9 ms·

an act which would border on criminal negligence if it was done in the private sector and someone was harmed For example, someone thought they got coverage for

an act which would border on criminal negligence if it was done in the private sector and someone was harmed For example, someone thought they got coverage for something and they didn't. That mis-communication can lead to actual harm when it comes to medical and financial issues.

hga 13y ago
The good news is that the head of the new management of this project, the fix-it czar Jeffrey Zients, is saying the very top item of his punch list is to stop feeding garbage to the insurance companies. The bad news it that it's taken this long for anyone in authority to even admit there's a major problem there, when there's only 7 weeks left to correct it for those who lose their insurance Jan 1. Someone in another discussion brought up the Space Shuttle accidents. I'll bet you more people will die because of this monumental monstrosity ... except they didn't volunteer for something obviously dangerous.
- danielweber 13y ago
  While I agree with the rest of what you said, it's jumping to a few conclusions to say that lots of people will die because of this. People will think they are insured when they aren't, but the usual outcome of that is bankruptcy -- or a bunch of ugly and public lawsuits over who pays the bill.
  - hga 13y ago
    I'm making a wild guess than more than 14 people will fall through the cracks and die. Certainly such stories have been used to sell Obamacare. Ah, I just remembered that economists can predict over large populations how many will prematurely die if you remove X dollars from the population. I forget the now obsolete figures, but I'll bet on that basis alone there will be that many casualties. Any time the visible foot of government makes such big steps people will die, it's a given.
    - danielweber 13y ago
      I know those stories of "X number of people die every year from lack of insurance," which were sincerely believed by their speaks but lacking in rigor. I'm expecting over the next few years, as the number of uninsured drops close to zero, that there will be no discernible drop in the number of annual deaths.
      - hga 13y ago
        "I'm expecting over the next few years, as the number of uninsured drops close to zero" Errm, it's as I understand it a well established fact that tens of millions will remain without coverage. Try a search like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=obamacare+won't+cover+everyone https://www.google.com/search?q=obamacare+won't+cover+everyo... The first two links said 30 and 26 million, which agrees with my general memory. It was obviously a very early criticism of the ACA.
        tunesmith 13y ago
        What I find is that the people who criticize the ACA on this point are also often opposed to the solutions that would shrink the number. It's dishonest. 1) Offering insurance to undocumented immigrants would shrink the number 2) Strengthening the mandate would shrink the number 3) Expanding medicaid to the states that "opted out" due to the Supreme Court decision would shrink the number
      - tunesmith 13y ago
        You also have to factor in life expectancy of various cohorts. Poor people will be healthier. Also note that the goal of ACA wasn't entirely to drop deathrates. Unlike before, the combination of pre-existing conditions, and elimination of annual/lifetime maximums means that people are now able to get essential health care without risking bankruptcy from medical bills. There really is a true out-of-pocket maximum now for essential care, for anyone that has health insurance. This was not true before the ACA.
- tunesmith 13y ago
  I think that is very much setting the wrong bar. This sounds awful and cynical, but you have to compare the deaths the website might lead to, to the estimated counterfactual - how many would die in the status quo. The ACA prohibits "pre-existing condition" rejections, and it also prohibits "annual and lifetime maximums" (where the insurance companies say, "Oops, looks like we already paid out a million bucks on your cancer, you're on your own now!") And there's also the expanded Medicaid. So you have to factor in the lives that will be saved by the law.
  - hga 13y ago
    Indeed. Although I'll note the not all plans really eliminate maximums, some require 20-30% (from what I've seen) copays after you max out your deductible. People are going to be trying to figure this out for a long time (even if the ACA gets terminated with extreme prejudice in a few years). There are a LOT of factors: The cost of guaranteed issue and community ratings is huge price increases for the under 50 set to subsidize the inherently more expensive 50-64 set (or so I've read, but I'm sure its roughly true). A lot of people are losing the ability to work more than 29 hours at one place, or are just plain getting fired because they now cost more than they can produce, and that loss of wealth will have significant effects. Heck, the #1 piece of advice to get more subsidies is to make less money. Then we get into the messy dynamic effects, where "Europe" is the object lesson: due to the changed game, a bunch of companies are not going to be founded or make it, or fail ... and in the longer term people are going to notice that there's no scenario where being married doesn't result in higher costs. Accounting for the effects of the latter is supremely difficult. And then there's the argument this with all else Obama et. al. are doing (most certainly including the eGOP) is moving the US rapidly to failed nation status. It's hardly beyond the realm of possibility that will kill 10s of millions. If it denies me the medications I need to live, I'll be one of them.... ADDED: now that you've labeled me as dishonest (e.g. for not wanting to provide health care for illegal aliens (which, yes, is a harsh position)), I'm not sure there's much point in continuing to discuss this. But also add the effects of reduced medical innovation. Starting with the 2.3% excise tax on medical devices, which we know from the history of "socialized medicine" will continue. One reason health care is so expensive in the US is that we pay nearly all the burden of new drug development.... If we manage to curtail the already feeble new antibiotic development efforts the results world wide will be measured in ... biblical proportions.

