You put up with CRAPPY iOS 7. You can put up with Obamacare too, says prez President Barack Obama has urged Americans to be patient during the launch of his US healthcare reforms - reminding them that Apple's iOS 7 rollout suffered glitches too and yet everyone put up with that. The website for the country's new health insurance "marketplace" - dubbed Obamacare - has been beset with problems amid a …
If you don't like Android, you can switch to iOS or Windows Phone. With the ACA, users are being forced to buy a Palm Pilot with BMW prices. We're not talking about forms bugs here or misspellings. What's going on here is an epic fail. The White House also tried to hide how many pages are required in some of their forms by placing some of them in an "appendix". Clever they are.
BMW prices? That's debatable but at least people are going to get the service they need when they need it.
To use your metaphor, people in the past would pay for their phone every month and then, when they had to make a call, were likely to be kicked off the service...
Well said.
Let's not forget that the whole point of this is to force the healthy younger generation in their mid-20s to 30s buying full insurance they likely won't need to theoretically drive down the cost of insurance for the elderly and those with "pre-existing" conditions. I don't see it reducing the percentage of GDP spent on health care since any decreases in the amount spent in one group will be more than made up for by the cost imposed on another. It's just another tax to shift money around under the guise of commerce.
The question the ACA doesn't address is the potential shortage of doctors which may or may not materialize.
In 2009 I was promised that if I had a insurance policy I liked, I could keep it. Recently, Senator Bill Nelson told me the same thing in an email -- responding to a copy of my policy cancellation letter because my insurance provider would no longer be allowed to contract my policy with me.
The premium for a replacement policy provided through the "marketplace" is lower than my premium, but the policy comes with a deductible whereas mine has a co-pay, and over-all my out-of-pocket expenses will increase.
I have lifetime warranties on my US Robotics 56k Sportsters. During a firmware upgrade, one of them "bricked." When I contacted USR I was told that the utility they provided on the product page was bad and I shouldn't have used it. When I asked about the lifetime warranty, they guy asked me if I had registered my modem. Of course I had, and I even still have the box which notes the lifetime warranty with a serial number which matches the modem. Then I was asked if I still had confirmation of my registration. Well, actually, no, I don't. You see, we moved away from that old system a long time ago and no longer have access to those registrations, so unless you can provide proof of registration we cannot honor the warranty.
A lifetime warranty with no promise of service.
> Obama missed a trick here, he should have offered a free assault rifle with every Obamacare Policy...
> The Republicans would have been running to vote for that....
With others in control of what I am allowed to buy, I entirely expect that the increase in my monthly insurance premiums will be so bad that the difference would be enough to buy an entirely new "assault rifle" every month.
I would be much less opposed to a new tax than corporate welfare for the insurance industry.
Pre-ACA ie current situation is that US spends at least double on healthcare compared to Canada, UK, France, Japan, Germany and comparable western countries*. US Government spends about half of that, meaning US government already spends a little bit more than all the other governments, and on top of that US citizens spend the same again (while citizens of the other countries spend next to nothing). At the same time, US has the highest infant mortality rate, and the lowest life expectancy at birth.
So, actually, US already has Palm Pilot with BMW prices.
ACA aims to get a bit more quality with a bit less cost, and good luck with that. However I think US will never have a good** healthcare system as long as they continue to regard any government-run health service as a commie plot against their freedoms.
*source - Financial Times a couple of days ago. Costs are in %age of GDP
**meaning, comparable results to the countries mentioned above, at comparable cost
> "According to our records it looks like you vote Republican. The medical procedure you need will be denied at this time."
If you manage your finances consistent with your stated political views, that won't be a problem.
Just pay cash. Take it out of your HSA.
Being a ward of the state is simply unnecessary.
Since I got voted up and this site is mainly visited by socialists people must have misunderstood. Let me make clear what I meant: This "health care" system will be used as a weapon against people critical of the Obama regime just as the IRS was and still is. Count on it.
And with ACA we will get a Classic Bell rotary-dial POTS for BMW prices. But it will be government subsidized.
The problem is when the consumer and the payer are not one and the same then the provider loses motivation to please the consumer or hold down prices. The provider is motivated to increase prices and not fix the consumer's problem so the consumer has to keep coming back time and time again.
