[mycroft]

 barmar, on 2013-October-23, 10:07, said:

http://www.newser.co...es-as-kids.html

The Daily Show mentioned that less than 10% of people who have attempted to enroll have been successful.

While the issues are serious, and there was definitely a problem, it seems par for the course for IT rollouts, especially government IT rollouts. The standard contracting methods, that work well for F-101s (well, they don't, there's 6 months to two years of shakeout for them, too, it's just that you tend not to hear about that as much), don't seem to work well for IT, especially when the turnover time is frequently less than the "build a contract" time. Please note, par for the course isn't, in fact, good.

having said all of that, the correct statistic is that about 10% of people who have logged in to look have successfully enrolled in a plan. While that's still not great, if you discount all the people who were just looking around, or were organizing plans so they could talk to their families or their workplace, or... it's probably a fair bit higher.

I have 30 years of experience with crappy UI. I have fewer years of experience with good UI. I also happen to be one of those for whom icons are actually slower than text, so a lot of "good UI" is crappy for me.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2013-October-23, 10:12, said:

You're kidding, right?

Corporations have incentive to get things right -- if their services don't work, they lose money and can go out of business. Governments don't have much to lose.

I may be a Democrat, but I still know that private industry is usually more efficient and productive than the public sector. There are just some services that are hard for private businesses to provide (there's no profit in fire-fighting or welfare, for instance), and we need governments to do them.

Do we really? That's the welfare-statist argument for welfare, certainly, but that doesn't make it valid. Oh, sure, during the Depression, when nearly everybody needed help, private charity wasn't enough, but that was an anomaly. As for fire-fighting, I bet private industry could find a way to make a legitimate profit on it. It's one of those "but we've always done it this way, so it must be the only way to do it" things.

[hrothgar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-October-23, 11:09, said:

As for fire-fighting, I bet private industry could find a way to make a legitimate profit on it. It's one of those "but we've always done it this way, so it must be the only way to do it" things.

This is the wrong way to frame the key decision.

This issue isn't whether private industry can "make a legitimate profit", it's whether a market based solution will provide an efficient level of fire prevention.

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2013-October-23, 08:25, said:

Hmmm. I wonder where all those multiple enrollments on healthcare.gov are coming from?

Sebelius and Zients are probably on there way over to kenberg's house now.

I'll pick up a couple more bottles of wine while I am out. In vino veritas. If we don't reach a solution we will at least enjoy the discussion.

[y66]

It looks like barmar did some housekeeping on the thread. Perhaps you could refer him to your new pals when you see them.

[mycroft]

Heh, I was going to comment on private fire-fighting services. They do work, and they do make a good profit. But they have the small side problem that houses burn down if you can't afford to pay to keep it up, or if the private services decide that "when the clients' house is on fire" is a *great* time to renegotiate the contract, or if the wrong fire service shows up first, or... and that's bad for neighbours whose houses also catch fire.

It was having seen how things did work in the free market that governments decided that it should be a public service, because they couldn't manage to do it *worse*...

[blackshoe]

Assume the following:

1. There is no "gummint" fire-fighting service.
2. I have what I consider to be a good contract with a private service, in case my house catches fire.
3. My neighbor has no such contract.
4. My neighbor's house catches fire.

First thing I'm going to do is call my service and tell them what's going on, in case the fire jumps to my house. If I have a good contract with them, this possibility will be part of it.
I may, if my contract allows it and I expect that my neighbor will pay me back when he can, ask my fire service to put out his fire.

In a reasonable system, any private fire service that tries to "renegotiate" the contract when the client's house is on fire will get hauled into court and end up buying the client a new house and new furniture, and paying additional reparations. Given this, it will not be cost effective for such services to pull this stunt.

"Wrong service shows up first" can be dealt with by prior contract.

As soon as something seems not to work perfectly, many people want somebody else, usually "the government," to "fix it, right now!" Ironic, really, in view of the problems with the Obamacare rollout.

