Nothing can go worgn.....CASH FOR CLUNKERS CHAOS

CASH FOR CLUNKERS CHAOS
Clunker system crashes again, NADA may seek deadline extension
Neil Roland
Automotive News
August 25, 2009 - 2:52 pm ET

WASHINGTON -- The government's cash-for-clunkers computer system
for dealers crashed again this afternoon, a National Automobile
Dealers Association spokesman said.

 

Bammer can't do nothin' right.

 

Excellent. I'm guessing their bots couldn't handle infecting the
electorate using the system.

 

Yeah, these sure are the guys I want handling my healthcare....

 

I would imagine that the people who set up the system were private
contractors that the gvt paid to do the work. If that's the case then
it is private industry that is not up to the task and it would have
been better for the gvt to have done it themselves, if they wanted it
done right.

 

I'm guessing that whoever set up the C4C servers had little time to
actually design anything and no clue (who did?) about its popularity,
though of course bad architecture or bad coding could also play into
it.

My experience as a client of private-sector insurance, and some
closely observed vicarious experiences with the provider side of the
health care business, suggests that medical billing is seldom done
well by anybody in the sense of either process design or day-to-day
work. Back-office chaos seems to come with the territory, and
except for islands of excellence (or at least islands of competence)
I'm not sure whether any of the parties to the transaction --
patients, providers, or insurers -- are really satisfied with the way
it works now.

Sometimes I wonder if anybody really fully understands the systems and
the rules they are supposed to implement, except of course for the
overarching principle that "a motion to partly or wholly deny a claim
for something that the patient and/or care provider thought would be
covered is always in order." If Dante lived today, I'm sure that in
some vestibule near the gates of Hell, some category of minor sinners
would spend eternity going over Explanations of Benefit (EOBs) with
confused elderly relatives on fixed incomes.

For sure one of the more attractive aspects of a single-payer,
universal-coverage scheme (or collection of schemes that are
tantamount to it) is the simplicity as viewed by the poor pilgrim
with the bag of ice on his head and the thermometer in his mouth...

What we've got now is complicated (with the implication of a lot of
heat-loss in the machinery), expensive, and yet leaves a lot of people
with sham coverage or none at all, especially in times of widespread
job loss. I'm not sure any particular reform proposal really has it
nailed, but there's got to be something better than this...
--Joe

 

How many of you people who are complaining about universal healthcare don't
actually *have* health care at this time, due to financial reasons?

 

I don't have a lot of things due to financial reasons. Does that
mean other tax payers should buy those things for me?

 

I try to avoid these off topic discussions, but I have to throw in my
two cents worth here...

The US already has a National Health Care System, a private /
goverment / no care system. It is the most expensive, most
inefficient, and most unfair in the developed world. If our current
National Health Care System had the best care, I suppose it could be
excused, but by most measures, it is a failure. We have the highest
death rate among babies in the developed world, we have the lowest
life expectancies in the developed world, and we have the highest
percentage of uncovered people in the developed world.

If you are very rich or running an insurance compnay our current
National Health Care System is terrific. If you are very poor, you
probably can get treatment for injuries but no preventive care. If you
are in the middle, you are paying through the nose for mediocre care.

I often hear people rant about how they don't want government
burecrats making health care choices for them. OK I can see this, but
a lot of these same people are willing to let Health Insurance
Industry Burecrats make those decisions for them. I fail to see the
difference. If anything, I'd rather have governement burecrats making
the decisions.

I often hear people rant that they don't want the government rationing
health care, but many of these same people have their care rationed by
the Heath Insurance Industry.

I often hear people rant that they don't want the government imposing
new taxes but these same people are paying directly (or indirectly
through their employers) extremely high premiums for mediocre care.

I have a hard time understanding all the outrage against a goverment
administered National Health Care System. I can't see it being any
worse that our Current Government / Insurance Industry / Drug Company
dominated system. Do you really think the people running Blue Cross /
Blue Shield; Cigna; GSK, etc., etc. have your best intrest at heart?
Do you think they are less like than the government to extort money
from you to run the system? Take a look at the salaries for the
medical industry executives....then tell me they have your best
interest at heart.

Dwight Eisenhower warned about the Military Industrial Complex. I
think we now need to worry about the Medical Industry / Drug Company
Complex.

People like Rush Limbaugh are tools of the evil rich. He does provide
one good piece of advice - "follow the money." In the case of the
health care debate this is very good advice. It seems to me Rush and
his ilk are either idiots or evil. Take your pick.

Ed

 

Double negative. Says it all.