What we need is to ban mandatory healthcare insurance, just the opposite of what ACA attempts to do. Ban employer-provided healthcare insurance, just the opposite of what ACA attempts to do. Those who desire healthcare insurance should have to shop for it, and pay for it, out of their own unsubsidized pocket.
Employers who are no longer paying for healthcare insurance can make those payments direct to their employees instead.
Look what has happened to the cost of lasik, rarely covered by insurance. Look what has happened to the cost of eyeglasses, rarely covered by insurance. Look what has happened to the cost of dental care, not covered as often by insurance. All have gone down almost as much as AAPL has gone up.
What about The Poor? Open free clinics. Limit the care, no heart bypasses, no liver or kidney transplants.
This post has been deleted by its author
No, indeed, I'm sure that Ben Franklin would have been much happier with disproportionate levels of infant mortality, the poorest in society being left to die because they didn't have enough money and the rich paying a disproportionate amount of money for their health care. Especially when the rest of the comparable world seems to pay far less for better systems of health care.
The poorest aren't "left to die". If anything they abuse emergency services and are a disproportunate drain on the system. Since hospitals (even non-profits) are essentially run by profiteers, they have no interest in curbing this. They also inflate their invoices making any analysis of healthcare in general more difficult.
More insurance is really not the solution to that problem.
>> If anything they abuse emergency services and are a disproportunate drain on the system.
> Spurious malpractice litigation is, by orders of magnitude, a bigger abuse of the system than 'the poorest' draining the emergency services.
A single ER visit is likely to run 10K without even getting into treatment.
Med-Mal premiums for an ER doctor are 70K.
Your tort-reform astroturfing is just poorly informed nonsense.
"Since hospitals (even non-profits) are essentially run by profiteers, they have no interest in curbing this. They also inflate their invoices making any analysis of healthcare in general more difficult."
Ain't "free" enterprise grand !
Corporate welfare is fine (GM etc), but everyone else can fend for themselves, and the Devil take the hindmost.
The rest of the "comparable world" comes to the US when they have real health issues. Pre-ACA the reimbursements for Medicare and Medicaid to doctors are so low that doctors that can are refusing new patients if they are on Government Health plans. The good doctors that I see right now say they will close up shop if the ACA becomes law because they won't be able to pay their bills with the ultra-low payments.
I don't know how doctors ever pay off their college bills with the high costs of running a medical practice and protect oneself from frivolous lawsuits (read: malpractice insurance).
"The rest of the "comparable world" comes to the US when they have real health issues"
Just because there are a couple of examples of people coming to the USA for extremely specialist treatment, doesn't equate to your statement. Furthermore, I would rather live in a country where routine treatment is given to everyone - before it becomes a complex expensive life threatening problem - and ultra specialist treatment wasn't as easy to get. You also imply that no-one ever leaves the USA in order to get treatment elsewhere.
My friends in the US have to pay to see their GP (MD, I believe to Americans) no matter what they go for. This means that poor people don't go to the doctor until things are badly wrong.
The idea that a doctor would refuse a patient in the UK is just something that doesn't compute, with the exception that the patient is violent.
The Hippocratic oath states: Do No Harm.
I think if you go actually look it up you will find that, while the US has the highest infant mortality rate of several western nations, for the past several decades the infant mortality rate has dropped at about the same rate in all of those countries, including the US. Infant mortality has been higher in the US all along, but it has dropped at the same rate as the others. Certainly shows nothing related to the poorest being left to die. For one thing, the poorest have received free healthcare in the US for quite some time. It is those in between that don't have healthcare coverage, in other words those with low paying jobs who make just enough to not qualify for free healthcare.
I still find it amazing that so few in the great USA have proper healthcare, the idea that if you have cancer and don't have a healthcare plan (and even if you do have a crappy plan) you will die much earlier than most other 1st world nations, by earlier I mean "go home and find a gun and shoot someone" early or get treated and die in poverty from going broke.
What is more facinating is the "turkeys voting for christmas" with the hope that "they" personally won't need healthcare so they don't have to pay for someone else who will get ill.
Well if it's what the less well off want let them have it.
