannot deny you necessary care. You may walk out bankrupt, but you have a better chance of walking out.
A wait of a couple weeks to get in to see a specialist in the US is often a wait of three to nine months in Canada. Even if your problem isn't life threatening, letting serious medical conditions wait 9 or more months for treatment tends to lower people's quality of life, and also tends to create other medical issues.
Even though everyone has healthcare, most don't have family doctors because there aren't enough doctors to go around. You have a medical issue, you go to the clinic. Works well enough for some things, but it sucks for diagnosing things early because the doctors see far too many patients, don't get to spend much time with them, and don't have a good opportunity to see that something has changed in a patient.

I don't know what to tell you about your statistics other than it is easy to lie with statistics depending on what you include and what you leave out. Your statistics make no rational sense. In socialized medicine there aren't enough doctors. There isn't enough diagnostic equipment. There are long waits for what there is.

One of the reasons the overall costs of medical care in the US is because those without insurance are forced to go to emergency rooms where they can't be refused care. That is expensive, but those people have the opportunity for better care. The fact that it may bankrupt them obviously discourages many and causes cases where they some don't get the care they need, but the solution can't be to lower the quality of the system to improve accessibility for some.


RE: Its fundamentally flawed...
By flatrock on 10/2/2013 3:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'm currently living in Canada and my wife knows two people who have died from cancer in the last few years who would have had a decent chance if they could have gotten to see a specialist and gotten treatment within a reasonable period of time.
I have an extended family member who waited most of a year before he could get knee surgery. Waiting that long and hobbling around for so long has damaged his other knee.
Ever had you kid get hurt or really sick on a weekend and have to take them to an emergency room? The fastest I have seen a doctor in the emergency room there when it wasn't obviously immediately life threatening was over 5 hours.
There simply aren't enough doctors. Break a bone and need to the hospital to get a cast on it? Plan on waiting at least 5 hours, and possibly not get in that day and have to wait until the next day.
You can complain to the doctors the administrators or anyone else all you like, but they are generally doing what they can with the funds allocated to them. Sure there is room for improvement, but the biggest problems is that the government has to constrain costs and that means that care gets limited.


RE: Its fundamentally flawed...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/3/2013 2:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Government's cannot keep the cost of healthcare down. That's impossible. It is what it is.

They CAN, however, ration care. Which is what's happening in Canada.

The American healthcare system was an amazing model for the entire world. NOWHERE else was such a high level of care so easily available, for so many.

Where did it all start to go wrong? The Government increasingly got involved in it.


It only costs $2300 to buy off the president?
By amanojaku on 10/1/2013 6:34:30 PM , Rating: 5
Hot damn! I got a whole bunch of things I'd like to see changed! ;)




RE: It only costs $2300 to buy off the president?
By amanojaku on 10/1/2013 7:12:26 PM , Rating: 3
It was a joke, man. As an individual, you're only allow to donate $2,500 to each candidate. I do believe our politicians are bought (PACs, lobbyists, etc...), but for much larger sums, and in much subtler ways. There are the post-political speaking gigs, corporate executive jobs, investment opportunities, etc... Things you and I never get.


RE: It only costs $2300 to buy off the president?
By Spuke on 10/1/2013 7:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
We need to form our own Super PAC.


By amanojaku on 10/2/2013 12:56:04 AM , Rating: 1
Cool! I'd like to support a platform that puts lasers on sharks, and brings back the Swedish Bikini Team. Also, politicians should be forced into threesomes with Roseanne Barr (who has to sing the entire time) and Richard Simmons.


obama wouldnt know how to run a business either
By bond007taz on 10/1/13, Rating: 0
RE: obama wouldnt know how to run a business either
By Shig on 10/2/2013 2:22:13 AM , Rating: 2
We should have named it BoehnerCare, that would have sold!


RE: obama wouldnt know how to run a business either
By boeush on 10/2/2013 3:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
Well, actually it was called RomneyCare long before it was called ObamaCare...


