Results 11 to 20 of 73
-
10-07-2013, 12:45 PM #11
I think it is politically relevant that the Democrats are forcing Americans to buy healthcare and the system they created is not working. I feel like I am at the DMV. I'll see if I can get someone on chat to help me.
-
-
10-07-2013, 12:51 PM #12
If you don't think this rollout has political ramifications you're wrong. Plus, this site will collect personal financial data equal to that required by the IRS, as well as very private healthcare information. The government controls this through software. If they can't get the basics right after three years, why should we trust them with our most private information?
-
10-07-2013, 12:56 PM #13
lol.. Can't handle the failing system?
Think about what you said.
This program is worth trillions, yet they started it up by using a 1996 server.
-
-
10-07-2013, 01:36 PM #14
Yeah, but is your beef with the government or their IT guys.
If it's the IT guys, your're in the wrong forum. Heck, you're on the wrong site.
No wonder you can't get it to work.
-
10-07-2013, 01:54 PM #15
with the biggest tax ever, they should have multiple servers and backup.
-
-
10-07-2013, 02:07 PM #16
This is still not the place to get IT help.
-
10-07-2013, 02:17 PM #17
The single payer advocates seem to agree with the free market advocates that this system is not a valid solution.
http://www.singlepayeraction.org/201...nto-obamacare/
One week into Obamacare enrollment and it’s still a nightmare to sign up through the healthcare.gov website.
But even if the computer glitches are worked out, “complexity is baked into Obamacare.”
That’s the take of single payer advocate Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP).
“The exchanges have to deal with millions of enrollees, they have to deal with income verification, they have to deal with thousands of private insurance plans,” Woolhandler told Democracy Now host Amy Goodman. “It’s a very complex system. And unfortunately, that complexity also contributes to high expense. The private insurance industry that is offering the insurance through the exchanges has overhead costs that are about four times as high as traditional Medicare. And in addition, we are going to have overheard of about four percent added to insurance overhead just for the exchanges. So it’s a complex system, a very expensive system and when we see the way it’s performing, we understand why we need a simple single payer system that could save about $400 billion on administrative simplification.”
Goodman asked Woolhandler: For people who don’t have insurance, should they go to the exchanges to sign up for Obamacare?
“People need to take a look,” Woolhandler said. “But they also need to know that many of the new plans have high co-payments, high deductibles, they can have very restrictive networks. So for some people, this can be a great deal if you income is in the low range. If you are middle income, I think you are going to find that you are paying an awful lot of money for some very skimpy coverage through the exchanges.”
-
-
10-07-2013, 02:35 PM #18
So are you mad about glitches or what? There's already multiple threads on this LAW, we don't need another one. If you can't figure out the system, this isn't the place. Since that's the point of this thread, anything else is off topic.
Seriously, these threads are getting repetitive and stupid. One more was not necessary.
-
10-07-2013, 02:46 PM #19
The rollout of the Healthcare.gov is news. This is the President's signature legislation that is falling flat on it's face. It you don't want to discuss that aspect of it, then don't read and don't respond.
Are you so upset about this because a Canadian company won the $1 billion contract and has bungled the deployment?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/canadi...rticle/2536805
A Canadian tech firm that has provided service to that country's single-payer health care system is behind the glitch-ridden United States national health care exchange site healthcare.gov.
CGI Federal is a subsidiary of Montreal-based CGI Group. With offices in Fairfax, Va., the subsidiary has been a darling of the Obama administration, which since 2009 has bestowed it with $1.4 billion in federal contracts, according to USAspending.gov.
The "CGI" in the parent company's name stands for "Conseillers en Gestion et Informatique" in French, which roughly translates to "Information Systems and Management Consultants." However, the firm offers another translation: "Consultants to Government and Industry."
The company is deeply embedded in Canada’s single-payer system. CGI has provided IT services to the Canadian Ministries of Health in Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Saskatchewan, as well as to the national health provider, Health Canada, according to CGI's Canadian website.
As Canada’s No. 1 IT provider, the company states on its website that “95 federal departments, agencies, and crown corporations and most of Canada’s provinces partner with” the firm.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services awarded CGI $55.7 million to launch Healthcare.gov, its central Obamacare health exchange website. Over the full five years of the contract, CGI could receive as much as $93.7 million.
Earlier this year the U.S. Government Accountability Office criticized the pace of development and testing for Healthcare.gov.'s IT system and noted that it was missing important milestone deadlines.
Consumers have encountered widespread problems since Obamacare's website went live on Tuesday. The system has crashed, pages do not open and many citizens complain they cannot register.
HHS is by far the single largest federal contractor of CGI, showering it with $645 million in contracts. The Defense Department pays the Canadian company $254 million, the EPA $58 million and the Justice Department $36 million.
-
10-07-2013, 02:56 PM #20
So it isn't about the glitches, as previously claimed, but just more on the thing as a whole. That would mean your initial reason for starting a new thread was false, since that was about the glitches.
If it's about the glitches, it doesn't belong in this forum.
If it's about the legislation, we don't need another thread.
Instead of defending it, maybe someone should merge it and be done.
This looks like an individual seeking attention by starting multiple threads.
-
Originally Posted by tpeichel 