"Well if it's what the less well off want let them have it."
It's not what they want - it's one of the two equally nasty options they are being given.
1. No health care unless you are heavily insured (which you can't afford). And when you do claim, you find your specific condition is excluded by the small print anyway. (REPUBLICAN)
2. Government comes to your aid! You are FORCED to buy insurance whether you want to or not, and fined if you don't. (DEMOCRAT)
Not like the UK, where money is forcibly extracted from the more well off and used to pay for everyone's health care. (Except the really well off, who can afford to pay really big insurance premiums).
"@Tom Welsh - In the UK we're FORCED to pay for our health care with National Insurance, taken from our pay, OR unemployment benefits or did you think we got it for free?"
No, because I am British and have lived in the UK for the past 50 years. Thus I have paid well over £100,000 towards the cost of the NHS.
I said the cost was extracted from the better-off; and it is. The better-off, including most of us on this forum, are those who can afford to pay tax. That's the principle of redistribution of wealth, which has been supported and implemented by all governments since 1945.
Incidentally, I did not say whether I like it or not, or whether I approve of it or not. That is not germane.
The contention is that the federal government shouldn't be doing this, and that the states should handle their own healthcare affairs. Let's not forget, the insurance fiasco that was used to justify the ACA was caused by federal regulations severely restricting the ability of us citizens to purchase and maintain health insurance across state lines.
If you want socialised "free" healthcare then follow the Swedish model, which maintains both control and funding of healthcare provision as locally as possible, providing a system that is responsive to local needs rather than the centrally mandated system the us is moving towards.
It's clear that the ACA implements a system similar to the French insurance system, which works works rather well for what it is, but they're doing so in the most intrusive and authoritarian manner possible - in a way that would have the "socialist" French burning down Paris in protest. The amount of detail they require from the individual (all stored in a nice, easily accessible central database - an NSA wet-dream) and the fines that will be levied against those who don't volunteer it are just two issues.
And ask yourself this: if it's so great, why is congress exempt?
It's worth asking that about a lot of laws, come to think of it. If the implementers of the law exempt themselves from its provisions, then it is not a just law.
"And ask yourself this: if it's so great, why is congress exempt?"
I'm not sure that I would be the best person to answer that...can I ask someone else? Or google it to find whether it is actually true...
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/10/that-thing-about-congress-being-exempted-from-obamacare-huge-whopper-lie/
You're repeating "talking points" (euphemism for lies) that come from Republican politicians.
I queried our state exchange to see what policy options exist for someone my age (not quite Medicare eligible) and someone much younger. The prices were quite reasonable, competitive with my current small-employer group plan rate. The intrusive questions they ask are a) your income (to see if you get a subsidy; if you're above the subsidy range, it's just a check-off, no number required), b) your date of birth (old still pays more, though the range is limited), and c) if you smoke. That's it. Then you get a set of prices, and it's all guaranteed issue, so you don't have to worry about being turned down. In my case there are 90 plans offered from about ten private insurance companies.
Compare to the old system, where either your employer bought you a group plan, or you had to try to find private coverage. Which costs a fortune, has exclusions for pre-existing conditions, or they just flat-out refuse to issue the policy because of pre-existing conditions (Healthy Members Only). If the new system is communism (which is like saying that Groucho Marx was a duck), all hail Marx and Lennon!
> Free healthcare socialist or communist?
> Hmm no, I think the word is simply - Civilised.
No. The term for that is socialist and there's really no getting around it.
EMBRACE your inner communist rather than trying to deny it.
Trying to call it something else is just dishonest.
A free society doesn't mean you get free stuff. It means that you have enough free will that you can be responsible for your own success or your own failure.
@JEDDIAH: Socialist is not Communist. Communists are socialists, but that is a subset.
In the UK and much of the rest of the world, we have decided that our free society means that everyone has the right to free (at the point of use) healthcare. There is no point in being free if you're dead because you can't afford the upkeep on your freedom.
"A free society doesn't mean you get free stuff. It means that you have enough free will that you can be responsible for your own success or your own failure."
And that is why universal healthcare is important. Without your health, all the free will in the world is useless.
Ill health strikes the successful as well as the unsuccessful and sometimes all the money in the world can't buy you good health (ask Steve's widow).
