Originally Posted By DAR Maybe things are okay where the majority of you live. But this is just one of many screwups that have occured in this state. So while you guys might be comfortable I'm certainly not.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I can't believe you guys think this is acceptable.<< I don't. I'm just saying there is blame to share here. You should be mad at EDS as well as the state. Plus, from the article it says EDS subcontracted the work, too.
Originally Posted By DAR Who would have provided EDS with the information? More than likely it would have come from the state.
Originally Posted By jonvn "How about two years in a row people's SS#'s being sent out." Apparently by a private company. Jesus...
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Who would have provided EDS with the information? More than likely it would have come from the state. >> So, the state is supposed to expect a private contractor to conduct the business of managing customer account records and mailings without the state providing any of the personal identification information associated with those accounts? I think I want to bid for that contract -- imagine being paid to manage information that I don't possess!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Good point, SG. SS #'s are often used as THE way to distinguish between the various John Smiths (and other common names) that a large database will have. They function essentially as an ID number. So it's really no surprise that the government would have included this info to EDS. It seems to me it's EDS's screwup to have included them on the labels.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Apparently by a private company. Jesus...>> The first time was by the state itself.
Originally Posted By DAR Two things, this screw up shouldn't have happened no matter what. EDS should be held accountable, but somebody in the state office should have made sure these went out correctly too. Ultimately this falls on them. Getting back to the point about the government running health care. Why can't it be like the school system? Have a pubic and private option? Why would that be so bad?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Two things, this screw up shouldn't have happened no matter what. EDS should be held accountable, but somebody in the state office should have made sure these went out correctly too. Ultimately this falls on them.> Not if it was perfectly right and proper for them to send the SS numbers to EDS (as identifiers). I'm not saying that was the case, but it's a pretty good guess it is. In that case, the gov't would have acted properly, but EDS didn't. <Getting back to the point about the government running health care. Why can't it be like the school system? Have a pubic and private option? Why would that be so bad?> That would be an improvement. But if you still had all those private insurers, doctors would still spend an inordinate amount of time just dealing with administration and the vagaries of the different insurance plans, which drives up costs.
Originally Posted By DAR <<But if you still had all those private insurers, doctors would still spend an inordinate amount of time just dealing with administration and the vagaries of the different insurance plans, which drives up costs.>> And none of those same problems would occur if the government took over. If you split it up you would at least alleviate some some of the burden.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder As most of you know, I work for "the government". My wife works for "the government". My father-in-law, retired LAPD, therefore worked for "the government". My mother-in-law worked for "the government". People with little or no working knowledge of how "government" works are usually the ones who criticize and are adamant about it. No one who works for "the government" will ever claim it is perfect. There are many opportunities to improve. However, since we're funded by taxes, which many people of course are loathe to pay, "the government" has to make do with what it has. It might seem like a lot to some, but I'm here to tell you it ain't all that. And when something is privatized or subcontracted out, "the government" has less control over consequences than it would had the mistake occurred in house. But bottom line- if the critics want improvement, pony up on the taxes. Want more cops? More firemen? More people at the DMV? Better quality control on mailings? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!
Originally Posted By DAR <<As most of you know, I work for "the government". My wife works for "the government". My father-in-law, retired LAPD, therefore worked for "the government". My mother-in-law worked for "the government". >> Father, sister, uncle, aunt, three cousins, numerous friends all work for various governmental agencies. The Public School System, Public Works and Public Parks department. <<People with little or no working knowledge of how "government" works are usually the ones who criticize and are adamant about it. No one who works for "the government" will ever claim it is perfect. There are many opportunities to improve. However, since we're funded by taxes, which many people of course are loathe to pay, "the government" has to make do with what it has. It might seem like a lot to some, but I'm here to tell you it ain't all that. And when something is privatized or subcontracted out, "the government" has less control over consequences than it would had the mistake occurred in house. >> No I am a taxpayer. If it is my money being spent I want to make sure it's being spent the right way. Not for constant screw ups that this state has engaged in. <<But bottom line- if the critics want improvement, pony up on the taxes. Want more cops? More firemen? More people at the DMV? Better quality control on mailings? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!>> Then how about the government cuts wasteful programs instead?? Do we really need to spend millions of dollars to tell me not to litter? Or to tell people to buckle up? Not to smoke? These are things my parents told me for free.