Yeah, requiring people to have basic healthcare and providing subsidies to those who can't afford it is, like, practically the next-door neighbor of socialist dictatorship.Or because it's another step towards an authoritarian government.Another example of someone opposed to the ACA because they're absolutely terrified that it will be good for the country.
Boggles the mind...
So ACA was deemed necessary because 29% of the country didn't have healthcare.
Now that the ACA is in place, 1.5% have had their current coverage cancelled as of Dec 01 2013 because it's not good enough for what's set forth in the ACA, AND the 29% this was for can't get onto the exchanges to get healthcare, either.
Of course that causees other problems. If we have a million people who become artists because that's what brings them self-esteem, who will be making car tires?
probablypeople who enjoy making car tires.
Yeah, requiring people to have basic healthcare and providing subsidies to those who can't afford it is, like, practically the next-door neighbor of socialist dictatorship.Or because it's another step towards an authoritarian government.Another example of someone opposed to the ACA because they're absolutely terrified that it will be good for the country.
Boggles the mind...
So ACA was deemed necessary because 29% of the country didn't have healthcare.
Now that the ACA is in place, 1.5% have had their current coverage cancelled as of Jan 01 2014 because it's not good enough for what's set forth in the ACA, AND the 29% this was for can't get onto the exchanges to get healthcare, either.
The mandate attached to the ACA won't go into effect until well after the exchange website is up and running (they'll push the mandate back if necessary), so while not having access to the exchange is inconvenient, it's not as heinous as it sounds.
(As a side note, it is not reasonable to expect a software project to deliver on time and on budget, because the software industry hasn't really figured out how to accurately assess these things ahead of time. It is really unreasonable to expect a project as large as the ACA site to deliver on time and on budget; see this infographic.)
You also need to take a look at how many of those 1.5% would have been dropped from their policies regardless of the ACA due to decisions by their insurance company. I'm sure there are still some extra, but I'm also sure that a significant portion of that 1.5% are people who would have lost their plan anyway.
They have not, as of yet, pushed back any mandates, other than the corporate one, nor has Congress voted to do so.
If it's not reasonable to expect it be done by then, why was that date chosen?
1.5% (3.5 million people; 80k alone in Louisiana, so who knows) is an estimate. Could be more, could be less. How is the ACA helping those that would have lost their coverage anyway?
Well, I can't find any definitive news quite yet but it doesn't look like the People's Republic of Galt will be coming to Seattle quite yet.
Not sure, but I think we might've lost Minneapolis, too. :(
Meanwhile, closer to home, Marty Walsh's campaign was seen as a potential last hurrah for Massachusetts Labor. Well, he won, and I'm sure his succession of Tom "No tolerance for civil disobedience" Menino will please my union boss, but the fact that he denounced a schoolbus drivers strike during his campaign doesn't exactly thrill me.
How were your elections?
Christie still gov of NJ. That's kinda cool.
Though, I don't think anyone expected his opponent to win.
This won't happen in America. We're better.
Smart-assery aside, there are some pretty good arguments out there that markets aren't the panacea they're often made out to be. Assuming you're willing to look.
Markets may not be perfect, but they are the best option out of the list of imperfect choices.
Markets may not be perfect, but they are the best option out of the list of imperfect choices.
Smart-assery aside, there are some pretty good arguments out there that markets aren't the panacea they're often made out to be. Assuming you're willing to look.
If you have the means with which to participate, that's possibly true.
If not, the invisible hand does you no favors.
|
Strangely enough, the term "arachnocapitalism" is only used by leftists who feel the need to disparage those with whom they disagree.
** spoiler omitted **
Just so you know, that is absolutely untrue. There are people who happily identify as anarchio-capitalist or 'ancaps'.
They don't consider it an insult.
They have not, as of yet, pushed back any mandates, other than the corporate one, nor has Congress voted to do so.
They have stated that the mandate will be pushed back. See: this article.
If it's not reasonable to expect it be done by then, why was that date chosen?
Because Congress likes deadlines.
In all seriousness, there is a lot of friction between the need for projects to have deadlines attached to them, and the reality that no one has come up with a reliable way to predict what it will take to complete a large software project.
