Obamacare Software Glitch Will Limit Penalties Charged To Smokers 490
turbosaab writes "The Obama administration has quietly notified insurers that a computer system glitch will limit penalties that companies may charge smokers under the new healthcare law. The underlying reason for the limitation is another provision in the health care law that says insurers can't charge older customers more than three times what they charge the youngest adults in the pool. The government's computer system has been unable to accommodate the two. So younger smokers and older smokers must be charged the same penalty, or the system will kick it out. A fix will take at least a year to put in place."
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what you get with lowest bidder solutions.
Sometimes bringing stuff in house is better.
A year? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm hoping that this is because there's too many other things in the pipeline that are more critical to get done first, and not because, say, the system is so badly written that this one relatively minor looking task will take a year.....
If it's the latter, then I'm in the wrong business.
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes, but given who "in house" would be in this case, they might be better off with a group of enthusiastic 13-year-olds.
Re:Ah yes, government control of health care (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not socialism at all, that would be a lot better.
Go look at european healthcare systems, they do not charge extra for any of those things.
Re:Not to worry... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the sensible party doesn't stand a chance. We only elect Republicans and Democrats to the presidency these days.
My health is none of the government's business (Score:3, Insightful)
So Slashdotters object to government collecting their metadata, but sticking its nose into every health decision is A-OK?
ObamaCare has 100x the potential for abuse the NSA does.
Even apart from socialized medicine starving people to death [dailymail.co.uk].
Re:Ah yes, government control of health care (Score:3, Insightful)
The ones who always are and always will be. Has nothing to do with healthcare.
I invite you to travel the world, you will learn a lot.
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:2, Insightful)
It sounds like the problem is being blamed on the code, when really the problem is the rules they set up.
They likely set up the rules this way specifically to prevent penalty stacking, and even more specifically age dependant penalties.
Re:A year? (Score:4, Insightful)
Translating the US tax code into software is probably a task rivaling some of the most complex software problems out there...
Absolutely. This is just one of the early signs of the train wreck that is Obamacare. You just can't have a bunch of different Congressional staffers write different parts of a gigantic, complex bill involving a huge part of the economy, cram it through Congress along party lines, and expect the thing to work. They've already had to kill three sections of it, and delay the employer mandate. [spectator.org]
Far, far simpler government IT projects (internal systems for single departments, e.g. the FBI's Virtual Case File) have failed miserably. Obamacare requires a public-facing system that connects to many other systems at the federal and state level, and complies with HIPAA requirements. I'm no expert on huge IT projects, but I don't see how this is going to be up and running in October, if ever.
Re:Ah yes, government control of health care (Score:4, Insightful)
Hence the state of their economy with several members of the EU on the brink of bankruptcy.
Yet it's not the most socialist European countries that are going broke. The Nordic nations, for example, are doing just fine. It's Mediterranean Europe that is having trouble, and they've had fiscal problems for decades. Putting them in a single currency union with the likes of Germany was just asking for a disaster to happen.
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or the rules wasn't implemented correctly, and the clients lacked the proper tests so it managed to get through till production*.
* assuming there were testing routines in their process**
** assuming there was a process
Re:Ah yes, government control of health care (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, that doesn't sound like socialism at all.
In US political dialogue, "socialism" is just a vague term used to smear people or plans that you don't like. I suspect only a tiny minority of Americans could give a reasonably accurate definition.
Oddly, it has moved to fill the niches formerly occupied by both "communism" and "fascism".
Re:Ah yes, government control of health care (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, the 3rd amendment is the only one that I'm aware of that they haven't tried to violently violate, yet.
Nope, they're working on that one too: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/08/family-booted-from-home-for-police-detail-suing-with-rare-use-third-amendment/ [foxnews.com]
Medicare did NOT trigger Armageddon (Score:4, Insightful)
Medicare, which begin in 1965, is roughly the same in complexity, and we survived it. The difference may be that Congress was willing to make adjustments back then, whereas now we have a polarized crew in DC and heading businesses.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of Obamacare ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... we should have what this guy's advocating:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE [youtube.com]
Who the hell was that guy? Why didn't we elect him?