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Then how about the government cuts wasteful programs instead?? Do we really need to spend millions of dollars to tell me not to litter? Or to tell people to buckle up? Not to smoke? These are things my parents told me for free." Well, when all people stop littering and start buckling up, sure. Let me know when that is.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Do we really need to spend millions of dollars to tell me not to litter? Or to tell people to buckle up? Not to smoke? >> I would think that you would be pretty much in the camp that is for the campaigns to buckle up and not smoke since they are largely sparked by the insurance industry in an effort to reduce the costs of claims for autos/health. Most of our government money on these sorts of things came directly as the result of insurance industry lobbying on appropriations bills. I'd think someone who works in the insurance industry might recognize that. Maybe we need to bar insurance industry lobbyists from interacting with government instead?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<<<But if you still had all those private insurers, doctors would still spend an inordinate amount of time just dealing with administration and the vagaries of the different insurance plans, which drives up costs.>> <And none of those same problems would occur if the government took over.> They would be greatly reduced, by definition. <If you split it up you would at least alleviate some some of the burden.> No. That is not how it works. The reason doctor's administrative costs are so high (which drives up costs to the consumer) is that Aetna has one set of rules and regulations. Kaiser has another. Oxford has another. And on and on and on. And sometimes within the company they have different rules (procedure X is covered if you have the "Oxford super-freedom plan" but not if you have just the "Oxford freedom plan.") All this means that doctors spend about a third of their time now on average just dealing with administration (or paying someone else to do so) and the dozens of different confusing plans the HMO's and other insurers offer. With single-payer, with a single set of rules, this goes out the window. You don't need an MBA in accounting just to be a doctor.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Well, when all people stop littering and start buckling up, sure. Let me know when that is.>> Why do millions have to spent on tell people that? Here buckle up and don't smoke. That cost me nothing and it took less than ten seconds to write it. <<I would think that you would be pretty much in the camp that is for the campaigns to buckle up and not smoke since they are largely sparked by the insurance industry in an effort to reduce the costs of claims for autos/health>> Yes, I'm just not for spending millions of dollars on it. Just think for the amount of money spent on campaigns like this we could actually hire more teachers, fireman, policeman. We could actually fix our roads. If were going to be spending money in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether that's still wise or not is beside the point we should provide the troops with the top of the line weaponry and body armor. Then somethings need to be cut.
Originally Posted By DAR But if you go to single payer and have the government take over there's four insurers competing for that government contract. You eliminate three of those insurers, that puts a lot of people out of a job. By having multiple insurers you can create a healthy competition by tweaking the systems within each insured. It's also better if you have one private and public option. That way both groups can make sure they are providing the best possible service. I'm interested in buying a new tv. If my only options would be I can only get it at Best Buy and it can only be a Sony. Well what if I don't want to buy it at Best Buy and I don't want a Sony. What if I want to go to Sears and buy a Samsung? Luckily I have that option.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You should investigate how single payer actually works in the countries that have it. Because how your described it is not really how it works. And yes, I wouldn't mind if all the HMO's went out of business, frankly. None of the presidential candidates have the stones to call for that, but I would. They're running a racket, frankly, and I'd put that racket out of business. <I'm interested in buying a new tv. If my only options would be I can only get it at Best Buy and it can only be a Sony. Well what if I don't want to buy it at Best Buy and I don't want a Sony. What if I want to go to Sears and buy a Samsung? Luckily I have that option. > That's not the proper way to look at it either. You'd still have your choice of doctor - that's the "product." If your doctor didn't offer what you needed, you'd go elsewhere. There'd be a single place to PAY for it, is all. Like having a single bank account.
Originally Posted By DAR <<And yes, I wouldn't mind if all the HMO's went out of business, frankly. >> So you're okay with people losing their jobs? Not the high level execs, but the clerks, accountants, IT people, cafeteria staff, administrative assistants. You're fine with that. <<There'd be a single place to PAY for it, is all.>> My health insurance is already set up that way.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<And yes, I wouldn't mind if all the HMO's went out of business, frankly. >> <So you're okay with people losing their jobs? Not the high level execs, but the clerks, accountants, IT people, cafeteria staff, administrative assistants. You're fine with that.> It's not that I'm fine with that per se. When the automobile was invented a lot of buggy whip makers lost their jobs. A lot of technicians for pay phones are losing their jobs now because pay phones are disappearing. It's not pretty and it sucks for those people, no doubt. But this always happens when we transition. We would be better off as a country with a single-payer system. <<There'd be a single place to PAY for it, is all.>> <My health insurance is already set up that way.> But not for your doctor.