The ACA site is now being used in software design courses as one of the primary examples of how large software projects are so difficult to manage.
1.5% (3.5 million people; 80k alone in Louisiana, so who knows) is an estimate. Could be more, could be less. How is the ACA helping those that would have lost their coverage anyway?
Many of them will be losing coverage because insurance companies, up until the ACA, have had the ability to drop people from their plans for medical reasons. That will no longer be possible.
To boot, many of those that will lose their coverage will be able to repurchase coverage at heavily subsidized rates much cheaper than they were previously paying (again, once the ACA website is working), without worrying about being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Just so you know, that is absolutely untrue. There are people who happily identify as anarchio-capitalist or 'ancaps'.They don't consider it an insult.
The far more common usage is by leftists who use it as an insult.
Sort of like the Flat-Earth Society. It's a real thing, but the common usage is as a term of disparagement. As in: "It's a funny thing that the only people who use the term 'flat earther' are environmentalists who feel the need to disaprage those with whom they disagree."
This won't happen in America. We're better.Really? thats just funny. Look at this place, do you really think THIS america is better than anything?
I was taking that as sarcasm.
This won't happen in America. We're better.Really? thats just funny. Look at this place, do you really think THIS america is better than anything?
Actually, yes, according to a whole pile of very important metrics, the United States is actually doing very well, comparatively. It actually is better than most places.
Kryzbyn's comment was sarcastic, by the way.
The far more common usage is by leftists who use it as an insult.
Just so you know, that is absolutely untrue. There are people who happily identify as anarchio-capitalist or 'ancaps'.They don't consider it an insult.
Is it? Granted, I'm here in New Hampshire, land of the Free State Project, but most usage of the term that I've encountered is either proud self-identification or other anarchists bemoaning the use of the term.
Sort of like the Flat-Earth Society. It's a real thing, but the common usage is as a term of disparagement. As in: "It's a funny thing that the only people who use the term 'flat earther' are environmentalists who feel the need to disaprage those with whom they disagree."
Even if that were true (I love that you just compared anarcho-capitalism to belief in a flat earth while accusing us of using it disparaginly), no one here is using it inaccurately. You can take the manufactured anti-liberal outrage elsewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The far more common usage is by leftists who use it as an insult.
Just so you know, that is absolutely untrue. There are people who happily identify as anarchio-capitalist or 'ancaps'.They don't consider it an insult.
Kind of like people who use leftist, liberal, progressive, etc., as a slur.
Now that the ACA is in place, 1.5% have had their current coverage cancelled as of Dec 01 2013 because it's not good enough for what's set forth in the ACA, AND the 29% this was for can't get onto the exchanges to get healthcare, either.
Any coverage in place when the law was signed is exempt from ACA requirements forever. These are known as grandfathered plans. Any company that canceled coverage effective Jan 1, 2014 was NOT required to do so by the ACA. Did they use the ACA as an excuse? Quite possibly.
Edit: Turns out I was mistaken -- Grandfathered plans are exempt from some requirements, but not others. Here is a good article on the matter. I would summarize things thusly: Some plans are being canceled because bringing them into compliance with the law would make them less profitable than the insurance company is willing to accept.
Markets may not be perfect, but they are the best option out of the list of imperfect choices.
I respect the power of the profit motive, and the efficiencies that markets deliver. But I think markets work best when regulated, which is Keynesianism in a nut shell. Unfortunately, part of the American public reliably confuses regulation with Socialism.
Unfortunately, part of the American public reliably confuses regulation with Socialism.
"Confuses" is, perhaps, too charitable of a term.
|
What do you think would happen if, due to a vulnerability in the system, the ACA database reports that a person is not qualified to receive a medical treatment they need?
That sounds like an issue with the insurance providers database rather than the exchange. Or is Health.gov going to be consulted by the patients insurer to determine covered care?
What do you think would happen if, due to a vulnerability in the system, the ACA database reports that a person is not qualified to receive a medical treatment they need?That sounds like an issue with the insurance providers database rather than the exchange. Or is Health.gov going to be consulted by the patients insurer to determine covered care?