By Nfarce on 10/3/2013 9:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
Actually that's a typical liberal lie. Romney's MA health care plan had VERY little in common with what is in Obamacare. VERY little. And keep in mind the state of MA is VERY liberal. Third, don't forget that the Democrats that rammed through Obamacare in the middle of the night admitted to NOT EVEN reading it!


By senecarr on 10/2/2013 10:33:26 AM , Rating: 3
So who did he blame in this instance? I don't see him blaming anyone. He acknowledge there are issues without blaming anyone.


By Skywalker123 on 10/2/2013 10:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
Thats because he would have to blame himself or Democrats, and he has never accepted responsibility for any mistakes.


Great
By bug77 on 10/2/2013 6:09:29 AM , Rating: 2
He couldn't even mimic neutrality and forget about mentioning Apple at least for a while. You know, after just having pulled them out of a big mess...




RE: Great
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/2/2013 10:02:51 AM , Rating: 2
What do you expect. Obama makes sure his investors are well taken care of and that they get as much free presidential-level publicity that they could ever ask for.


RE: Great
By bug77 on 10/2/2013 11:02:07 AM , Rating: 2
He could be more discreet about it, couldn't he?


RE: Great
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/2/2013 12:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, you would think so.

I'm afraid discretion doesn't seem to be his strong suit.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/sites/computerworld...


imbecile
By trajan24 on 10/2/2013 6:35:00 AM , Rating: 2
Such a stupid comment. One doesn't HAVE to pay Apple. And wait until many find out their doctor won't accept it. That'll be fun.




RE: imbecile
By bupkus on 10/2/2013 1:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And wait until many find out their doctor won't accept it. That'll be fun.
Switch to a doctor who will. Those doctors that don't accept OC won't have a problem signing up Tea Party enthusiasts, right?


RE: imbecile
By ianweck on 10/2/2013 3:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
But Obama said I could keep my doctor.


By superstition on 10/1/2013 10:56:46 PM , Rating: 4
Oh, that's right... global warming.




And in other news...
By inperfectdarkness on 10/2/2013 7:24:27 AM , Rating: 3
Apple sues the US government for copying it's iOS. :D




By Amiga500 on 10/2/2013 2:22:14 AM , Rating: 2
That Obama was right - Americans do want this?

But, I suppose the question that is really on everyone's lips is - at what time did you get signed up Reclaimer? ;-)




First tweet was WAAAY off
By msheredy on 10/2/2013 11:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Millions want to #GetCovered


More like Millions have to #GetCovered




By HoosierEngineer5 on 10/2/2013 11:44:29 AM , Rating: 2
seems to have found a compatible host.




By WhatKaniSay on 10/3/2013 12:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many love Apple, but it's also a controversial company, so it's an interesting choice for the President to pick


So when you disagree or dislike a company, their products, and/or way of doing business, --- that authomatically makes such a company "Controversial"? Seriously?
Using your logic, that means Microsoft, Google, AT&T, and Yours-Trully DailyTech.com are ALL "Controversial Companies"? Because they are more than a handful of people that just dont like them.

Please can you educate us by expanding on your "Controversial" label on Apple. Do provide verifiable evidence, Not product review opinion post.




By enlil242 on 10/6/2013 10:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
I do not know why a law called "affordable care" act would need an insurance mandate at all... If we abolished the insurance carriers altogether, healthcare providers would have no choice but to make their services affordable, without an organization to send a bill too. How many of you ever saw that notice that comes in that says, "This is NOT a bill..." and goes on a lists a number of line items that total up to an outrageous charge? we don't care because the "insurance carrier" picks it up, or 80%...

Why do you think eye exams, glasses, contact lenses and lasik surgery is so affordable now? Because it isn't included in in 99% of insurance plans. Those providers would not be charging what they charge if BCBS covered those.

In my opinion, Obama should have left preventative care alone, and only implemented a fix for long term, or emergency care.




GTA online
By Da W on 10/2/2013 8:04:04 AM , Rating: 1
Could have said like GTA online.




eh???
By EasyC on 10/2/2013 10:25:23 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's not how we do things in America. We don't actively root for failure.


Really? I'm pretty sure I root for Apple's failure.