I guess all those people who died in the Twin Towers , just didn't have enough free will to want to live, and so their failure is down to them ?
The Democrats and Republicans are essentially playing a game of political "chicken" with peoples lives, livelihoods and the entire US economy.
Actually, they have been for years (or the whole Wall Street crash wouldn't have been possible), only now they are so hardened in their misbehaviour they no longer care anyone notices.
"Us, representatives of the people, don't mind screwing y'all over to score some points."
Some of what is going on in America is utterly disgusting.
The government can't fund unmanned national memorials and parks, but can fund sending out 'troopers' to barricade and ensure no one uses those facilities.
The government can't fund running Government websites, but can fund their ObamaCare website.
Representing the closing the WWII National Memorial to WWII Veterans (or at least trying to) as a law enforcement action, is a perfect example of the kind of nastiness which has taken hold of America.
Still if you're going to defend a privately funded, normally unmanned national memorial being closed to the people who fought for your freedoms, I have the feeling that nothing anyone with any sanity says is going to make an ounce of difference. Good luck with your political beliefs, and good day to you Sir.
It is incredible to me that 'Obamacare' is contentious. There cannot be a country in Europe where the 'Breaking Bad' scenario could exist, and yet it is very much the norm in the 'land of the free'.
I'm currently reading Bill Bryson's One Summer: America 1927 and it is a fascinating read. In many ways that time defined the america that still exists today - one of corporations controlling the people, politics being controlled by the rich, and the illusion of freedom almost sitting in for religion as the 'safety net' that placates the plebeians into servitude.
In fact it's not just parts of the US looking enviously at universal healthcare but also places like Singapore. Universal healthcare is not without its problems, chiefly balancing funding issues and what to spend it on, but it has an enviable track record.
However, as the politics about this in America are so intractable I suspect there is little to be gained by carrying them on here. I would actually like to know more about the computer system that has been set up and seems to be struggling so much. You know: budget, timescale, unrealistic and ever-changing requirements meet unscrupulous vendors.
Oh 1927, you mean "The Good Ole days", well for the Haves, not really for the Have-nots. Imagine working and "earning" so much money that you're able to hire a small army of "servants" to do all the normal toiling associated with a daily life, like cooking, cleaning, driving, watching the children, really anything other than leisure and play.
Have a look at this video, the disparity between the Haves and the Have-nots is A LOT worse than you might think in the U.S.
Wealth Inequality in America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
So tell me more about that "USA Delusions of Superiority" title of yours, just who are you talking about? As a US citizen, I can promise you that I don't have delusions of superiority. That thought doesn't cross my mind when I think about other countries. And I've heard no mention of superiority from family, friends, co-workers or people in general. Maybe you've just got a talent for finding the only bad apple in the basket.
> Of course, because those who have more money deserve to live longer, right?
Yes, but not for the most obvious reason.
The poor deserve to die sooner because they are idiots. They don't live shorter lives because they are poor. They live shorter lives because they are idiots. Their poverty and their shorter lives are both effects of their stupidity.
Longevity and quality of life are a combination of good genetics and sensible lifestyle choices.
Free consumer giveaways are really a red herring here.
"The poor deserve to die sooner because they are idiots. They don't live shorter lives because they are poor. They live shorter lives because they are idiots. Their poverty and their shorter lives are both effects of their stupidity."
I have heard some seriously bigoted views in my time, but that has to be up there around number 1.
The reasons for not having loads of money are many and complex and certainly not just down to intelligence. That said, I take serious exception to the viewpoint that suggests that someone who isn't as intelligent as the rest of society hasn't got the right to live as long as the others in their society. It sickens and disgusts me that anyone could think like that, let alone actually publish their feelings for everyone to read.
Just to clarify once more: The NHS is not free, we all pay for it.
Heil, JEDIDIAH!!!
"Longevity and quality of life are a combination of good genetics and sensible lifestyle choices."
Good genetics is a lottery, and wealth depends also on a good amount of randomness. Sensible lifestyle choices are very difficult to make if you lack the resources -e.g. money, time, ...- and the knowledge and motivation - i.e. education- to carry them out.
