Obamacare/Trumpcare Horror Stories

[red321]

Both sides have let this happen.  Reps have just done a better job of looking more inept doing it.

 

For me, I'd just prefer a fix that helped people who couldn't get healthcare without affecting those of us who like ours just fine and without forcing people who don't want it yet to have it.

 

 

I think having a public option would have addressed that mt...I'd add more, but I'm way too many double ipa's in to be coherent

[red321]

The U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are the two bodies that are mandated by the Constitution to create, review, amend, pass and repeal laws. The Constitution says that the House and Senate may make their own rules as to how they do this, and therefore they are not under the constraints of any federal law that governs how laws are passed and repealed. The Constitution also requires that any spending bills must begin in the House, and withholding funding of laws the House does not agree with is a longstanding tradition that is mirrored in the state legislative bodies as well. Withholding funding is just one of a myriad of ways the House can stop a law from going into effect.

What the U.S. House of Representatives is doing by withholding funding of the Obamacare provisions is one of the "checks and balances" of our government. They do not agree with the law, and it is their prerogative under the Constitution to withhold funding even though it was passed and signed into law, even though it was affirmed by the Supreme Court, even though Obama won the 2012 election, and even though they've voted to repeal it 39 times and each attempt failed in the Senate. In fact, the U.S. Senate is exercising its role in the "checks and balances" process by voting down the House continuing resolution.

 

Bruce,

With all due respect...that's utter bullshit. They've gone beyond "checks and balances". They've gone to holding hostages. As you mentioned...they've attempted repeal 39 times and failed...so they've gone to taking the budgeting process and debt limit hostage because following the legislative process they are unable to get what they want. As I mentioned, it's as Obama stated he wasn't going to sign the budget unless he got a ban of all automatic weapons. In essence they are saying regardless of how people have voted, regardless of the results of an election, unless they get everything they want **** the economy. 

[saangels]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324492604579087044033601178.html

Taylor, I found the article you posted very insightful.  Mr. Funk impressed me with his ingenuity and open-mindedness.  I completely agree with him on almost everything he said--even partially in regards to his concern over government regulation of the private sector.  Nothing could be dumber or more racist than hiring people based on the color of their skin.  I can see why employers are "living in a state of fear" when it is so easy for the EEOC board to point the finger with one hand and wag the discrimination card with the other.  But this whole issue is two-fold, and I think the article misses an important point. 

 

The reason that Obamacare is good for Mr. Funk's business and bad for America is, according to the article, because "ObamaCare imposes new mandates and penalties on companies with more than 50 full-time employees—and even those working 30 hours a week are considered full-time."  So in essence businesses are now more inclined to prefer temporary workers to permanent full-time employees to avoid paying penalties.  But the penalties aren't intended to strike fear into the souls of business owners, like the article would lead us to believe. The penalties were put into legislation because the United States is the only industrialized country that doesn't offer its populace universal health care. It had always been--until recently--understood that a worker would receive health coverage in exchange for full-time work: but over the last decade or so many of these benefits have been getting cut.  More and more full-time workers are losing their benefits.  Consequently, the businessmen aren't the only ones "living in a state of fear."  It's a two way street.  Is Obamacare the best way to solve the problem?  Hell no.  But we live in a democracy, where diametrically opposing forces dictate the terms of our laws.  I'm not thrilled about the bill either; I'm sure there are a million scandalous riders and flaws in the wording of it; but as a hard-working, uninsured--yet full-time employed--worker myself with a screwed up knee, I'm glad to know that one day I'll be able to have surgery without having to take out a $20,000 loan.

 

In short, I can see both perspectives.  Government intervention is not always the right way to go.  In this case, however, I think it is the lesser of two evils, because most employers aren't as generous as Mr. Funk.  Something clearly needed to be done.  There's no excuse for 47,000 uninsured citizens to die every year in the richest country in the world--even if it means cutting into the sacred pie and redistributing a little wealth.            

Edited October 7, 2013 by saangels

[Jay]

The Dems crafted a partisan law to benefit Dems, shoved it down the throats of Reps, and now wonder why there is a wall of opposition.

[TobiasFunke]

Because the Cons didn't get their way again?

[Schildog]

that is an amazing civics lesson at the top of the page.

[Jay]

Because the Cons didn't get their way again?

 

Well, because everyone has been lied to, basically.

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area

[Lhalo]

Bruce,

With all due respect...that's utter bullshit. They've gone beyond "checks and balances". They've gone to holding hostages. As you mentioned...they've attempted repeal 39 times and failed...so they've gone to taking the budgeting process and debt limit hostage because following the legislative process they are unable to get what they want. As I mentioned, it's as Obama stated he wasn't going to sign the budget unless he got a ban of all automatic weapons. In essence they are saying regardless of how people have voted, regardless of the results of an election, unless they get everything they want **** the economy.

Actually everything Bruce said is true and no amount of rhetoric can change that.

[Lhalo]

Well, because everyone has been lied to, basically.

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area

"Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally."

Classic.

