<p>So because some sick people had insurance, ALL sick people had insurance? Incorrect. </p>
<p>There are problems and then there are problems, LasMa. The ‘no law’s perfect’ excuse, while technically true, ignores that there are good ones and ones that just stink. </p>
<p>If pointing out deficiencies somehow makes one a child hater, so be it. Whenever that pure soul shows up, the paragon that hasn’t ever done it, the chastisement may even sting.</p>
<p>ACA is not perfect, either in design or execution. It never has been and it never will be, although it will get better as time goes on. Networks and formularies will widen. The website will function as intended. Medicaid will expand in most if not all states (maybe you don’t see that as a good thing). But opponents of the law have often had the motto “It’s not perfect, so the only option is to dump it.” You seem to imply that there was a better option out there that we didn’t take, but of course, there wasn’t. This is what we have, and it is helping my D and millions of others. </p>
<p>Of course, there were other options. It was passed based on lies in the middle of the night on a holiday weekend. It’s 3.000 pages that nearly no-one read in total or understood. It was written by lobbyists one chunk at a time. We can agree, it’s not perfect.</p>
<p>We took the option that a select group wanted, LasMa.</p>
<p>If the goal was simply to insure some that weren’t, then that could have been done in a variety of ways. That the goal was in fact a lot more ambitious means there’s a whole lot of metrics to meet and, so far: it looks like it’ll turn out to be a rodeo of inadequate cost projections and piss-poor customer satisfaction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that written anywhere in the law? If not, how can you be so sure?</p>
<p>I already posted this last week:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Insurers see brighter ACA skies - POLITICO”>http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/health-insurers-obamacare-105676.html</a></p>
<p>Expanding offerings = more competition. More competition = better coverage, wider networks, or lower premiums, or all three. Insurers will need to find a way to distinguish themselves from their competitors.</p>
<p>The Politico piece about the back-end of the system remaining unfinished also means that the govt is just going to have to pay the insurance companies whatever they ask for because it will be impossible to determine if subscribers have honestly reported their income for 2014. The back-end is much tougher to build than the front-end so I doubt you will see a functioning system in our lifetime. Still, even if the front and back-ends were functioning perfectly, the system in where it matters most, providing quality medical care at prices which are not cost prohibitive for the middle class, is a colossal failure.</p>
<p>Way back late last fall, when the news there was no back-end was the rage, there was also a lot of concern about the security of the average user’s data. The stuff that Google van-loads of Russian and Nigerian entrepreneurs tend to find so fascinating.</p>
<p>Any reports that’s been been fixed or is it too still on the wish list?</p>
<p>Sorry to say this, but I do think some of the naysayers aren’t fully thinking this through. You find some article and run with it, drop snarky comments you actually probably believe. All the while, I don’t see some of you have the real experience with ACA others of us do, I’m not sure, eg, that GP (and maybe dietz) are following the same logic in assessing options that some of us are. Last night being a good example.</p>
<p>group A prefers to just go with the image presented Really baloney. You imply we think this through superficially. In the meantime, countless times, we have had to correct the info the naysayers have put forth as proofs. </p>
<p>Now cat is suggesting we’re dishing private info to Nigerians and Russians- where do you really come up with this? How do you let it go out, unedited? Why? This is Bogeyman thinking.</p>
<p>Group B - those who look behind the banner headlines, questionable numbers, and massaged budget figures… Also baloney. Think of all the crappy, slanted links put forth and the pleas for some vetting. </p>
<p>Let me make this clear: imo, a bunch of you are armchair critics, delighted at each skeeter bite. Unable to wait to watch weekly developments. Hardly waiting to say, “Told you so.” </p>
<p>I wouldn’t mind the arguing from ‘different perspectives,’ if it just weren’t for all the crap spewed.</p>
<p>LF: One persons crap is another person’s POV, or actually - their very real, boots on the ground, situation. </p>
<p>Telling others they are spewing crappage, or even better "you heartless person, you want to see my child suffer with cancer "- and then cue the beautiful violin music yet again, might make the poster go away. But, the issues and concerns do not go away when the voice is silenced. Kind of like saying ‘racists’ in order to bring the discussion to a halt.</p>
<p>And like you…I also
. It’s lauded when one stands up for the downtrodden (of course using other peoples financial input makes the lauding even easier). It is considered selfish, short sighted and callous cancer children abusing to voice the very real position that for some of us…things have gotten worse.</p>