"Their poverty and their shorter lives are both effects of their stupidity"
You're still alive, and, as I infer from your posts, quite wealthy. This totally disproves your point.
"The poor deserve to die sooner because they are idiots"
I'd agree with that sentence if you replace 'idiots' with 'amoral bigots'. After reading your post, I get the impression that the World would be a slightly better place if you had been aborted.
won't care if the US defaults. The majority of them are Millionaires already. They'll just retreat to their country estates/ranches/counties and sit it out.
Meanwhile the cities will burn. The only people making money will be the arms dealers who just happen to be mostly Republican or even worse Tea Party members.
The US is up shit creek without a paddle and the 'gator is getting hungry.
Many of my American friends are 'taking' their 2-week vacations about now and heading for foreign parts.
"Those Senators and congress Critters won't care if the US defaults."
They will care, but only because first thing that will happen with a default is a crash on Wall Street. All the millionaires there don't keep their millions in cash under the mattress, the majority of it will be invested in US Treasuries (worthless if US defaults) and stock market (currently propped up by the Fed printing money, if that stops Wall street crashes and combined with a US gov default it will crash even worse)
Although probably the REALLY smart ones have a few gold bars stashed away
Frankly there is no difference, both get the turkeys to vote for Christmas,. Just feel thankful that apple is not running the healthcare system anywhere. No one except the very richest would afford care and think of the restrictions;
"you've broken that leg wrong, you'll have to pay."
"You've not got an approved appendix, you'll have to pay."
etc.
In the US they seem fairly split over obamacare. Funnily a number seem against obamacare but like the affordable care act (same thing). I find it interesting that appending obama's name is enough to make something unamerican and it possibly says something about the guy in charge.
For some reason those who read, understand and reject the act are being insulted quite a bit, but the insults come from europe. Interestingly a lot of the resistance to obama seems justified by claiming he is trying to turn the US into the EU. I live in the UK and anti-EU people here (I am one of them for my own reasons) used to say they are trying to create the united states of europe. Now we call it the EUSSR. If that is the view from england which is far more left than the US then surely the US fears are understandable.
Finally it is also interesting listening to people support the NHS. If you are in a critical state you get good care up until you are recovering. Generally the care in the NHS is a joke and few hold back about their experiences. A relative was put at risk because after a risky surgery which was handled well and she was recovering, some moron decided to give her medication which was risky in her current condition. They tried to kill her through stupidity! This is after many cancellations, delays and doctors booking her for surgery and consultation only for the other department to have NO record (in the same freakin hospital!!!).
The US are capitalist. The UK is a half breed capitalism based on what our govs think capitalism should look like. Europe is made up of varying degrees of capitalism yet the most criticism of the US seems to come from these countries. Obviously there are better european health systems than the UK, but it is not a surprise that the US fear a UK like system. All we do is complain about the cost for the lack of service.
To finish my partner went to the hospital with a long standing problem the NHS have never figured out. After hiding behind bureaucracy and transferring to multiple departments they made appointments ran more tests and did surgery. At the time she was speaking to a lot of friends in the US who were amazed. They didnt understand why it took so long to get a simple appointment, why we were never given the various results, why this had gone on for so many years and how a country could run with such shoddy healthcare. Her friends dont appreciate the cost but they certainly appreciated the service they got in comparison to the UK.
Even the Labour party is more Right Wing than Maggie Thatcher was. UK is heading to being more right wing than USA. Of course essentially in European terms there are no Liberals or Socialists in the USA. The Democrats are somewhere between Conservatives and Right Wing new Labour and Republicans between UKIP and Conservatives. A gross simplification. I'm not convinced the Lib-Dems "stand for" anything much, except a bit less naive than the Greens.
Socialist parties in EU are pretty much in the minority these days. More about Personalities and nuances of policy (c.f. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in Ireland who would HATE to be in coalition but are very close in political spectrum and policy. No real change no matter which gets in).
UKIP doesn't have the NRA to back them, but they deliberately & fundamentally misrepresent EU in general and Euro in particular.
EU is nothing like the US Federal/State system and even if there was a USE, it would not be remotely like USSR or USA.