[Taylor]

Bruce,

With all due respect...that's utter bullshit. They've gone beyond "checks and balances". They've gone to holding hostages. As you mentioned...they've attempted repeal 39 times and failed...so they've gone to taking the budgeting process and debt limit hostage because following the legislative process they are unable to get what they want. As I mentioned, it's as Obama stated he wasn't going to sign the budget unless he got a ban of all automatic weapons. In essence they are saying regardless of how people have voted, regardless of the results of an election, unless they get everything they want **** the economy. 

 

I don't disagree with you. But Obama's been doing the same exact thing for five years.

[fan_since79]

Healthcare.gov Facebook page hit with avalanche of negative comments:

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=565848800131026&id=130163127032931&_rdr#565868990129007

 

[Taylor]

Healthcare.gov Facebook page hit with avalanche of negative comments:

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=565848800131026&id=130163127032931&_rdr#565868990129007

 

Edgars Freibergs

As you sign up today folks don’t forget your free Obamaphone and to request a copy of Michelle Obama’s Healthy food choices book series. “How to survive on twigs and bark” … It will come in handy after you sell your first born to pay for the mandatory premiums!

Like Â· 155 Â· Reply Â· Oct 3 at 9:59pm

 

Awesome.

[nate]

As many of you know, I work for a major health insurance company and I have spent the last 18 months or so preparing our systems for Obamacare.  My biggest focus was the receipt of the enrollment and processing in the system.  The government gave us initial requirements for us to build around.  About five months ago they almost completely changed their requirements which caused us to have to rework almost everything we did.

 

Enrollment is sent electronically using and EDI text file.  It is essentially a really fancy delimited text file with tons of syntax validation.

 

We didn't receive anything on 10/1, most likely because their systems were down most of the day.  On 10/2 we received a couple and over the weekend we finally got what we thought were some pretty large membership files for several different states.

 

We were wrong, they were just sending the same member over and over again.  Add, cancel, add, cancel, etc.  In some cases 15 adds and 15 cancels for the same family.  It is just speculation but we thing maybe their website kept kicking the member out as they were submitting their data, so the member kept coming back in.

 

Anyway, in the requirements they stated that in this situation they would just send the most recent whole transaction.  There are timestamps on each transaction so, even though it wasn't in the requirements, we programmed a way where our system would read the most recent transaction and drop the older dated ones.  Well... as we scrutinize the files we notice that they are not sending the timestamp, just 0's... and the cancellation date is incorrect.  In some cases where the member submits for different plans and sends cancellations, we cannot determine which plan should be active because the cancellations do not list the plan, just basic information on the member...  We have submitted tickets to the Exchanges but it is possible this will not be resolved for months.

 

In the mean time us health insurance companies are on the hook to figure out how to process this correctly, which in some cases is impossible without reaching out to each member to ask them what their intent was.

 

In other words, we spend millions of dollars to customize our systems around their requirements twice, and when things went live they weren't following their own requirements.

 

I put in almost 85 hours working last week and will probably top that this week.

 

**** Obamacare!

[Jay]

I'm surprised they didn't do some testing before going live

[nate]

Lol, it is live testing!!

 

They did send us a couple test files a week before it went live but they were such a mess they were pretty much pointless.  They couldn't even get the format of the file right.

[TobiasFunke]

Job security Nate

[nate]

I don't get paid OT either

[mtangelsfan]

Bruce,

With all due respect...that's utter bullshit. They've gone beyond "checks and balances". They've gone to holding hostages. As you mentioned...they've attempted repeal 39 times and failed...so they've gone to taking the budgeting process and debt limit hostage because following the legislative process they are unable to get what they want. As I mentioned, it's as Obama stated he wasn't going to sign the budget unless he got a ban of all automatic weapons. In essence they are saying regardless of how people have voted, regardless of the results of an election, unless they get everything they want **** the economy. 

 

According to this article, it seems like neither side is really willing to stop the bleeding.  Both are putting roadblocks in the path and both are putting stipulations into when they will negotiate.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/senator-portman-floats-ideas-solve-budget-impasse-191655982--business.html

[arch stanton]

No FDA. No EPA. No FTC. Must be a feeding frenzy in the Corporate States of America. Both sides will get a nice pat on the head from their masters.

[yk9001]

[Lou]

i don't mean to alarm anyone, but i just heard that someone died yesterday

[Crampknees]

In other words, we spend millions of dollars to customize our systems around their requirements twice, and when things went live they weren't following their own requirements.

==========================

 

That is a good point nate.  I wondered about the effect of the transition, if it as bad as the media makes it out to be, however, someone in the industry like yourself is the best judge of that. Mine has not changed so I have no horror story but I imagine where you are out there are many changes. The people in Cali. getting the horrible news from someone like Blue Cross/Blue Shield can blame this but don't forget some blame on maybe that is not a good program to have during this. Insurance companies hands are never clean and all our premiums go up every year.  JMO. 

[mtangelsfan]

They should not have touched private health care.  They should have just created an exchange for those folks who couldn't get it on their own.

 

Then the people who were rejected because of prior conditions could have access, the people who couldn't afford their companies programs could have access and the people who didn't have any programs at all have access.

 

Then they could also have left alone the folks who simply didn't want it.

[Jay]

I think without the individual mandate the system fails, because they need lots of young healthy people to pay premiums.

[mtangelsfan]

It shouldn't.  They should get a pretty damn good price if they add all of those people up together.