On a more serious note. We need more failure in government. It's the only way things will change enough to actually produce something worthwhile.




Doesn't look like a Federal Government website.
By SAN-Man on 10/1/13, Rating: -1
RE: Doesn't look like a Federal Government website.
By boeush on 10/1/2013 9:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
So, the .gov top-level domain or the name of the web site itself (at top of page, prominently displayed), weren't enough to clue you in?


By Solandri on 10/2/2013 1:39:29 AM , Rating: 2
At least they used a .gov domain this time. For your government-mandated free credit report, you have to go to annualcreditreport.com. Unfortunately there a plethora of copycat .com sites with names that make you think they're the official site (including some by the credit agencies themselves), but which sign you up and auto-charge you for credit monitoring services.


RE: Doesn't look like a Federal Government website.
By Samus on 10/2/2013 12:48:00 AM , Rating: 2
You can't be serious...


By Reclaimer77 on 10/2/2013 12:55:51 AM , Rating: 1
Of course I am because it's all true.

You know I love you people. Maybe months ago you could make these claims, where there were still unknowns. But today, right now, knowing what we know, how can you honestly still deny how horrible Obamacare is for everyone?

Rates are going up, this is a fact. And companies are ALREADY cutting full time employment to get away from Obamacare. These are both goddamn facts. And it's only going to get worse as time goes by.

What exactly was I not being "serious" about? Time to put aside the ideology and deal in facts.


RE: Doesn't look like a Federal Government website.
By Shig on 10/2/2013 1:49:27 AM , Rating: 5
You're fact based links are of course absent per usual.


By Monkey's Uncle on 10/2/2013 9:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
The truth of it will show up in a couple months as the latest unemployment figures get posted.

You just have to make sure your head isn't stuck deeply in the sand when it does.


RE: Doesn't look like a Federal Government website.
By Rukkian on 10/2/2013 10:36:22 AM , Rating: 2
While there may be layoffs, in the end, companies need workers to get work done. Some a-hole execs may drop employees to help their short term balance sheet, but that is always possible. In the end, all of the good employees go somewhere that treats them better, and their productivity bottoms out worse.

Last I checked, there were no more indentured servents are in the country, and people are welcome to work where they want.

I don't particularly think this is a great piece of legislation, or the full answer to our health care problems, but imo it is better than what the Reps have proposed (absolutely nothing).


By Skywalker123 on 10/3/2013 1:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
Its not just layoffs, companies are reducing hours to get out of obamacare. they can just hire a few more part timers if necessary.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/2/2013 10:26:04 AM , Rating: 2
Then it becomes the 'attack the source' game. I should know, I do it to others all the time.

At this point I would hope people informed themselves enough that we would be past needing others to link facts for you. But who am I kidding? Ignorance is how we got here in the first place...


By ianweck on 10/2/2013 3:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry, he knows exactly what you're talking about. Liberal deflection, that's all that is.


By Skywalker123 on 10/2/2013 10:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
You don't read much do you? Dozens of companies are reducing employees hours in order to get out of paying for their insurance.


By senecarr on 10/2/2013 10:55:52 AM , Rating: 2
So before the ACA, insurance rates stayed the same every year? Do you also manage to buy loaves of bread for 5 cents like in the 1960s? So sick of people making this underhanded ploy to use inflation to catch people in ignorance. Before the ACA, insurance costs were rising a runaway rate compared to inflation. If you're willing to say the ACA is behind the current prices, I guess you should be praising it, as the medical inflation is the lowest it has been?
Places cutting employees are using it as a way to spread ideology. The employer mandate doesn't start until 2015. On top of that, it looks at number of full time employee equivalents to determine how many people should show up on the company insurance offerings.


By robinthakur on 10/2/2013 5:42:53 AM , Rating: 2
You're right, that it is indeed embarrassing that whether or not to offer universal free or 'affordable' healthcare is such a talking point in America that you are willing to shut down the entire government and also risk shaking the entire world's economy, over what is a fairly straight forward domestic issue. From the outside it seems like some laughable, childish, power-play.