hga 13y ago

The good news is that the head of the new management of this project, the fix-it czar Jeffrey Zients, is saying the very top item of his punch list is to stop feeding garbage to the insurance companies. The bad news it that it's taken this long for anyone in authority to even admit there's a major problem there, when there's only 7 weeks left to correct it for those who lose their insurance Jan 1. Someone in another discussion brought up the Space Shuttle accidents. I'll bet you more people will die because of this monumental monstrosity ... except they didn't volunteer for something obviously dangerous.

danielweber 13y ago
While I agree with the rest of what you said, it's jumping to a few conclusions to say that lots of people will die because of this. People will think they are insured when they aren't, but the usual outcome of that is bankruptcy -- or a bunch of ugly and public lawsuits over who pays the bill.
- hga 13y ago
  I'm making a wild guess than more than 14 people will fall through the cracks and die. Certainly such stories have been used to sell Obamacare. Ah, I just remembered that economists can predict over large populations how many will prematurely die if you remove X dollars from the population. I forget the now obsolete figures, but I'll bet on that basis alone there will be that many casualties. Any time the visible foot of government makes such big steps people will die, it's a given.
  - danielweber 13y ago
    I know those stories of "X number of people die every year from lack of insurance," which were sincerely believed by their speaks but lacking in rigor. I'm expecting over the next few years, as the number of uninsured drops close to zero, that there will be no discernible drop in the number of annual deaths.
    - hga 13y ago
      "I'm expecting over the next few years, as the number of uninsured drops close to zero" Errm, it's as I understand it a well established fact that tens of millions will remain without coverage. Try a search like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=obamacare+won't+cover+everyone https://www.google.com/search?q=obamacare+won't+cover+everyo... The first two links said 30 and 26 million, which agrees with my general memory. It was obviously a very early criticism of the ACA.
      - tunesmith 13y ago
        What I find is that the people who criticize the ACA on this point are also often opposed to the solutions that would shrink the number. It's dishonest. 1) Offering insurance to undocumented immigrants would shrink the number 2) Strengthening the mandate would shrink the number 3) Expanding medicaid to the states that "opted out" due to the Supreme Court decision would shrink the number
    - tunesmith 13y ago
      You also have to factor in life expectancy of various cohorts. Poor people will be healthier. Also note that the goal of ACA wasn't entirely to drop deathrates. Unlike before, the combination of pre-existing conditions, and elimination of annual/lifetime maximums means that people are now able to get essential health care without risking bankruptcy from medical bills. There really is a true out-of-pocket maximum now for essential care, for anyone that has health insurance. This was not true before the ACA.
tunesmith 13y ago
I think that is very much setting the wrong bar. This sounds awful and cynical, but you have to compare the deaths the website might lead to, to the estimated counterfactual - how many would die in the status quo. The ACA prohibits "pre-existing condition" rejections, and it also prohibits "annual and lifetime maximums" (where the insurance companies say, "Oops, looks like we already paid out a million bucks on your cancer, you're on your own now!") And there's also the expanded Medicaid. So you have to factor in the lives that will be saved by the law.
- hga 13y ago
  Indeed. Although I'll note the not all plans really eliminate maximums, some require 20-30% (from what I've seen) copays after you max out your deductible. People are going to be trying to figure this out for a long time (even if the ACA gets terminated with extreme prejudice in a few years). There are a LOT of factors: The cost of guaranteed issue and community ratings is huge price increases for the under 50 set to subsidize the inherently more expensive 50-64 set (or so I've read, but I'm sure its roughly true). A lot of people are losing the ability to work more than 29 hours at one place, or are just plain getting fired because they now cost more than they can produce, and that loss of wealth will have significant effects. Heck, the #1 piece of advice to get more subsidies is to make less money. Then we get into the messy dynamic effects, where "Europe" is the object lesson: due to the changed game, a bunch of companies are not going to be founded or make it, or fail ... and in the longer term people are going to notice that there's no scenario where being married doesn't result in higher costs. Accounting for the effects of the latter is supremely difficult. And then there's the argument this with all else Obama et. al. are doing (most certainly including the eGOP) is moving the US rapidly to failed nation status. It's hardly beyond the realm of possibility that will kill 10s of millions. If it denies me the medications I need to live, I'll be one of them.... ADDED: now that you've labeled me as dishonest (e.g. for not wanting to provide health care for illegal aliens (which, yes, is a harsh position)), I'm not sure there's much point in continuing to discuss this. But also add the effects of reduced medical innovation. Starting with the 2.3% excise tax on medical devices, which we know from the history of "socialized medicine" will continue. One reason health care is so expensive in the US is that we pay nearly all the burden of new drug development.... If we manage to curtail the already feeble new antibiotic development efforts the results world wide will be measured in ... biblical proportions.