Despite the European 2008 to 2010 bank and debt "meltdowns" the Euro still exists and countries are still joining it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro
Interesting that almost all the UK, Irish and other EU countries problems were LACK of LOCAL regulation and spawned by USA institutions poorly regulated.
European countries need the EU to compete economically and politically with Asiaian today (China, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, India, Philippines, Malaysia), North America and in the future BRIC / South Americans.
Eventually there will be Five major Socio-Economic-Political Blocs. If the UK goes it alone they will become a 3rd rate economy with zero political influence. It will certainly discourage immigration.
@ Mage
"Even the Labour party is more Right Wing than Maggie Thatcher was"
And that is relative only in the UK. The UK is nowhere near being like the US. We have over restrictive gun control while the US is variable but generally a lot more relaxed. The US has capitalism and we have government enforced hybrid. The US are generally anti tax. the UK is a money grabbing highwayman. You do realise the difference when you say there are no socialists in the US in european terms. That is because the US's left is a little right of UKIP. Tories on the other hand have moved further left while labour moves left and UKIP fill the hole on the right.
"Socialist parties in EU are pretty much in the minority these days."
Tell that to france.
"EU is nothing like the US Federal/State system and even if there was a USE, it would not be remotely like USSR or USA."
It started with desires of copying the US but failed badly. Probably why it is now referred to EUSSR.
"Despite the European 2008 to 2010 bank and debt "meltdowns" the Euro still exists and countries are still joining it."
So? The realistic view is that countries are tanking and require absolutely the propping up of the richer countries. And that constant propping up is dragging down the stronger countries. The end result being that even the germans didnt discuss europe to get elected.
"Interesting that almost all the UK, Irish and other EU countries problems were LACK of LOCAL regulation and spawned by USA institutions poorly regulated."
Lack of regulation (capitalism requires an amount of regulation), market manipulations (not capitalist), and government overspending on social projects and welfare.
"Eventually there will be Five major Socio-Economic-Political Blocs. If the UK goes it alone they will become a 3rd rate economy with zero political influence. It will certainly discourage immigration."
I guess you are a believer in the EU idea. Thats fine. I am what they used to call eurosceptic, that was before the EU tanked.
"Generally the care in the NHS is a joke and few hold back about their experiences"
Where do you get this information from? The media (a media who will do their utmost to find anything sensational they can)?
My uncle-in-law is a retired NHS consultant and he fumes at the media which picks on a few high profile cases of poor care and ignore (or don't bother finding out about) the reams of appreciative letters and cards from people who have been treated well.
@ apjanes
"Where do you get this information from?"
My experience. Fiends experience. Families experience. Members of my family who work in various departments of the NHS. More or less any discussion board talking about the NHS (not comparing with other health systems). And also the media.
The poor care seems abundant or everyone who I have spoken to who has used the NHS has been unlucky. Thats a lot of people with a range of issues as patients and workers in the NHS.
Ah, the old "my friends and friends of friends" vagueness.
People only bother to complain, rarely to praise. So of course forums and the media are full or the negative experiences.
So to balance your argument, I can say that both my daughter and father-in-law received excellent treatment recently.
@ Neill Mitchell
"Ah, the old "my friends and friends of friends" vagueness."
Since you ruled out media as a valid source I went with first hand talking to staff and patients. Sorry if that isnt good enough for you but you do kinda rule out sensible debate.
"People only bother to complain, rarely to praise. So of course forums and the media are full or the negative experiences."
Especially when being put at risk of death or forced to wait forever for poor service resulting in worse health. You did read the part I wrote that the NHS seems good if you are in a critical situation, it is the rest that seems to fail people.
"So to balance your argument, I can say that both my daughter and father-in-law received excellent treatment recently."
Of course you can. Can you say what was good about it. Saying we have good healthcare is a generic statement peddled when comparing with other countries. Getting specifics only seems to happen on the many problems
It helps to realise that a large proportion of americans regard poverty as a moral failing. For them, poor people are poor because they lack the moral backbone to be successful. They admit no extenuating circumstance.
When you understand this you'll understand why we, as a nation, enact what are, frankly, some inhumane laws.
For those of you capable of appreciating irony please note that the overwhelming majority of people with this view would also consider themselves devout christians.