If you were unemployed and couldn't afford health insurance, can I ask how would you manage if you got seriously ill? At least in the UK we have had the NHS since 1948, which whilst not being perfect is a darn sight better than having no healthcare provision at all, and you have the option to go private if you can afford it.

I'm a conservative and I believe that you can judge a society by how it treats its poorest and most vulnerable. I also think the Republicans are the biggest threat to America's overall health right now because they are just behaving vindictively to hurt Obama. If they stop the lifting of the debt ceiling later in October, and America defaults on its sovereign debt because of it, you will have global financial meltdown overnight, and they will be entirely to blame.


By theapparition on 10/2/2013 10:11:52 AM , Rating: 1
Unfortunately, being a foreigner, you have no idea how this works.

First off, it is illegal to deny emergency care. But for any other procedure, even if you don't have the money, there are programs that all doctors and hospitals have.

Simply put, if I didn't have health insurance today, and was diagnosed with cancer, I would be able to get treatments, either for free or at reduced cost. The idea that Americans without insurance get tossed in the trash is complete FUD.


RE: Doesn't look like a Federal Government website.
By rdhood on 10/2/2013 10:23:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you were unemployed and couldn't afford health insurance, can I ask how would you manage if you got seriously ill?


Go to the Hospital emergency room. Hospitals in this country are REQUIRED to help. Almost every county in the U.S. has a free clinic. The Democrats give folks the idea that there are 50 million people without any healthcare at all, and that is just plain false. Just about any healthcare a person NEEDS, they get. But anything considered elective would be denied. Most things considered preventive would also be denied. Thus, its NOT like there is "no provision at all".


RE: Doesn't look like a Federal Government website.
By Rukkian on 10/2/2013 10:41:44 AM , Rating: 3
So instead of getting people routine checkups and helping to prevent major emergency issues, you think it is better to make them wait until it is an emergency, clogging up the ER and costing us 10x what it would take to just get it taken care of as a preventive measure? We end up paying for that anyways, and many people still die because they couldn't get treatment until it was too late.


By M'n'M on 10/3/2013 1:14:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So instead of getting people routine checkups and helping to prevent major emergency issues, you think it is better to make them wait until it is an emergency, clogging up the ER and costing us 10x what it would take to just get it taken care of as a preventive measure? We end up paying for that anyways, and many people still die because they couldn't get treatment until it was too late.

Do you honestly believe the above will save any $$s ? How often do you go for a checkup ? What does the Doc always say ? Do you actually then get more exercise and eat less ? No, like most Americans you ignore the Doc's advise until it smacks you in the face. It's not the ER charges, it's the care for the chronic condition that truly costs $$s. It's care for people in the last year or 2 that drives costs. This because you used to die quickly and relatively inexpensively but now we can treat, but not cure you. You live another year or 2 but at an outrageous cost.

What are the top 3 causes of death ? Heart disease, cancer and lung disease. How much of that disease is caused by lifestyle choices ? Until the Docs advice becomes orders (w/fines for not complying), nothing will change.

Obamacare, like Romneycare will get people covered and better treatment. This will increase costs, as it has here in MA. Nothing, under either, actually addresses the true reasons of ever increasing healthcare costs.


By senecarr on 10/2/2013 11:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
So because you feel 50 million uninsured is a lie, you're going to counter by telling a lie back? There are people that go untreated because they don't have insurance. If you show up in the emergency room with cancer, they aren't exactly going to give you a whole year of chemo and put you back out the door.


By jahwarrior on 10/2/2013 3:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
You hit the nail on the head, prior to ACA Americans had an incentive to work, health insurance!, yes any american or foreigner can show up in a US hospital and get emergency care. But if you want preventative care, treatment for a critical illness you had to go to a clinic or pay out of pocket.

ACA will ultimately take the incentive to work away and also shift the cost of care from american corporations to american tax payers. Prior to ACA american employers paid massive premium bills to insure their employees now those massive bills get shifted to the taxpayer. It's going to be great for shareholders and bad for the middle class, just wait for the Hilary 2016 tax increase!


By Rukkian on 10/2/2013 3:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
So the only reason people worked was for the health insurance?