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd not heard about the new smoking thing, forcing smokers to pay an extra penalty.
Why was smoking specifically targeted? Hell, with the ongoing climb in obesity, the increasing incidents of type II diabetes and related complications will soon FAR outweigh problems we have with smokers.
Are we going to penalize (by monetary means) those that have the wrong BMI (not a good scale I know, since it looks really bad for those that are super fit)?
Are we going to tie the IRS and healthcare into the grocery store customer tracking system to see you're buying fattening, high calorie low nutrient foods?
Will they trace how much booze, beer and wine you buy at the grocery store (or wherever you buy it in your state)?
Where do we stop having the govt STOP trying to tell you how to live, and fining you for your CHOICE in lifestyle?
I guess maybe it is easy to pick on the smokers first, but seriously, what about when they start also charging for more common behaviors that are really driving up health costs for the future? How will that go over?
Is this really something the government should be doing at all? Doesn't sound like freedom to me, if the govt is trying to drive human behavior with govt. enforced sanctions.
Re:Medicare did NOT trigger Armageddon (Score:3, Insightful)
Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source of information. They tilt and spin and cherry-pick facts because they have an agenda.
Medicare will only lead to "national bankruptcy" if there is insufficient revenue to cover it. However, I expect you to argue that taxing the rich kills puppies. Yes, the rich need 120 BMW's before they are motivated enough to give us plebeians jobs. 119 won't cut it. That's exactly how psychology works. Yesiree.
Re:Ah yes, government control of health care (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, if you look at total lifetime costs smokers are saving everyone money. They die of horrible diseases that are cheap to deal with until they cause death.
Also, they pay a shit load of tax on their tobacco...
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why was smoking specifically targeted? Hell, with the ongoing climb in obesity, the increasing incidents of type II diabetes and related complications will soon FAR outweigh problems we have with smokers.
It's all political BS. Lifetime healthcare costs for smokers are similar to non-smokers. Smokers tend to die younger, and lung cancer is an average-cost way to die.
As soon as a government tries to reduce costs for healthcare, it will start passing all sorts of intrusive laws using that justification. I can't stand that sort of totalitarianism for any reason, but totalitarianism to save money is particularly vile.
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually this is the government limiting what the insurance companies can do. They are the ones who want to charge smokers more.
The rest of your comment is conspiracy level nuttery.
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember when the crowd who loudly declared, "They're going to ban smoking!" was called nutjobs and crazies?
For that matter, remember when the crowd who loudly declared, "The NSA is spying on people!", was called nutjobs and crazies?
Doomed to fail (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the US even has to deal with such an unethical, predatorial system to begin with--instead of just offering universal healthcare--is what failed, not Obamacare itself. In fact, even though Obamacare itself is flawed, I'm hoping that at least the constitutionally-validated mandate will eventually lead to the US offering universal healthcare, since the current system is unsustainable and people are now required to have coverage. No matter how bad Obamacare is, I think it's still a step forward. Consider if it hadn't been implemented... then in 5 more years we'd be right back to town hall meetings with constiuents (and Sarah Palin) screaming about death panels, etc. At least there's a chance to get to universal health care from Obamacare: the mandate is a good excuse to have a government option at least.
Obamacare is bound to go poorly because the US healthcare system is shit. There's nothing Obamacare could do to be "good". We just need to fix our system.
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair though it could be the law itself that is the problem.
The law may be in conflict with itself. The code just shows it.
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:2, Insightful)
But those who do die from lung cancer tend to stop paying premiums.
Re:Not to worry... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember no such thing. I DO, however, remember hoping at the time that smoking WOULD get banned, at least in public places, as it is a fucking disgrace that we allow self-harm bordering on criminal stupidity.
I also quite vividly remember the NSA and other alphabet agencies spying on people being a "known secret" for as long as I've been alive. You clearly don't remember Carnivore, Echelon, TIA etc. but that's ok. In 5 years we'll have another big reveal and people like you will get to pretend the victim once again. It's the only thing you people do well anymore anyway.