It helps to realise that a large proportion of americans regard poverty as a moral failing. For them, poor people are poor because they lack the moral backbone to be successful.
As someone who lives below the poverty line in America I can say you're full of shit. Never has someone told me that I am poor because I lack a moral backbone. I'm in my 30's so I would have heard it at least once by now. I can say that an overwhelming majority of people in the US have compassion for the less fortunate. To suggest that is an insult to all those here who help others in need. Don't be blinded by hatred my friend.
@rcorrect. Sorry but I simply don't believe you. The amount you have to earn to be below the poverty line would not allow you sufficient resources to spend enough time on el reg to achieve the bronze commentard rating. You'll need to provide a few more details - hint. Living at home or going to college on a shoestring doesn't count as poverty. It's defined as not being able to meet basic needs.
@rcorrect. Sorry but I simply don't believe you.
I appreciate that, really I do.
The amount you have to earn to be below the poverty line would not allow you sufficient resources to spend enough time on el reg to achieve the bronze commentard rating.
Expert about poverty you are not. I rent an apartment and cable TV is included with rent. For an extra $20 to Suddenlink I can get online. As for the computer, it is going on 5 years now. Or do you need the latest greatest thing to browse these forums?
You'll need to provide a few more details - hint.
Not that difficult to Google me. Even have volunteered that I am in my 30's and live in Texas.
Living at home or going to college on a shoestring doesn't count as poverty.
I would kill myself before I lived with either of my parents. Seriously. Especially my father. As for college I finished a year and a half ago. Note that it took 8 years for get a 2 year degree. Point being that I am not in college.
It's defined as not being able to meet basic needs.
It is defined as making less than $11,490 in a year. Since leaving college I work 3 days a week for $7.75 an hour. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm
"Awaits deluge of down votes from pubescent slaverers."
Here is mine, Tred, and it should count as five votes, as I'm old enough to have reached pubescence five times. Don't know WTF a 'slaverer' is, though.
If you hadn't noticed, ElReg is not too 'multinational friendly'. Why should they make an exception with Apple?
Some citizens were programmed by their parents to be racist, some are programmed to be happy with being ignorant. (the former were programmed with both, sadly).
Mix in that the U.S. has an education and critical thinking problem. (from not placing those high on the funding list)
Some issues are brought about by religion encroaching into politics (and the absolutes it brings).
Add in the fact that most politicians think they are corporately sponsored Professional Wrestlers. "We're not going let them win, we're going to beat back those commie pinkos, Emurka! (brought to you buy Carl's Jr.)"
You mix greedy ignorant grand-standers that are sure they are absolutely right, and you get the nightmare you see unfolding. (don't even ask were the money comes from that funds them, that's a whole other thing)
But then again, it's not like we've had Obamacare go into effect before, either.
They should have planned the details as big as they planned their ideals. They are, after all, the federal government - the same folks who gave us the Internet. It shouldn't really have been an issue. I mean, geez, how many super computers does our federal government have on the Top500 list, but they can't even properly prepare a website for the start of a major, massive program like Obamacare? I guess now that their ideals are enshrined in law, then the devil with the details. It'll be the same shoddy service we're used to from DC.
> They should have seen this coming, perhaps, but then again it's not like everybody applying for health care every day of the year.
Not an uncommon problem in IT. There are many businesses that experience predictable extreme spikes in usage. Also, it is very common place for there to be "open enrollment" periods for insurance in particular.
...all of it was obviously forseeable.
Civil servants and government contractors will likely just get a free pass.
What does Obama get out of name-dropping Apple like that? Are they sponsoring healthcare in some way? It's bizarre. Problems with iOS7? I have no idea what that even means. Obviously it's the latest Apple OS, but for what? Seriously, I don't know, I don't use them. How many people think the same? What the fuck is happening when a president tries to explain something to the nation that half of them can't afford or even know exists? Seriously, What The Fuck?
and being from a pinko-commie-socialist-facist ally namely the uk I seem to have noticed a few things.
A lot of us out here ( the us meaning Americans, since I am one now) have the attitude of "I got mine forget you" which is part of this whole shebang.
I have health insurance, I do not need it (yet) so ACA does not really bother me, so therefore it is just tough bananas if you do not have your own insurance, maybe you should get a job that has it.