Yep, I was under the impression the ACA site was more for directing insurance-seeker traffic to providers, not for the actual insurance claims later (although hey, I'm in the UK, I just have to go on third party info, so I'm sorry if I misunderstood)
The far more common usage is by leftists who use it as an insult.
Just so you know, that is absolutely untrue. There are people who happily identify as anarchio-capitalist or 'ancaps'.They don't consider it an insult.
Maybe in your circles. I've talked with a WHOLE lot of people who identify as anarcho-capitalists. AnCap is the new, even more radical version of libertarianism and has the same sort of allure to young, financially stable, white men.
Especially on the internet. It's so prevalent on YouTube and especially in the deep web.
We've seen people extoll the virtues of anarcho-capitalism on these boards, using that very term.
Now, 'AnCap' I use derisively. As in the term "f&%~in' ancaps". I tend to blame a lot of things on AnCaps, often sarcastically. It's my version of "Thanks, Obummer!"
Have you thought about how vulnerable to attack (hacking) the ACA website is likely to be once it is rolled out?
Have you?
What do you think would happen if, due to a vulnerability in the system, the ACA database reports that a person is not qualified to receive a medical treatment they need?
That would be very impressive, considering that care providers won't be in the habit of consulting the health exchange database to determine what their patients qualify for.
It's doubtful that the ACA system will contain much more personally identifiable information than dozens of other state and federal website databases that are used all the time and are generally secure (at least comparably secure to equally sensitive products developed by private companies).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ACA kicked me.
The ACA kicked me.
That's an outrage! I demand a full investigation!
Not necessarily.
First, if there is a vulnerability in the ACA application, then a hacker can use it as a starting place from which to elevate privileges.
Second, if the ACA server is connected to insurance provider servers, the hacker can move from the ACA server to the insurance provider servers. One common way to do that is with XSRF.
If that is the case, then the insurance provider's application has a problem, not healthcare.gov. Unless you're arguing that the information wouldn't have been available online in any form without the ACA? I think that would be a pretty tough argument to make -- and even if you could, it still isn't a problem with healthcare.gov.
Maybe someone who gets medical care because of the ACA -- and subsequently survives -- will go on to assassinate the president. In which case, I guess you'd say the ACA killed the president? :P
I'm going to go to the city bus depot and slash the tires on every bus...
...and then be outraged when my bus is late. I told you so!
I'm going to go to the city bus depot and slash the tires on every bus...
...and then be outraged when my bus is late. I told you so!
It's those Union Thugs (TM) I tells ya!
Not necessarily.
First, if there is a vulnerability in the ACA application, then a hacker can use it as a starting place from which to elevate privileges.
Second, if the ACA server is connected to insurance provider servers, the hacker can move from the ACA server to the insurance provider servers. One common way to do that is with XSRF.If that is the case, then the insurance provider's application has a problem, not healthcare.gov. Unless you're arguing that the information wouldn't have been available online in any form without the ACA? I think that would be a pretty tough argument to make -- and even if you could, it still isn't a problem with healthcare.gov.
Maybe someone who gets medical care because of the ACA -- and subsequently survives -- will go on to assassinate the president. In which case, I guess you'd say the ACA killed the president? :P
There is a principle of due care involved. If an insurance company has a data leak due to this connection, the insurance company can claim that due care was not followed by healthcare.gov. We used to see this kind of thing happen all the time with Smurf and Fraggle attacks (where one system comes under attack because it is open to another system which is vulnerable and the two systems are owned by different parties). We see it less often now because of the legal concept of due care.
|
|
...We see it less often now because of the legal concept of due care.Maybe someone who gets medical care because of the ACA -- and subsequently survives -- will go on to assassinate the president. In which case, I guess you'd say the ACA killed the president? :PNot necessarily.
First, if there is a vulnerability in the ACA application, then a hacker can use it as a starting place from which to elevate privileges...
There are so many problems with ACA that are real, do we really need to invent ones that don't exist?
Ok, explain to me how the website creates a security problem for information it doesn't have?