Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Preventative Treatment For Heartbleed On Healthcare.gov

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the welcome-to-centralized-medicine-dot-gov dept.

Government 81

As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, "People who have accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the confounding Heartbleed Internet security flaw." Take note, though; the article goes on to immediately point out this does not mean that the HealthCare.gov site has been compromised: "Senior administration officials said there is no indication that the HealthCare.gov site has been compromised and the action is being taken out of an abundance of caution. The government's Heartbleed review is ongoing, the officials said, and users of other websites may also be told to change their passwords in the coming days, including those with accounts on the popular WhiteHouse.gov petitions page." Also at The Verge

cancel ×

81 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yea right... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46797663)

"Senior administration officials said there is no indication that the HealthCare.gov site has been compromised and the action is being taken out of an abundance of caution.

Just like "if you like your plan you can keep your plan"...

Re:Yea right... (3, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 6 months ago | (#46797885)

Leads to an honest question that cropped up... does the federal government have to abide by any sort of data-breach reporting laws (be they state or federal)?

(maybe they have their own, maybe they're exempt... I'm not a lawyer, but it'd be worth looking up...)

Re:Yea right... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46797909)

FISMA/SCAP regulations are the main ones. Data stored there is likely SBU (sensitive but unclassified.)

It is a pretty thorough set of regulations. This is why not many cloud providers (if any!) are FISMA compliant, as it requires random audits by the government.

I'd love to see a standard in the private industry that had planned and random audits of security, with actual consequences (PCI-DSS3 comes close), but most security in the private sector seems to be "does the vendor say it is secure? OK, it is."

Re:Yea right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798663)

AWS has a level of FISMA compliance - https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/

Re:Yea right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46799579)

Yup. As does Terremark. http://www.terremark.com/services/it-infrastructure/cloud-services/enterprise-cloud-federal-edition/

Re:Yea right... (1)

dremspider (562073) | about 6 months ago | (#46805471)

All part of the Fed Ramp program. http://cloud.cio.gov/fedramp [cio.gov]
Probably one of the smarter things the government has done.

Re:Yea right... (2)

Oysterville (2944937) | about 6 months ago | (#46798121)

They traditionally haven't paid much attention to the law, so I'm not certain that they would do much different here.

Re:Yea right... (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 6 months ago | (#46798729)

Yeah, they do, or the Meta-cops will bust them for not doing the right thing.
There are meta-cops, right?
The Fed is answerable, right?
Someone is big enough to do something about it, if they dont , right?
If there is a law they have to obey it or face consequences, right?
We have a long list of examples of this , right?
Bush? Clinton? Reagan? Carter? Ford? NIXON... see, someone got caught, feel better? Johnson didnt get caught because he was funny and Kennedy didnt get caught because he was a soap opera. Only homely Quakers with shifty eyes get caught, WORD!

Re:Yea right... (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 6 months ago | (#46798701)

Meanwhile Kathleen Sebelius sneaks back to Kansas and hides in the basement of an outhouse.....

In Union of the Soviet Socialist States of Amerika (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#46797691)

we bleed hearts..

Re:In Union of the Soviet Socialist States of Amer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46797907)

Healthcare.gov: a case of heartbleed given to you courtesy of the bleeding hearts.

Captcha: artery

because... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46797699)

They need the traffic.

"no indication ... site has been compromised" (4, Funny)

tlambert (566799) | about 6 months ago | (#46797719)

"no indication ... site has been compromised"

I believe them.

What possible motive would a hacker have for targeting a site containing social security, tax, medical, personal, and financial information?

I'm sure it's all perfectly secure.

Just in case, though, you should probably change your one-factor authentication token so that the next time your "keep me logged in" cookie expires, it's hard to remember.

Re:"no indication ... site has been compromised" (5, Insightful)

davidhoude (1868300) | about 6 months ago | (#46797787)

Due to the fact that this exploit leaves no traces in server log files, we have concluded that there is no evidence of an attack on our servers.

Re:"no indication ... site has been compromised" (2)

tlambert (566799) | about 6 months ago | (#46797835)

If only it could have been prevented via a cheap, preventive program, instead of costing so much later! I know! We should lobby them to create a new agency, one tasked with the security of the nation, and when they knew about risks like this, why, they could step in and ensure that no one would unwittingly deploy vulnerable systems in the first place!

Perhaps we could call them the Responsible Agency for Intelligently Securing the Interests of the Nation... R.A.I.S.I.N., for short... or National Organization Securing You... N.O.S.Y. for short... I'm still working on the name.

We could even nominate someone to put in charge of making sure they are doing the job they are supposed to be doing, a kind of Special National Operations Watch Director Executive Nominee... Haven't decided what to call that one yet, either...