At least that's sort of the way it seems, those who have are shouting the loudest because they think those who have not, or cannot afford, should not a get a free ride on their dime.
The chances are these people already have insurance, and do not think about it, they have theirs...
Many never knew the massive limitations on the whole private insurance system, limited coverage, denied claims ( yes I suppose with the right spin, they could be called death panels, but it is private so it because loss prevention or limited risk or something) the private companies love someone like me young enough, healthy only time I see a doctor is on TV etc.. my insurance is dutifully removed from my paycheck etc...
They hate...my wife, a type 1 diabetic and my daughter... a type 1 diabetic
damn them! they are sick
however, given the amount I pay per month and the amount the insurance pays out, they are still in the black.
sad really.
not everyone is like that of course, but a lot of the people I work with are ( these are, interestingly people with what could be considered a deniable pre existing condition too though workplace insurance cannot refuse coverage only private... well now they can't do that either!
as for costs... yes medical malpractice lawsuits need to be reigned in a lot. Human + sharp things + induced coma + big holes in body are generally a recipe for things to go wrong every now and then.
but the cost of education also has a part to play... doctors that come out of school with debts that would buy a nice house and car.
we need multiple area reform to get the whole system working better, however I feel there are too many people with a piece of the pie that prevents things from moving anywhere but in their favour.
iOS7 presumably ultimately does what it's supposed to in spite of the bugs. With Obamacare that's not the case. I know people who couldn't afford health insurance before. Guess what? They still can't, only now they have a choice between a tax penalty (that they can't afford) and high deductible health insurance (that they can't afford) which actually ends up costing them more than if they had no insurance at all. Doctors charge you significantly more if you have insurance and the deductibles that these people can get are so high that they're actually more than the lower rate the doctors would be charging them if they had no insurance.
Maybe by 2016 when Obamacare is in full swing the problems will be worked out, but until then the people in income brackets low enough to not be able to afford insurance before (you know, the ones its supposed to be helping?) are just screwed.
The main website http://www.healthcare.gov has five good design points, and five not so good.
Good News:
1. Most states ignored creating their own "exchanges" (i.e., marketplaces, aka "shops", aka websites) First question is what state do you reside in, and either told to stay put or click away to the state website. Not an automatic re-direct, but ok.
2. A few basic questions, such as age or current insurance status, result in static pages to explain if you even need to look further on the exchange. Example, a 65+ user will be told to use Medicare and buzz off.
3. Static HTML is served up very quickly, most likely through DCN edge servers.
4. Clean overall layout and adaptive design; also works on phones.
5. Cute girl photo on the home page.
Bad News:
1. Assumption that 30 million uninsured potential buyers know how to purchase on the web.
2. Assumption that remaining 150 to 200 million adults won't visit the website out of curiosity.
3. Assumption that millions of El Reg readers don't want to see the home page hottie.
4. Failure to design to auto-provision for scaling out. Most, if not all of the delay is currently caused by waiting for the signup page to display. Presumably those who are getting enrolled are overpowering the database servers. Or the site is undergoing a massive, unintentional denial of service attack.
5. Basic design flaw in asking for signup (requiring database i/o) before displaying the inventory of private insurance plans to choose from. Like Amazon requiring you to provide credit card info before searching for books. Part of this is caused by need to present insurance plan lists based on state, county, age, single or family, all of which effect the premium / annual deductible options.
All in all, not bad for only having three+ years to design an e-commerce site referral site.
What about The Poor? Open free clinics. Limit the care, no heart bypasses, no liver or kidney transplants.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
I don't see anywhere in the Declaration of Independence that Thomas Jefferson said, "but only if you're rich"
I think you may be closer to the truth than you think.
By denying the poor and weak access to heathcare it's enabled the rich to allow a form of natural selection.
Unfortunately, it's not the best kind of natural selection as the survivors are highly deficient in other areas.
The USA's health-care system is in the sh*thole it's in precisely *BECAUSE* of government regulation and intervention. So since Government itself caused the problem, what have they presented as the solution?? Why, even MORE government regulation and micromanagement. Because, after all, they haven't *nearly* f*cked you over enough.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
