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."
I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:2, Interesting)
but this is just lack of effort.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what you get with lowest bidder solutions.
Sometimes bringing stuff in house is better.
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: (Score:2)
Are we talking about the programmers or the government? Both seem to be the "lowest bidders" here...
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to computer programmers, hiring the more experienced ones usually ends up being less expensive because they finish in less hours and the final product has lower upkeep and maintenance costs and fewer bugs that take 1 year to fix.
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: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: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.
Re: (Score:3)
Not unless you hang out in close proximity to smokers. No one holds a gun to your head to patronize a bar that allows smoking...freedom of choice and all.
And really..the tax/penalty isn't against second hand smoke...it is on the individual doing the unhealthy action, so this argument really isn't a valid one...you know?
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, Informative)
The expense cap stuff isn't smoking specific.
And you seem to be ignoring the fact that everybody dies of something, and most people have several long-tern degenerative conditions when they die. It's hard to get your head around when you're in your 20s or 30s, but as you age your body is just going to start breaking in ways that can't be fixed - you just have to manage the symptoms as best you can. Beyond a certain age, problems like heart disease, high blood pressure, and stroke are normal. If you reach 80, you'll be lucky not to be taking your own weight in pills each week.
By far the dominant factor in lifetime healthcare costs for most people is how many years you live past 70. Smoking and heavy drinking are two ways to significantly decrease life expectancy, and thus total lifetime cost. If your very costly final years come at 65-70 instead of 80-85, you'll pay far less in a lifetime, and those final five years for a smoker just aren't above average.
Re: (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: (Score:3)
Problem is, government is forcing business decisions, which in turn forces behavior.
Not seeing any part of the Constitution where this is anywhere near okay to do.
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:4, Interesting)
When I moved to the states a few years back now, I smoked Djarum. Two months before I moved, Obama + Phillip Morris (Marlboro I believe) Lobbied to ban "flavoured" cigarettes, well except for menthol. The legislation isn't supposed to make sense, it's just supposed to make money.
Phillip Morris with Obama's assistance got all flavoured cigarettes banned in the states. Then Phillip Morris after basically killing the market for many companies in the states (Clove cigarettes, etc) began selling "clove" Marlboro's to indonesia and other Indo-European countries.
Not that Canada is all that much better, they tax cigarettes about 200%. But at least you can still buy them if you feel like it.
Now if you've seen Djarum or other "flavoured" brands in the last 3+ years. They got around the ban by renaming them "Cigarello's" using cigar paper (thicker) and increasing the diameter by about an 1/8 of an inch or so.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing..I recently quit myself...and it helps me keep off them if not around smokers and smoking.
However, I don't feel it is the place of the govt. to tell me or direct me or try to influence my decision what legal, adult activities I wish to participate in.
I agree, horrible habit. Everyone should try to quit, but only if THEY want to, n
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?
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: (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: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: (Score:3)
This doesn't sound like a programmer issue but faulty by design.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:4, Informative)
Been trying to warn folks for years that the smokers were the canaries in the coal mine but nobody listened. Look at your history folks, government ALWAYS gets bigger, NEVER smaller. Look at places like NYC telling you how big of a soda you are allowed to have and talks of sugar taxes and fat taxes, all under the "its because of healthcare" bullshit excuse.
This isn't unique to the government. When I was at my previous fortune-100 employer, they penalized smokers as well (actually what they did was raise the rates for everyone, but gave non-smokers a "discount"). It's not that uncommon. Additionally some places will hand out "fitness incentives" (i.e. penalize overweight people).
Re: (Score:3)
I'm about to start thumbing through my US constitution, can someone give me a head start by suggesting where I read in the constitution about the federal govt being empowered to mold its citizens behavior through forced fines and taxes? I could swear I've never seen it there before, but I might have overlooked it.....
Article 1, section 8?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises (...)
It doesn't say specifically for behavioral reasons, but they're pretty much implicit - people always adapt to the tax rules.
Re:I know the government loves to lie to us... (Score:4, Informative)
They came for the smokers, but I was not . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
But why are we choosing to charge smokers more? I thought smoking was an addiction and we are supposed to offer health care regardless of pre-existing condition?
Are we going to charge single women or "slutty" women more for reproductive health care because, like, they shouldn't be "doing it"?
Are we going to charge fat persons more?
Are we going to charge people more if they admit to other drug dependencies?
Are we going to charge gay men more unless they can prove they are monogamous? Straight men more unless they can prove they are not "cheating"?
And how do we enforce this? If we catch you smoking and we cancel your health insurance? Put you in jail?
What about an occasional cigar smoker or someone who takes a drag when "a joint is passed around"?
Are the authorities going to stick a OBD-II dongle in your car to make sure you aren't driving too fast?
What about drinking and binge drinking? Are you going to get a rate break for abstaining, and does your rate go up if someone spots you taking a sip of champaign at a wedding?
Re: (Score:3)
My previous employer had a &70/mo. "tobacco surcharge" added to their insurer's policy (United Healthcare, in case you;re asking which company.)