[Winstonm]

You are on vacation. Your house catches fire. Your neighbor notices, but since it is none of his business, and he does not know which fire department you have chosen to use, he ignores it. Your house burns to the ground.

Congratulations. You now get to test your insurance company choice.

[sharon j]

We live in a large unincorporated area and have private fire protection. There is only one company providing the service. Contracting with them is optional and many do not. This, of course affects the prices buyers pay for protection. They will respond to and fight all calls. If you do not have a contract, they bill you at an hourly rate, which is quite high. They have recently filed for chapter 13. This has many worried about the future of the company and future fire protection.

To me, this is much like the health insurance industry. Those who buy health insurance pay higher premiums for those who do not.

[ArtK78]

 sharon j, on 2013-October-24, 07:55, said:

Those who buy health insurance pay higher premiums for those who do not.

I can certainly understand this statement. Those who do not buy health insurance don't pay anything.

[hrothgar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-October-23, 16:41, said:

Assume the following:

1. There is no "gummint" fire-fighting service.
2. I have what I consider to be a good contract with a private service, in case my house catches fire.
3. My neighbor has no such contract.
4. My neighbor's house catches fire.

First thing I'm going to do is call my service and tell them what's going on, in case the fire jumps to my house. If I have a good contract with them, this possibility will be part of it.
I may, if my contract allows it and I expect that my neighbor will pay me back when he can, ask my fire service to put out his fire.

Putting fires for potential customers with no existing contract is going to be an incredibly lucrative opportunity for the fire department.

There's no way that the a profit maximizing company is going to grant you the right to sub contract their services without significantly increasing your own rates.

[Winstonm]

I don't grasp the ideology that profit is the raison d'tre for all human economic activity. IMO that is fanciful thinking that does not transfer well into real-world action.

[sharon j]

 ArtK78, on 2013-October-24, 08:05, said:

I can certainly understand this statement. Those who do not buy health insurance don't pay anything.

lol

[ArtK78]

 sharon j, on 2013-October-24, 07:55, said:

Those who buy health insurance pay higher premiums for those who do not.

Actually, I misread your statement. I read it to be "Those who buy health insurance pay higher premiums THAN those who do not." Which is a funny statement.

Taking your statement as phrased, you are stating that insurance premiums paid by those who purchase health insurance are higher than they otherwise would be if the uninsured were, in fact, insured. I don't know if this is true or not, as there is no direct cost on the insurance companies due to the problems of the uninsured. Your argument may be that health costs in general are higher than they would otherwise be because health care providers have to bear the burden of treating uninsured individuals who do not have the ability to pay, and the health care providers pass along these costs to those who can pay - the insurance companies - and that the insurance companies pass along these costs to their policy holders in the form of higher premiums.

This is one of the rationales behind universal health coverage. Another is, of course, that it is to the benefit of the general public that all individuals have health care coverage.

[Aberlour10]

Surrreal and more surreal...this is a good description for what happens in the transatlantic relationships in these days.
The european media, especially in Germany and France are full with articles, reports, comments about the newest,
developments in the NSA affair while even so serious newspapers like NYT WP LAT seem to have much more interest
for reports about Baby George, really strange days...
Even the closest US friends like Merkel and Hollande who would never serious criticize USA are now really angry,
the call ENOUGH IS ENOUGH storms through political Europa. Obama's arrogance and ignorance in the way he
responds to the current situation is unprecedented...this is the one opinion throug all political camps.
Does he really recognize the political damage in the relationship with Europe relased by his management.
European opinion on that: Obama does not need friends, he has the NSA.
But nevermind, Baby George seems to be really more interesting for the americans. C'est la vie.