Re:"no indication ... site has been compromised" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798221)

Most of the government projects I've worked on that deal with medical data are required to adhere to very strict infrastructure design limitations -- one of which is the use of a logging proxy for any DMZ servers, which captures and logs all (yes, all) tcp requests. Proper parsing of that log data would, in fact, reveal an exploitation attempt.

Re:"no indication ... site has been compromised" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46797825)

Considering the US government created the Heartbleed exploit in order to spy on us, I doubt they would have left their own websites vulnerable.

Re:"no indication ... site has been compromised" (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 5 months ago | (#46798943)

you are giving them too much credit

Re:"no indication ... site has been compromised" (2, Insightful)

laird (2705) | about 6 months ago | (#46798141)

The site doesn't have any medical information at all. That's one of the advantages of outlawing the "pre-existing condition" scam - you no longer have to tell insurers your medical history to buy insurance. And the web site only needs enough other information to verify your identity and income (for computing the subsidy you qualify for, if any). And since they don't collect any payments, they have no payment info (no credit card numbers, etc.) or any credit history.

And on top of that, once the data is passed to the insurance company and accepted by them, the personal data is purged from the web site.

So all you can get by hacking the site is the partial data from people who haven't completed the process yet. And that's mainly name, social security number, and claimed income. Which is much less information than anyone on the planet can buy about anyone in the US for a few dollars from any credit reporting service - for a few bucks, they'll sell your complete transaction history, credit ratings, income, debt, etc., - all much scarier than the minimal amount of info on the healthcare site.

Re:"no indication ... site has been compromised" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798191)

That's one of the advantages of outlawing the "pre-existing condition" scam

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it a scam.

Re:"no indication ... site has been compromised" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798251)

It doesn't make it not a scam either.

Re:"no indication ... site has been compromised" (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 6 months ago | (#46803397)

The site doesn't have any medical information at all. That's one of the advantages of outlawing the "pre-existing condition" scam - you no longer have to tell insurers your medical history to buy insurance.

No, you still have to tell them; that provision of ACA doesn't occur until the end of this year, after you are already enrolled (by which time, it's too late). Until then, they have to let you enroll, they don't, however, have to charge you a reasonable monthly rate if you have a pre-existing condition. They said they had to let you buy it, not that it wouldn't be expensive. That one of the reasons the first 'A' in 'ACA' is a bit misleading.

Re:"no indication ... site has been compromised" (1)

laird (2705) | about 6 months ago | (#46812689)

The pre-existing condition exclusion was outlawed starting 1/1/2014. And that applies to all insurance plans sold through the exchanges, including all of the plans sold through the healthcare.gov web site, which is what we're discussing.

The extension until 2015 was to allow insurance companies to keep keep existing customers on insurance plans that aren't up to the standards, but those are sold directly by the insurance companies, not through the exchanges, so aren't relevant to this discussion. And since it's only for existing customers, I'm not sure that they'd ask for medical history which presumably they already had from the original enrollment.

Also, ACA covers the case you mentioned - "No more pre-existing conditions means you can't be denied coverage, charged more, or denied treatment based on health status" . So everyone pays the same, whether they have a pre-existing condition or not. Because jacking up rates until nobody can afford them is the same as excluding people - that's what they used to do, and it was immoral, and now it's illegal.

So the first 'A' in ACA seems to be working out. Healthcare costs are up this year less than any year in decades, and insurance companies are already complaining that the rates next year will be 'too low', though I don't think they're going to get much sympathy.

Wording... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46797771)

The word you are looking for is "preventive".

Grandparent had it right. (2)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 6 months ago | (#46797973)

The word you are looking for is "preventive".

No, it's not. The usage you're complaining about is perfectly valid.

"Preventative" has been in use since 1666 as an alternate pronunciation and spelling for "preventive".

In some regions (including where I grew up - almost in the center of the region natively speaking the "radio accent", which has been the de facto standard speech for the U.S. since the advent of commercial broadcasting) it is the preferred form.

If you want to be a spelling NAZI, you should avoid being provincial about it. Check the online dictionaries before correcting others, to distinguish between being helpful and imposing your local speech on others.

Unlike French ("a dead language spoken by millions"), American English does not have a regulatory body prescribing an official standard (though some educators have tried, since at least Daniel Webster). It grows and changes by usage. Dictionaries play a game of catch up and try to document how it's realy used.

(Yes, I know how it grates on your nerves when someone uses a different spelling or pronunciation than you're used to. I feel the same way when my wife pronounces "legacy" as if she was talking about a ledge. But apparently that's actually the first pronunciation listed in The Oxford.)