Not a few folks lied to avoid paying $70 (or $140 if they had a spouse). Problem is, everyone who said they didn't use tobacco got a surprise urinalysis test that had to be performed that day. As a smoker, I was exempted (since I paid the surcharge, so I never saw the notice.) Basically, anyone who said they didn't use tobacco but had sufficient levels of nicoti
Re: (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?
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.
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:A year? (Score:5, Interesting)
Translating the US tax code into software is probably a task rivaling some of the most complex software problems out there...and no one in their right mind will take that job if they can go elsewhere...
So you have a ridiculously complicated problem, worked on by several rejects (I'm not saying all of them are rejects, but probably a non-trivial amount. I'm sure SOME good devs actually work there willingly....).
The result must be an insane mess of crappy code...
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the problem is that the tax code is too complicated.
I'm fine with job security for accountants and lawyers, except for the fact that a complicated tax code makes things *harder* for everyone else.
The key part of pareto optimizations is you don't screw over anyone else in the process.
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.
P.S. (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a chart showing how the exchanges are supposed to work. [scribd.com] Just a system in which the public looks at different health plans from different providers would be complex enough, but note the links to the IRS, Treasury, Social Security, HHS, Homeland Security, and state Medicaid systems. This thing must be giving nightmares to even top IT pros.
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.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Welcome to Enterprise IT.
Re:A year? (Score:5, Funny)
Silver, Gold or Platinum?
This is proof that Obama is better than Bush. When color coding was applied to terror threat levels, the Bush Administration failed miserably at taking something as complex as terrorism and boiling it down into 5 colors. The Obama Administration is pure genius because they can take health care insurance, arguably even more complex than terror threat assessments, and boil it down into 3 colors. Amazing!
obamacare does not go far enough (Score:2)
should of been more on the lines of other systems.
At least the 30 hour rule fixes B.S like having an 39.5 hour work week with no benefits.
also helps contractors and temps get real plans as well killing off the joke care mini med plans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes but's is part time vs just under full time an hour or less (aka we have long lunch times at this office).
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].
who is better a CEO who wants a new BMW or GOV? (Score:2)
who is better a CEO who wants a new BMW or the GOV?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is stopping you from choosing to pay for your own healthcare in cash, out of pocket, ye olde free-market way.
Re:My health is none of the government's business (Score:5, Interesting)
Your sig suggest that you're a thoughtful person, but your post seems as if you didn't think about what you were saying at all.
Surely you don't really think that a market wherein the vast majority of consumers use an optional (subsidized) system will treat outlier, "pay-as-you-go" consumers equitably.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing is stopping you from choosing to pay for your own healthcare in cash, out of pocket, ye olde free-market way.
After costs have been artificially inflated to compensate for insurance contract rates being pennies on the dollar and write-offs from the uninsured-and-hell-no-not-gonna-pay-ever? No thanks.
easier to jack up the pre pack tax then to bill ea (Score:2)
easier to jack up the pre pack tax then to bill each user on there tax forums.
Chaos (Score:3)
With each new story on this or that problem with implementing some part of the Affordable Care Act, and given how the various parts of it interlocked to keep it from breaking down, I just get the impression that there's going to be chaos when it really gets going. Assuming that it's allowed to. At some point maybe everyone agrees that it's not implementable in its present form, like one of those gigantic software projects that crashes to the ground because it was ill-conceived to begin with and nobody can figure out how to make it work.
The Hat Trick (Score:2)
It's like the holy trilogy of contentious Slashdot topics.
All we need now is to tie this into movie or music piracy somehow, and maybe sprinkle in some Scientology for good measure.
BRB, making popcorn.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a glitch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree on this. Why have low penalties on young smokers and really high ones on older ones? To not give them any reason to quit when young and get really hooked and then throw in the high penalties?
Do what insurance is supposed to do - spread the risk and costs for the behavior so people who choose to do it when they are young are already helping to pay for the costs of their behavior when they get older. The costs they incur when they get old aren't solely cause by the smoking done when they are old.
Sue them (Score:2)
The government not comping with its own laws for technical reasons or otherwise is unacceptable.
I hope someone in a position to file a suit for not being able to setup the benefits as desired and legal way under the law will sue.
Is it that bad in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
I knew the health care system in the US was ridiculously expensive but that this is allowed... Even in the new healthcare system proposed by the neoliberal party in the Netherlands insurance companies have to offer the same price for the basic insurance for everybody. Taxing some more than others would cause uproar. Some are suggesting to let smokers pay more but the usual response that in that case it would also be fair to let them pay less for their retirement pension usually cuts that off.
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?
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.
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:Ah yes, government control of health care (Score:4, Interesting)
hey, you live in daddy's house, you live by daddy's rules.
skateboarders have a higher risk of injury, you will see a penalty.
gun owners? penalty.
rock climbers? penalty.
over BMI? penalty.
socialism. ideas so good, they have to be mandatory.
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:Ah yes, government control of health care (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Not exactly. It's not like people with heart and lung disease just keel over at age 55. They usually have a long, slow decline in health that is punctuated by expensive visits to some aspect of the healthcare system or other. And why pick on heart and lung disease? That's what MOST smokers die from. Lung cancer, although way more common in smokers than non smokers isn't what gets most puffers. And even lung cancer isn't a rapid roll off the carpet. Chemotherapy, surgery and supportive care still is p
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: (Score:3)
Being a capitalist doesn't have to make you dumb.