Maybe I am in the minority here, but I actually want a paycheck. There are other things in life than health care.

Personally, I would rather have employers just give me the money they spend on Health Insurance and let me take care of myself. I keep in relatively good shape, and rarely does anybody in my family need to see a doctor, yet, I am stuck with what my employer thinks I need. While I can buy my own, they will not give me the money I saved them, so there is no incentive.


By WhatKaniSay on 10/3/2013 1:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Go to the Hospital emergency room. Hospitals in this country are REQUIRED to help. Almost every county in the U.S. has a free clinic.


I hope you realize that the FREE "Emergency Room & Clinic" you listed are ALL subsidized in one way or another by the same "evil government programs" you hate so much?
Have you ever wondered why they are FREE?
How many times have you walked into McDonalds or any other restaurant and get FREE lunch because you are broke and needed emergency meal?

Ever wondered why emergency rooms and Clinics can offer FREE care but Restaurants Don’t?
Here is your October surprise! Government is financially involved in ER/clinic but not in restaurants.
Those ER/Clinics are directly funded by the govt or gets Tax credit or some other indirect compensation for non-paying patients.


RE: Doesn't look like a Federal Government website.
By ianweck on 10/2/2013 3:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're right, that it is indeed embarrassing that whether or not to offer universal free or 'affordable' healthcare is such a talking point in America that you are willing to shut down the entire government and also risk shaking the entire world's economy, over what is a fairly straight forward domestic issue. From the outside it seems like some laughable, childish, power-play.


You're right, it's sad that it has come to this. Thank Obama for it, if he were a leader he would have sat down with the opposition and this could have been avoided. Just because he says he is willing to negotiate doesn't mean he actually is negotiating. How many times have you read an Obama or Reid quote that stated something like "there will be no negotiations"? That's not leadership.
Here, I'll get you started. This was way back in 2010. Even then he was closed to Republican input. I say leave the government shut down

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/08/health.care...

quote:
I'm a conservative and I believe that you can judge a society by how it treats its poorest and most vulnerable. I also think the Republicans are the biggest threat to America's overall health right now because they are just behaving vindictively to hurt Obama. If they stop the lifting of the debt ceiling later in October, and America defaults on its sovereign debt because of it, you will have global financial meltdown overnight, and they will be entirely to blame.


If you're really a conservative then you'll be happy to know that American conservatives actually do care about the poor, and don't just talk a good game about it. Old link but probably still valid, I don't see Liberals changing anytime soon:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristo...

And sorry, I disagree with your opinion that Republicans would be to blame about not lifting the debt ceiling. We will stop the spending, one way or another. Again, if Obama were a leader instead of a king, he would get in front of the next crisis. But that's not his style.


By Rukkian on 10/2/2013 4:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
Obama is not a leader, I think that has been shown, but what has also been shown, time and time again is that the Republicans want to do nothing but try to make sure Obama gets nothing accomplished. They spent the first 4 years doing only what they thought would get Obama not re-elected, and when that strategy failed, they decided to keep doing the same thing anyways.

Neither party right now is doing anything that is right for the country, only what helps their own pocketbooks.


By sorry dog on 10/2/2013 6:40:41 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I was trying to check my rates...

I figured at 4am the site shouldn't be too busy... but nope. Says there are lots of visitor and they are working to make the experience better...but they would keep my place in line.

yeah, right. My place in line on a website?


RE: Doesn't look like a Federal Government website.
By KCjoker on 10/2/2013 6:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
Also Obama said it would be deficit NEUTRAL and the CBO continues to increase what it'll cost as we all learn more about it. I hope the Republicans don't cave because this Law is completely insane. One last thing...quit calling it Obamacare....call it what it really is the largest tax increase on the middle class in history................ObamacareTAX


By prophet001 on 10/4/2013 9:00:42 AM , Rating: 2
You sir....

.... are 100% correct.


By Monkey's Uncle on 10/2/2013 6:15:55 PM , Rating: 1
Have you ever tried to create a domain with a ".gov" suffix?

Try it sometime and let us know how that works out for ya.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki