First, apologies to my readers for the diversion from the usual fare, but I’ll point out that this entry is covered under the masthead in the category of “recent news” and there’s a relevant WUWT category.
Since like many of you, I’ve been forced to sign a document (at my radio station where I employed part-time) that confirms I’ve been given another document that advises me of my Obamacare rights, and of course being in tune to the news, I’ve been wondering if the claims about the Obamacare websites are as bad as claimed.
I read an article in the Pittsburgh Tribune “Sebelius visit fails to reassure as health care website glitches persist” that said:
Sebelius, who is making similar trips to cities across the country to spread the word about the website, told the audience of about 100 people that Healthcare.gov was “open for business.”
“Believe me, we had some early glitches,” said Sebelius, who was introduced by Rooney, a backer of the law. “But it’s getting better every day.”
So, I decided to find out myself. I went to http://healthcare.gov and chose my state, California. What follows is a record of what I actually got. I never made it past step 1:
Try it yourself: https://coveredca.com/shopandcompare/
NOTE: To be accurate, the website security certificate will work if the “www” is used as prefix, but not the link above sans www. By following the link from the Tribune article, with no other changes on my part, I ended up with the sans “www” connection, which they didn’t get a proper security certificate for. One wonders how many other “glitches” exist in basic security on these websites.
Even when you go in with the “www” there are problems. In Firefox I get this:
UPDATE: Reader Ben points out that it gets a failing grade from an SSL grading service, SSL Labs:
Source: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=coveredca.com
“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
Milton Friedman
Benjamin Franklin on Welfare
“…I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.—I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world [but England] where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen?—On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.”
(Benjamin Franklin, “On the Price of Corn and the Management of the Poor” (1766), Writings (New York: Library of America, 1987), 587-88).
Oh come on DR, Ol’ Ben wouldn’t be a bit biased about the English, would he?
Anyhoo, I do appreciate the comments, I think it helps me to understand your perspective on Obamacare and get an insight into the American psyche that I didn’t have before.
Incidentally, whilst you are attacking me for being a Brit, you might also note that I am a naturalised Australian. Australia also has a Medicare system. And……go!
” Goldie says:
October 13, 2013 at 6:45 pm
Well of course nothing is for free – someone has to pay for it. However, should I be hit by a car or suffer any number of injury causing accidents, I have the comfort of knowing that I will be admitted through emergency and treated without someone needing to check my private health care scheme.”
———————————————————————————————–
This shows an extreme lack of understanding about the US Healthcare system prior to Obamacare. By law right now if you are injured in an accident you must be treated by the nearest medical center. By law. They don’t have the right to check on your insurance status or anything else prior to treating you. This has been the law in the US for a long time.
Basically you need insurance in the US for long term and continuing care. Mind you the bills will likely cause the uninsured to have problems paying after the fact but they will get emergency care.
Goldie says:
“…should I be hit by a car or suffer any number of injury causing accidents, I have the comfort of knowing that I will be admitted through emergency and treated without someone needing to check my private health care scheme.”
Should you be hit by a car in the U.S. you would be taken care of by any hospital you went to. It is illegal to turn anyone away for inability to pay. Your health insurance scheme has nothing to do with it. Thus, your critique is nullified.
Next, you write:
“As to why should I pay for those in need – because amongst other things those in need are commonly the most vulnerable to disease. Plainly you don’t get this…”
Wrong again. The biggest cohort by far that does not buy health insurance is young people. They have other things to spend their money on, and if they can now get everyone else to pay their insurance for them, why should they dig into their own wallets? You are acting on misinformation, therefore your conclusion is necessarily wrong.
Finally, you ask:
“…can you let the rest of us know why you believe this won’t work?”
If you cannot see that government bureaucrats who have no skin in the game are not the ones who should be making these decisions, then I can’t help you. It is almost as if you did not read any of the examples in this thread. Govenrnment is the problem!! If you can’t see that, then you can’t see anything.
Many don’t realize it, but already more American’s healthcare are subsidized or fully funded by the government than there are working in the private sector.
Yeah, the NHS is doing great. Data such as the following is not difficult to find.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10246145/NHS-waiting-lists-are-longest-in-five-years.html
” is because folks have to pay for antibiotics and because they can’t afford it they stop taking the course before the end, thereby allowing some more resistant bugs to survive.”
Typically they get the whole course of antibiotic treatment at the same time. Stopping taking the antibiotic is for other reasons…and is a more common behavior for those that don’t pay for it.
Goldie is from a nation of sheep.
Goldie: “one of the causes of the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria is because folks have to pay for antibiotics and because they can’t afford it they stop taking the course before the end,”
Minor cause in U.S.
Primary cause in U.S. is over-use and abuse of antibiotics. As in, Doctors placating patients who demand a quick fix for their sniffles.
Well, it may have cost a lot, but gee, it sure is hard to use. Say it did work… would you like it?
Just wait until they’re in charge of your medical records: “Your hysterectomy will begin in a moment, Mr. Jones, just as soon as we finish Mrs. Smith’s prostate cancer treatment”.
Of course, if you voted Republican, your surgery will be postponed indefinitely, which may just save your life.
Goldie. While y’all are fighting off the influx of boat people who are trying to get a toehold into the services your country so generally provides to its citizens (at the expense of their freedom and future prospects), quite successfully, so far, ponder what your system will look like when the eventual 30 million benefit seekers have made it past your defenses.
OK good comments:
mike g – Australia only has about 25 million people in it. If we ended up with 30 million illegal migrants I think healthcare would be the least of our problems. But I do take the point about illegal migrants.
I was interested in the comments about Emergency Rooms – so it is illegal to refuse treatment, but does that mean you end up with a bill if you are uninsured?
In Australia there is Medicare, which acts as a safety net provider, provides community medical programs and pays for prescriptions. How much depends on wether you are a government healthcare card holder, so its not free for everybody. Does Obamacare have a means test component to it? How do you view this?
Incidentally I have private medical on top of Medicare. I have this because I feel that the Medicare system does not provide the level of medical care that I would prefer for my family members. It doesn’t mean that Medicare is incapable of treating people, but sometimes it can be a while before things are treated.
Do Americans not believe that its a good idea to provide a safety net?
Goldie: “please can you let the rest of us know why you believe this won’t work?”
Because eventually too many people quit paying and start getting free medical care. The socialists’ Universal Health Care system pseudo works in other countries where those getting free medical care don’t expect or demand “THE Best” medical care, as in they don’t expect to fly First Class when riding for free.
As mentioned before, other countries don’t have near the litigious society America has. Which forces America’s Health Care system to provide near perfect medical services (read as costly medical services).
Then there is the problem with the political Left abusing your Universal Health Care (aka our Obamacare) to garner future votes, by giving Illegal Aliens coverage. Covering 13 Million Illegal Aliens is incredibly costly, making Universal Health Care here unworkable.
And, Goldie, as you distance yourselves from the unfairness of capitalism, ponder that the only reason your country can afford to pay the taxes that support your increasingly matrix-like existence is that you have resources to sell to the few places in the world which still embrace capitalism, Japan and China. As your population becomes more and more dependent on it’s supply of life essence from the collective, it won’t be pretty when those resources are no longer prized by those economies.
Rob, I just believe that a truly compassionate society has to provide a safety net for those who fall through the gaps and I find it hard to believe that the US has been unable or unwilling to enact something that provides this for that group of people.
Australia does have a number of private funds that people can gain access to, but they are quite costly in spite of the advertising.
As to taxes and big government – I hate these things with a passion. But I still don’t think its reasonable to leave people without some access to healthcare that does not lead them into debt. This might well be due to the culture that I have been raised in.
mike g I make my money out of primary production in Australia so I hear what you are saying. The interesting thing is that those who do make their funds out of primary production have really benefited over the last few years, but there are many who have been left behind.
Goldie,
Glad you appreciate the comments. You are being a good sport.
The fact is that Americans, by and large, are satisfied with their health care system, and we resent a parvenue like Obama, who shows up ready to change it all.
Obama rejects any form of compromise. His attitude is: “I won,” as if his election is all that matters. Americans do not like that sort of high and mighty dictating, especially from a no-account who never did anything on his own; everything he has was given to him. Shoveled at him, really.
There is no record of any Obama achievements; he never left any paper trail at Cornell or Harvard, no one can remember him there — either classmates or professors. No one remembers him! And it is not for lack of trying: the Wall Street Journal investigated, and they could find no evidence of Obama at either school. And he hides out whenever his birth country is questioned, and his *ahem* lovely wife received steady pay rises that closely matched her husband’s political climb. Excuse us, but that is not the kind of man we want unilaterally deciding issues that alter one-sixth of our economy in a major way.
Health care can surely be improved. But when the president and his bureaucrats tell us it is “My way or the highway,” he should not complain when there is pushback.
But of course, Obama is always a complainer when he does not get his way.
Darren Potter: 13 million illegal aliens is the Obama number. Try 40 million for a more realistic estimate. Plus, the left in the US is doing its level best to turn the present influx of illegals into a tidal wave.
DR says: “Many don’t realize it, but already more American’s healthcare are subsidized or fully funded by the government …”
Those of us who pay Taxes sure as “blank” do.
mike g is right. There are far more than the official numbers of illegal aliens residing here.
These freeloaders are taking jobs, and benefits, and illegally voting. If it were up to me I would deport them all. But the Obamites have taken over, and there isn’t much hope that our laws will be obeyed.
dbstealey: Best description of B.H. Obama I have ever read. I hope many on here steal it and post it and it goes viral.
DR says: “Many don’t realize it, but already more American’s healthcare are subsidized or fully funded by the government …”
Only is you count the money that workers have paid into their Medicare accounts as the government’s money. Military Tricare & other federal workers’ health insurance is part of their compensation package.
The poor on Medicaid are subsidized by the taxpayers, I grant you, but even some of them are former net payers rather than consumers of taxes, who could have provided for their own old ages had the government not ripped them off all these years to make ever more perpetual victim wards of the state dependent on Democrat pols.
Sorry but that’s that’s utterly ridiculous Tony. This was the textbook definition of arm-twisting and dead-of-night shenanigans. This was the infamous bill that “needed to be passed to see what was in it”. It barely eeked its way through a liberal Congress which was then punished by being wiped out in the following election, indicating massive voter disapproval. Yes the 52+% elected President DingleBarry certainly signed it, that was a given considering his Communist roots, and yes the Supreme Court narrowly approved of parts of it. But this was a fiasco. If we used the identical process to pass strong border control rounding up illegal aliens, or quarantining people with infectious diseases, or to ban the United Nations, or to nuke Iran, would you still call it “democratically passed”.
Slavery was more popular! And I mean real slavery, in 1860. There were more people in the South and North, especially once they got a taste of Civil War, who would have supported its continuance than today’s support of Socialist health care. This is a classic anti-popular law enacted in the narrowest and most cynical fashion. There is more true consensus for CAGW than for this ( but not 90% ) !
Furthermore, at least the nanny-staters of a century ago were honest enough to realize they needed an Amendment to enact Prohibition and regulate alcohol since no such power to do so was granted to the Federal government by the States and the People in the Constitution. So I ask you, where is the Amendment empowering them to regulate health care and mete out punishment for those that refuse to play along? It does not exist, consequently this is extra-Constitutional regardless of what that idiot John Roberts decided. Sorry Tony, this thing is Anti-American to the core and is nothing more than Socialism. The end-result is inevitable – trickle-down misery.
Another view from Australia.
WUWT folks may recognize the fella…..
Goldie – Irony is someone from a rationed health care system calling the US a “laughing stock” for its system.
I’m fine with a primarily -public funded- system. But places like Canada need a lot more private delivery options where citizens have choices.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IZb4KJ64lQ&w=420&h=315]
You probably didn’t mean to, and you probably don’t realize it but you just described an NHS that actually is a failure not a success, if what you say is true about petrol taxes being rolled into it. You see, with all systems, like a coin toss there are two possibilities ( discounting the coin landing on its edge ) …
(1) More NHS non-users than users. This “system” can theoretically support itself without petrol or any other taxes being rolled into it. This is the literal definition of insurance, the defining characteristic being that NOT everyone collects. More people pay in than people who cash out. As long as people die ahead of schedule, paying into NHS but never using it while LESS other people do the opposite, there should be no problem, well, unless those few that DO collect really run up high bills.
(2) More NHS users than non-users. This “system” is a form of Ponzi scheme. The sum total of taxes drawn from the veins of the citizens will never cover expenses, hence the bleeding of other non-related systems, like petrol that you mention. Of course there is that other tried-and-true relief valve called “red ink”, running a deficit, pushing the bills forward to your children and much later descendants ( being a liberal means never having to take responsibility or be accountable for your spending ). However, take this red ink relief valve out of the picture ( like some of our Congress want to ) and the Ponzi scheme will collapse which is why our leftists are currently screaming bloody murder since all their redistribution schemes would collapse.
Furthermore, NHS, like all Socialist “systems” ( e.g., our Social Security ) actually promote themselves to be a Magic Ponzi scheme, defying all logic, book-keeping and common sense by guaranteeing that EVERYONE can participate with no ramifications on the back-end. Free health-care for everyone! they actually say. They literally start from the premise that an insurance scheme can function fiscally even if every man, woman, and child uses it to the full extent possible. No worries mate! Wow, that’s magical indeed. Naturally something’s gotta give, and that is inevitably lines, rationing, denied treatment, early deaths, two sets of books, and many other little tweaks to maintain the illusion of sound finances. Or they merely go to red ink and kick the can down the road for someone else.
So if I may Fanakapan, which is it ? Are you a “taker” or “giver” with respect to NHS? Are you using up more or less health care than the taxes you paid in? And, if you get an unfortunate catastrophic episode that requires much more than you put into the system, how many other people would it require to NOT use their share in order to cover yours? This is the moral aspect of Socialism in general, and health care in particular, which begs the question – why should someone else pay your bills ( i.e., when your health care costs exceed what you paid in taxes )?
Are waiting lists and rationing compassionate? There are way too many stories about this to even count. Are they all just blowing smoke? Nothing to see here, move along?
“I was interested in the comments about Emergency Rooms – so it is illegal to refuse treatment, but does that mean you end up with a bill if you are uninsured?”
Yes, you get a bill, but if you are indigent it is generally forgiven. Many who could technically afford it make use of it for minor things. We also have free clinics and charities. Sometimes a group of doctors will open up a low-cost consortium – where they cut costs by not accepting insurance and rely on donations to augment basic care – but in places like New York they face a constant attempt to shut them down by the bureaucrats.
I’m going to really stir the pot–
I don’t go to a doctor and I don’t use their counterproductive drugs. I was even a health insurance agent for several years but haven’t had an insurance policy for more than a dozen years. The money they want me to spend on drug and office visits I spend on health-promoting products instead.
Doctors don’t make you healthy and their drugs only cover symptoms. And insurance is never a cost/benefit winner–why do you think there are a million insurance agents in the US and carriers are making exhorbitant profits?
Your body heals itself, in spite of the procedures and drugs the doctors abuse it with.
And now the government wants to horn in on this unholy alliance between the drug companies, doctors, and insurance companies.
Americans spend more per capita on health care than any other nation, but only rank 17th in overall health.
And somehow this will improve under the CAFA*? I seriously doubt it.
*CACA = Catastrophic Affront to Care Act.
PS> I’m far healthier than the majority of men my age and are often taken for someone 15-20 years younger. Having good health doesn’t require drugs, doctors, or dictatorial governments. I do frequent naturopaths on occasion, however.
Goldie,
In Australia there is Medicare, which acts as a safety net provider, provides community medical programs and pays for prescriptions. How much depends on wether you are a government healthcare card holder, so its not free for everybody.
====
It’s not free for anybody. We either (i) check a box on our tax form to deduct a Medicare levy, or, (ii) we pay for private health insurance and don’t pay the Medicare levy.
It’s a very simple system that gives us a choice: Public or Private.
Most Australians choose to use the public system. People who like to be pampered in private hospital rooms choose to pay for private health insurance instead.
And it’s really that simple. We have a choice.
“Obamacare,” on the other hand, is exactly what policycritic described:
“They privatized what could have been a government program no different than Medicare for everyone at a drastically lower price. We got suckered.”
@Khwarizmi
Actually its probably worse than that – the Medicare levy is just the top up, a lot comes from consolidated revenue, which comes from general taxation.
However, for those who are really at the bottom of the pile (ie don’t pay taxes) it is free.