Re: (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:Ah yes, government control of health care (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ah yes, government control of health care (Score:4, Informative)
Then I invite you to look at Australia with a similar system and an economy not in the toilet.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the state of their economy with several members of the EU on the brink of bankruptcy.
That's primarily because they don't have their own currency, and can't operate on debt the way normal countries do.
I read someone's analysis which said that the eurozone came about due to the reunification of Germany, and the resulting need to create a sense of community so that Poland and France wouldn't be nervous about being invaded again. So there was a bandwagon attempt to get everyone on board. The problem is that the system requires participating countries to operate in the black, but the aforesaid
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: (Score:3)
The nordics are not socialist. They are social democrats with a mixed economy where the government assumes responsibility for some critical infrastructure while aggressively breaking up cartels and preventing (to some extent) collusion in an otherwise free market in order to keep the markets free.
Actually, the nordics are good examples of libertarian ideals.
Yes, of Left Libertarian ideals, but those are almost completely unknown, and probably anathema, to most American libertarians.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, that doesn't sound like socialism at all. More like capitalism and egoism taken to the extreme.
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: (Score:2)
socialism. ideas so good, they have to be mandatory.
Great minds...(see my sig)
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
over BMI? penalty.
Somehow you think the penalty was not higher (i.e. NO insurance) before Obamacare? You must have had group insurance.
Re: (Score:3)
What does that have to do with socialism? That is a property of insurance in general. In fact, when these practices are absent, it is usually because of big government policies that prohibiting them.
Being a non-fan of big government solutions, I think charging people for the actual risk of insuring them is a step in the right direction, when it comes to risks that are a result of choices, because it can influence behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the 1st, 2nd and of course the 4th.
In fact, the 3rd amendment is the only one that I'm aware of that they haven't tried to violently violate, yet.
Re: (Score:2)
You could argue that forcing telcos and ISPs to incorporate wiretapping equipment into their systems constitutes a quartering of government agents on private property in violation of the 3rd Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the US govt can start twampling the 6th through 10th amendments next year
Re: (Score:2)
You could argue that forcing telcos and ISPs to incorporate wiretapping equipment into their systems constitutes a quartering of government agents on private property in violation of the 3rd Amendment.
I wish I had mod points today. A beautiful comment if there ever was one.
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]
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With any luck the next President will be from the sensible party
Which party is the sensible party again?
Re: (Score:2)
Which party is the sensible party again?
Justice.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I too hope the next president will be from the Green party and postpone implementation of Obamacare in favor of implementing single payer. It's not going to happen, but it's nice to hope.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying everyone in the Republican party believes you can't get pregnant from rape is like saying every Slashdot poster spams about hosts files and goatse.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a Democrat postpone ObamaCare?
To implement a sensible single payer system?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a Democrat postpone ObamaCare?
To implement a sensible single payer system?
There's the problem. The semi-sensible plan was eviscerated to get it past the Republicans and Blue Dogs in the relevant committees... who turned around and voted against it even after wringing all the concessions.
The problem, of course, is that a good system would handicap all the scalpers profiting off your misery right now. And when the scalpers trade shares on Wall Street, cutting them out of the loop isn't allowed.
In the USA there is a common view that personal and public health and wellbeing are a p
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats are not sensible either. Nor are the libertarians and greens. And most of the rest of the other parties are even more batshit insane than the republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Lose-lose, actually. Because the profits you are talking about simply do not exist. So much so, health-insurers close the shop and simply withdraw [wsj.com] from certain (highly progressive) states.
Re:Obamacare (Score:5, Informative)
better then the old system where you can pay in to plan for years and when you get real sick they drop you or say you hit the max pay out cap (easy to do when acetaminophen sold for $1.50 a tablet (you can buy 100 of those for the same price at Amazon); $77 for a box of sterile gauze pads (Amazon’s prices vary between $6 and $11); $18 for a single diabetes test strip (sold for 54 cents by Amazon); $108 for antibacterial Bacitracin ointment (Amazon’s prices vary between $2.50 and $6.50)
Re: (Score:2)
new as in can't be dropped or said no health care for you NEXT!
Re: (Score:2)
And what else is new? They're called "smoke-filled rooms" for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Except going broke is not something that should be feared in a civilized country. It shouldn't even be terribly shocking. Business entities do it all the time.
Of course we all know that there's 2 different standards for real people and corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
...in other words, you believe that handing off something to a large government beaurocracy is going to magically make that thing more efficient and cheaper.
Do you fall for telemarketers and Nigerian scams too?
Re: (Score:2)
What fiasco? Any insurance is a shared risk pool. That includes the careless jack*sses. It doesn't matter if this is a government imposed system or one from the allegedly free market. You still have to account for the people that make poor choices.
Piling on "consequences" completely defeats the entire point of government meddling to begin with.
We don't need to add yet another layer of inefficiency if the final result is going to be that some class of insured is told "tough luck". The free market can do that