[y66]

 Aberlour10, on 2013-October-24, 10:11, said:

Surrreal and more surreal...this is a good description for what happens in the transatlantic relationships in these days.
The european media, especially in Germany and France are full with articles, reports, comments about the newest,
developments in the NSA affair while even so serious newspapers like NYT WP LAT seem to have much more interest
for reports about Baby George, really strange days...
Even the closest US friends like Merkel and Hollande who would never serious criticize USA are now really angry,
the call ENOUGH IS ENOUGH storms through political Europa. Obama's arrogance and ignorance in the way he
responds to the current situation is unprecedented...this is the one opinion throug all political camps.
Does he really recognize the political damage in the relationship with Europe relased by his management.
European opinion on that: Obama does not need friends, he has the NSA.
But nevermind, Baby George seems to be really more interesting for the americans. C'est la vie.

Yeah, Hrothgar's Costa Rica bailout plan looks better all the time. The problem with that plan, like bailing out of anything, is you often just change one set of problems for another set. What a strange time this is though for Americans. We are becoming a nation of exceptional f**k ups.

[kenberg]

Actually there was something about Baby George on tv yesterday. Maybe a baptism or something? I didn't get what the event was. Until they said it, neither my wife nor I knew the child's name. Now I suppose some Brit will complain that we Yanks just aren't interested in matters of great consequence to them. Hard to please everyone. In fact I had forgotten that Diana was the grandmother of George. I don't follow this stuff much. I wish them all well, I just don't much care about any of the events.

I try hard not to lump everyone from one country, any one country, all together and then rant on about how awful they are. But to each his own.

[sharon j]

 ArtK78, on 2013-October-24, 09:25, said:

Actually, I misread your statement. I read it to be "Those who buy health insurance pay higher premiums THAN those who do not." Which is a funny statement.

Taking your statement as phrased, you are stating that insurance premiums paid by those who purchase health insurance are higher than they otherwise would be if the uninsured were, in fact, insured. I don't know if this is true or not, as there is no direct cost on the insurance companies due to the problems of the uninsured. Your argument may be that health costs in general are higher than they would otherwise be because health care providers have to bear the burden of treating uninsured individuals who do not have the ability to pay, and the health care providers pass along these costs to those who can pay - the insurance companies - and that the insurance companies pass along these costs to their policy holders in the form of higher premiums.

This is one of the rationales behind universal health coverage. Another is, of course, that it is to the benefit of the general public that all individuals have health care coverage.

You said it much better than I did. lol Thanks

[mike777]

fwiw we seem to all agree private insurance is horrible horrible.

I go to dentist and see horrible insurance...


they sent me ins card that =zero when paid much..much.


1) today tv says oc =horrible
2) today I go to dentist and ins horrible
it turns out after silly.....my dentist card worthless because the card is worthless silly....after much debate they pay.......they pay..after I am in much pain...ya and pissed off...but I am old but ya you guys I raise huge fuss in middle dentist office...demand they call ceo of bank of America etc...you get how silly I come across. at the end they pay....but don't let me talk with ceo./ my wife is sort of sort of vp iwas long ago...you get the picture. btw ceo lives not that far from me....few miles but you get the picture and yes his kids live in boston not here.


thanks for nothing bank of America

fwiw2 forecasts say 14 million lose current insurance....ya forecasts can suck.
------------


fwiw I go back to dentist one week for part 2 and ya he knows I am pissed off for my pain.

[hrothgar]

 mike777, on 2013-October-25, 02:43, said:

2) today I go to dentist and ins horrible
it turns out after silly.....my dentist card worthless because the card is worthless silly....after much debate they pay.......they pay..after I am in much pain...ya and pissed off...but I am old but ya you guys I raise huge fuss in middle dentist office...demand they call ceo of bank of America etc...you get how silly I come across. at the end they pay....but don't let me talk with ceo./ my wife is sort of sort of vp iwas long ago...you get the picture. btw ceo lives not that far from me....few miles but you get the picture and yes his kids live in boston not here.

thanks for nothing bank of America

fwiw2 forecasts say 14 million lose current insurance....ya forecasts can suck.

fwiw I go back to dentist one week for part 2 and ya he knows I am pissed off for my pain.

Perhaps this explains your claim that Obamacare is causing your premiums to increase dramatically?
(It sounds as if your current coverage might not be that good)