Re:Grandparent had it right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798127)

realy

Got you! Now everything else is invalidated.

Re:Wording... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46797993)

This is Grade A quote-worthy material!! Can I fuck you in the ass and have you eat my cum and my shit?

---

The word you are looking for is "preventive".

oh, sorry (4, Funny)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 6 months ago | (#46797873)

Sorry, heartbleed is actually a pre-existing condition so it's not covered.

Re:oh, sorry (0)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 6 months ago | (#46797935)

That would have been funny if the law hadn't eliminated that insurance company scam.

Re:oh, sorry (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 6 months ago | (#46797947)

That would have been insightful if the law hadn't eliminated insurance coverage for many Americans.

Re:oh, sorry (0, Flamebait)

artor3 (1344997) | about 6 months ago | (#46798029)

The latest CBO report [cbo.gov] shows that the law is on track to reduce the total number of uninsured people by 12 million this year. Page 8 of the PDF.

And if you check page 14, you'll see that that estimate was based on just enrolling 6 million people in the exchanges this year. The actual number is 8 million.

But keep lying. Maybe if you repeat it enough, it'll turn true!

Re:oh, sorry (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798041)

The latest CBO report [cbo.gov] shows that the law is on track to reduce the total number of uninsured people by 12 million this year. Page 8 of the PDF.

And if you check page 14, you'll see that that estimate was based on just enrolling 6 million people in the exchanges this year. The actual number is 8 million.

But keep lying. Maybe if you repeat it enough, it'll turn true!

I think the remaining reductions are taken care of by the death panels, and the people dying from poor healthcare...

Re:oh, sorry (-1, Flamebait)

laird (2705) | about 6 months ago | (#46798145)

He knows Obamacare is evil. Don't try to confuse him with facts like "saving people's lives" and "costing less than doing nothing".

Re:oh, sorry (2)

OhPlz (168413) | about 6 months ago | (#46798179)

If by costing less you mean costing more, and by doing nothing you mean fucking over the Constitution.. you're exactly right.

Re:oh, sorry (1)

florin (2243) | about 6 months ago | (#46798361)

Yeah, even the ridiculously activist Supreme "corporations are people and money is speech" Court didn't think they could get away with that one.

Try another talking point. Benghazi maybe?

Re:oh, sorry (1)

OhPlz (168413) | about 6 months ago | (#46805391)

They have no credibility on that case. It's either a tax or a fine. The court allowed the feds to use either throughout the testimony. It's one or the other, not both. The court gave the administration a free pass.

The courts aren't always right. Now it's up to the people.

Re:oh, sorry (1)

laird (2705) | about 6 months ago | (#46821989)

The founding fathers passed a mandatory healthcare plan (for sailors) with government-collected penalty for non-payment. So I doubt that they'd agree with your "logic".

Re:oh, sorry (1)

laird (2705) | about 6 months ago | (#46851651)

The non-partisan CBO says that ACA is saving the budget $billions, and is saving more money than originally projected (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176). For example, the 80/20 rule (that caps insurance company overhead at 20%) has already saved consumers $4 billion by itself. And healthcare costs went up less this year than any year in decades.

And many millions of Americans have healthcare that didn't before, which saves lives. And, interestingly, it also saves money, because people with regular healthcare cost a lot less than people who get really sick and then require extremely expensive ER visits (which we all end up paying for).

So I'll stick with what the facts support - ACA is saving money, and saving people's lives.

Re:oh, sorry (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about 6 months ago | (#46798151)

I don't see the mention of 12 billion at all on that page or the ones next to it. All I see is that 6 billion are projected to be enrolled through the exchanges this year.

I did however see where a lot of those enrolled were subsidized through already available health aid like medicaid and medicare (chips and such).

It is interesting that the claim was made that roughly 15% of Americans didn't have insurance or around 45 million people and this was the reasoning why we needed federal involvement in insurance. Even if we allow your number of 12 million number unquestioned, I don't see it as any success. It is still less that half which by most grading scores would be an F for failing.

It is even more interesting that you claim someone posting something contrary is lying and it might turn true if they post it enough. I mean I can understand exaggeration coming from disgruntled citizens who now have to purchase something from a third party simply for being a citizen else face a penalty without any due process or right to face their accusers in a court of law or jury trial in which the constitution seems to protect except in this case which also happens to be dished out by the one organization within the government the people already fear- the IRS who has been shown recently to be converted for political purposes and the sitting head at the time of the conversion now claims she doesn't have to say anything to law makers and oversight committees because what she says may incriminate herself if she answers any questions about that conversion. But exaggeration coming from someone who supposedly supports the law seems to indicate something fishy is going on.