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:4, Insightful)
But those who do die from lung cancer tend to stop paying premiums.
They also usually stop requiring care before they get too old, and really start costing a ton to maintain.
Competition (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is not Obamacare. The problem is the disgusting, predatorial healthcare system in the US. The problem is that the US doesn't follow every other developed country in the world and treats healthcare as a privilege instead of a right. As such, the monopolies that run the healthcare system exploit the lack of competitive pressure since people in the hospital frequently can't "shop around" for better & cheaper service. This leads to the practice of charging patients literally 10x to 100x what things actually cost.
I think you are slightly confused. You have it right when you are talking about the lack of competitive pressure increasing prices, but the solution is not to remove even more competitive pressure by switching to one plan to rule them all, which is essentially what Obamacare does. (You can have "competiting" plans, but they have to be the same, or you get hit for having a "cadillac plan".) The solution is to restore competitive pressure by implementing things like healthcare spending accounts (HSA) etc. which would place the consumer in the drivers seat for their own care. "... but doctor, is there a less expensive med that I can take?" (or test, or proceedure, etc.)
But this is where others start complaining that this leaves out the poor, etc. since they can't afford to contribute to a HSA. (I am afraid I don't have a good answer, except to say that Obamacare isn't shaping up to fix this issue either.)
Don't forget, there are people in Canada who come to the US to use our "shit" system, because they can't get care in a reasonable time-frame in their socialized healthcare system. It is well and good to have a "right" to healthcare, but if you have to wait in line for a year to treat something that is going to kill you in six months without treatment, it doesn't do you any good.
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:4, Insightful)
, what you're neglecting to account for is that there were caps on maximum benefits that the insurance companies could pay out, and I'm pretty sure that smokers are more likely to hit them than non-smokers are.
Why would you believe that? If you're going to die of cancer, lung cancer is one of the cheap ones. And it's not like emphysema is all that expensive as an ongoing condition. It's a horrible condition, and the reason I'll never smoke, but tit's not the kind of condition you can throw money at.
Is there any reasoning behind the claim that smokers cost more beyond the fact that they're annoying to be around?
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:4, Insightful)
Private insurance wants to fine smokers since they get those kinds of diseases before they qualify for medicare.
Private insurance also wants to not pay for the cost of your heart disease or breast cancer because you didn't mention on your application that you took something for acne when you were 14. No joke - it's called recission, and one of the few good things that Obamacare supposedly does is ban it.
The problem with Obamacare is that it relies on private for-profit insurance companies, and actually lets them have some of the things they want. No other country does that. Look at some of the comments here from people in other countries - they're astounded at this crap. In every other country for-profit insurers do not pay for basic medical care, and insurers must charge the same rate to everybody. As for cost, they pay at least 1/3 less!
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:4, Insightful)
Those kinds of savings are hard to pass up.
What kind of savings? That article doesn't address lifetime medical care costs. AFAIK they're higher for the obese, but nowhere near as high as you'd infer from that article.
Worried about costs? First fix the fact that we pay 50% (%/GDP - even higher at exchange rate or PPP) more than any other country, and receive no more treatment for it. Then we can worry about making everybody skinny.
Speaking of skinny, even though percentage wise they're a much smaller problem, for the sake of consistency and cost savings we should charge anorexics and bulimics more. Those lead to serious health problems, and can be avoided by simply eating more or not forcing yourself to puke.
Ok, smoking, over and under weight. What's next? Ah, motorcycles and xtreme sports. We can monitor that based of purchases of the appropriate equipment. Speaking of monitoring, since you should have to show proof of age anyway, how much alcohol a person buys should be easy to keep tabs on, and excess alcohol consumption can be very medically expensive. Illegal drugs will require random testing, but people are used to that anyway. Just do it on everyone. The real problem is to keep tabs on how much exercise everyone gets, which can be a bigger issue than non-extreme obesity. I propose a telemetry system. Some folks will complain it can't monitor you in remote areas, but if we place the burden of proof on the individual then they'll have an incentive to prove they were jogging on that country road. What's next?