 

This is how the developed world does it, why do we refuse to even come
reasonably close to this level of care? Why are we the *only* country in
the industrialized world where you can go medically bankrupt? :


Sick Around the World
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

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

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

"The world health report 2007 - A safer future: global public health
security in the 21st century"

Full report download as a .pdf file:
http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2007/whr07_en.pdf (4.15MB)

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

Healthcare For All: In Western Europe Its a Reality
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91972152

France: Health Care for All
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91970968

Germany: Health Care for All
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91971170

Great Britain: Health Care for All
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91971293

Netherlands: Health Care for All
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91973552

Switzerland: Health Care for All
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91974014

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

Health Care: An International Comparison
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/healthcare/healthcare_profiles.html

Netherlands' Health Care Reflects National Values
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92641635

Keeping German Doctors On A Budget Lowers Costs
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91931036

France At Forefront Of Free, Innovative Cancer Care
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92362918

While the U.S. Spends Heavily on Health Care, a Study Faults the Quality
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/business/17health.html

After-Hours Doctor Calls Save Holland Money
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92606938

 

You make some good points. The problem I have with a government run health
care system is...if it comes to that, there will be no individual choice
left. Right now, the private insurance companies are terrible. But they
are held (slightly) in check by the fact that there are more than one of
them. That is, they have to "compete", at least to a certain degree. Once
the government takes over, there is no need to "compete", and those in
charge of the new government run cluster-**** can be as evil as they want
to, as they don't answer to anybody anymore. While it's hard to imagine
that healthcare could be "worse" in the United States, it is GUARANTEED to
get worse (and a LOT worse) if the government gets involved at all. -Dave

 

The present problems are government created. They are in the tax code,
regulation, medicare,insurance laws, etc and so on. The solution is
less government interference, not more. If we get more, we might get a
government system where by government gets a large degree of control
over our lives. After all, since the government 'pays' for the
healthcare it will then use that excuse to micromanage every decision we
make, every risk we take. The more likely result will be that certain
companies will make great profits while the rest get shut out. The
government will act to lock in high prices for those who have influence.
In essence form legalized cartels. From there government will then find
a way to get the power to micromanage everyone somehow to get the best
of both.

 

There is no point in health care reform unless tort reform is also
implemented.

 

Because we insist on the ability to file a lawsuit for anything that
goes wrong (not possible in most countries) and we allow preditory
class action lawsuits that simply gain lawyers a really, really big
bank account. Reform the tort system, eliminate all class-action
lawsuits, eliminate and cap fees paid to lawyers, and all of a sudden
you'll find that health costs drop by at least 50%.

 

Of all industrialized democracies, we spend the most money on health
care for the poorest overall results. If there's anyone opposed to
universal care for a valid reason, their voice is drowned out by the
lunatics talking about "death panels" and claiming (lying) that illegal
aliens would qualify for the government option.

It probably is true that many smaller companies that now provide private
insurance for their employees would prefer to let their employees go
onto the government-run plan and pay whatever those costs are. In that
case, some procedures and drugs covered by their private insurance might
no longer be covered (though this is by no means clear since private
insurance companies are very stingy with what drugs they put onto their
formulary, and what procedures they'll pay for and when). I have one of
the better HMOs and they told me that it was a one year wait for a
colonoscopy. I pressed the issue and got it done within a few weeks.

If you've ever dealt with a Medicare supplement insurer for your parents
you would be advised to build a padded room in your house where you can
go to periodically bang your head against the wall. 'Yes we know that
the doctor prescribed such and such a drug which is the best treatment
option, but we won't pay for it until he prescribes something cheaper
and sees if it works, then if it doesn't work we'll pay for the drug he
prescribed, assuming you're mother is still alive at that time.'

We have to get away from the system where U.S. residents subsidize the
drug company's R&D with much higher prices than the drug companies
charge in other first world countries.

They are both.

 

AMEN, amen.

 

With repeated (often very unnecessary) tests so that the person can't
file a law suit againt the provider.

They already do get free medical.

 

We have the "highest death rate among babies in the developed world, we have
the lowest
life expectancies in the developed world," are straw dogs, that have more to
do with American life styles like drug use, smoking, murders, auto death
rates, eating habits etc.

Compare any other parts of our healthcare system, like the best hospitals,
cure rates as well as available procedures for major illnesses and diseases
and you will see the US is far ahead of other countries.

If one may believe they want the federal government to operate their
healthcare, they were obviously never in the military or certainly never in
a VA hospital and they must LIKE the way they are treated by the DMV, VA or
EPA or how cost "efficiently" the government runs the USPS, Medicare and
Medicaid, all of which are headed to bankruptcy or most recently Dealers
about how well CARS was run.

One might first ask any of our seniors, like me, who have opted to switch to
ANY of the Medicare Advantage plans, offered by private insurers, if they
would EVER consider going back to Medicare for the healthcare. Medicare
Advantage plans provide us with MORE coverage for LESS money and I have
never been turned down for coverage of anything my doctor has ordered and
I'm 83!

Proponents of a federally run healthcare system are NOT telling you how it
will be financed or even how much it will cost you individually, it
certainly will not be "free."

They are promising to "reduce" the cost of healthcare but if they can do
that why are they not doing that TODAY to stop Medicare and Medicaid from
going bankrupt?

Over twenty sates have enacted TORT laws that have shown to drastically
reduce healthcare costs in those states, so why is there no federal TORT
reform in the bill?

 

what he said