<p>Some of the ‘crap spewers’ have figured a work around…some of us are passing the costs on to our customers. In order to spend as much time as we (all) do banging away on CC, we have the luxury of free time. So, all in all, we’re a self selected group. But, that said, it seems that the ‘crap spewers’ really are not contributing anything to further the level of discussion. What say…fellow spewers…we leave the cheer squad???</p>
<p>The fact that one politico article - which tells the story of how networks will expand - is seen as valuable, and another politico article which raises warning flags about a large problem - is poo pooed or not addressed simply highlights the majority view on this thread.</p>
<p>One persons crap is another person’s POV, or actually - their very real, boots on the ground, situation. Then please respect that, quit with the Universal Studios, (and the fast adds of Oz and Emperor’s,) cheerleaders, repeatedly bringing in media that either mocks or whines, etc. Some nays have only very rarely acknowledged the downtrodden on this thread, btw, the real little guys who also need this- except to insist they won’t find medical care, not in CA, not anywhere. (Or that they are fat ladies buying candy in WalMart and brought all their woes upon themselves, so the H with them.) GP wants Cedars and a broad network, so everyone will somehow suffer his lack of satisfaction. Very much an individual perspective. </p>
<p>Understand that, just because someone can post some article that supports his/her nay view,doesn’t mean the rest of us aren’t finding links of our own. But ours point fingers at politics, name some names that can’t be linked here, some very specific history and actions. Somehow, this disparity has falsely empowered one side into thinking the others have no back-up. And the jeering continues.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hope you are correct, but personally I don’t see the logical connection that more competition will necessarily lead to wider networks. On the contrary, in a regulated industry, the low cost producer wins. Since wider networks and wider formularies will increase costs, I would hesitate to assume that they are given. But that’s just my $0.02.</p>
<p>
The humor, weak as you found it to be, was to lighten up the fairly grim reality of identity theft. Shopping online - where you’re sharing only a fraction of the exchange information - has it’s own risks and that’s with what most would consider fairly well-tested security protocols. That there were a lot of security experts saying last fall that exchange security was weak, and no memorable corrections reported over the last few months, made me wonder if anyone had heard of the problem being corrected.</p>
<p>One of the more recent hits from the google:
In other words, the problem seems to have disappeared. Possibly, due to a lack of press coverage. </p>
<p>Here’s hoping the delays in the roll-out continue - myself, I don’t want to wake up one morning to find that several extended familes of scammers adopted my surname as their own,</p>
<p>I’m sorry you are so stressed out about online security. My heart bleeds for you.</p>
<p>The empathy’s both noted and appreciated, calmom. </p>
<p>Thought of you, too, when I read that Politico piece:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I recall you explaining that the enrollment process didn’t allow for error in counting sign-ups. Something about the data being unique to the individual or some such thing and imaginary friends not having a chance to get counted.</p>
<p>Your thoughts as to why the U of M guy’s expressing a little concern?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Either there is a market for wider networks, or there is not. </p>
<p>If there is a market for wider networks-- if some people are eager to pay more in order to get a wider network-- then you’ve got to figure that some insurance company will be happy to meet that demand in order to pick off those lucrative high-paying customers. Insurance companies make a percentage of the premiums as profit, so the higher the premiums, the higher the profit.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if there is not adequate demand for wider networks, well, then, not enough people want them, and no insurance company will offer them. In that case, those few people who are willing to pony up the extra bucks are to be pitied, but after all, one can’t expect businesses to offer a product people don’t want.</p>
<p>Catahoula wrote:
You are. I never said or would have written anything of the kind. </p>
<p>Of course I am. Guess I should have searched before recollecting:
‘Small amount’ is enough room to drive a flat-bed through with nary a scrape, isn’t it?</p>
<p>How in the world do you equate the statement “doesn’t allow for error” to “small amount of double-counting”.?</p>
<p>Anyone who has ever spent any time at all managing a mailing list database knows that some duplicate records are to be expected – but obviously a database keyed to a unique identifier like a social security number will tend to have less errors. (But still a few )</p>