Re:oh, sorry (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 6 months ago | (#46798549)

I suspect that a big part of the problem is that the fine for not having insurance is too low. That discourages healthy young people from signing up, since they can always sign up later with little penalty (pre-existing conditions must be covered).

And before you go all authoritarianism on me, you can't have it both ways. Either you have to allow insurance companies to deny pre-existing conditions, or you have to force people to buy insurance. If you don't do either then people wait until they're sick to buy insurance, and then insurance companies go out of business. Socialist healthcare systems like in Europe do the second one by basically buying insurance for everybody through tax receipts (I didn't say that the insured had to directly pay the premium).

So, either you get people complaining about having to pay for insurance they don't want/need, or you get people being ripped off by insurance companies who claim that they must have first contracted their diabetes 6 years ago when they were unemployed and uninsured for two months and it just went undetected all the remaining time so they refuse to pay for it. The thing is, the people who say they don't want/need insurance are more than happy to sign up for it once they get an expensive medical condition, so what they usually really want is to have the benefits of insurance without actually paying for it.

Re:oh, sorry (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 6 months ago | (#46798589)

And before you go all authoritarianism on me, you can't have it both ways. Either you have to allow insurance companies to deny pre-existing conditions, or you have to force people to buy insurance. If you don't do either then people wait until they're sick to buy insurance, and then insurance companies go out of business. Socialist healthcare systems like in Europe do the second one by basically buying insurance for everybody through tax receipts (I didn't say that the insured had to directly pay the premium).

Such shallow thinking. How about forcing a penalty after needing treatment without insurance or the ability to pay it? I mean should we force everyone to pay a speeding ticket once or twice a year because we know they might speed but not get caught? It goes completely against the grains of judicial logic in the US. You do not need to force insurance purchased or allow preexisting condition exclusions. You can simply penalize the people who do not have coverage when they need it and also do not have the ability to pay for their treatment. You can also mandate as part of that penalty that they maintain coverage for a certain period of time.

The thing is, the people who say they don't want/need insurance are more than happy to sign up for it once they get an expensive medical condition, so what they usually really want is to have the benefits of insurance without actually paying for it.

What people want is to not pay for something until they need it. They don't want to buy new tires for their car until their old ones need replaced, They do not want to buy another gallon of milk until the other is almost empty. Can you blame them for not wanting to be forced into buying something they do not need at the moment?

The thing is, the insurance available to those people who do not want it, is more or less the same as not having insurance for all practical purposes. I had a Health Savings Account and a catastrophic plan. The catastrophic insurance cost me $5 a week or $20 a month and covered any major medical like a broken bone, cancer, heart attach and so on. Everything else was out of pocket which you will find that medical bills are dramatically cheaper when you are paying cash or cash equivalent at the time of service. That's where the HSA came in handy, the $95 Hemoglobin A1c with fasting glucose levels out the door cost me $22 total when paying cash at the local hospital. Outside of getting that checked for a physical, I don't spend much more than $1.5-2k a year in medical with many years being less that $1000. Now I have to purchase insurance that costs $110 a month and carries a $3000 deductible. So I'm out $90 a month plus out of pocket expenses. I have read that in some areas, it is even worse with $5-8k deductibles and higher monthly costs.

But yes, we can have preexisting condition coverage and not mandatory insurance if we treated it just like we treat every other crime and not penalize someone until they actually do something wrong.

Re:oh, sorry (2)

Rich0 (548339) | about 5 months ago | (#46799129)

And before you go all authoritarianism on me, you can't have it both ways. Either you have to allow insurance companies to deny pre-existing conditions, or you have to force people to buy insurance. If you don't do either then people wait until they're sick to buy insurance, and then insurance companies go out of business. Socialist healthcare systems like in Europe do the second one by basically buying insurance for everybody through tax receipts (I didn't say that the insured had to directly pay the premium).

Such shallow thinking. How about forcing a penalty after needing treatment without insurance or the ability to pay it?

What happens if you have no insurance for 20 years, and never get sick. Then you sign up for insurance and pay your bills for 5 years. Then you get sick. What is the fine, and what happens if the person doesn't have the money to pay it at this point?

Why wait 20 years to charge them for 20 years of premiums?

The most sensible solution would be to just have the government buy insurance for anybody who does not do so, and then tax them for it. That is what happens if you don't mow your lawn - the local government will just mow it for you and send you a bill, and put a lein on your house if you don't pay it.

However, for whatever reason the government choosing your insurance policy turned people off, so instead we have a tax that people without insurance have to pay. The problem is that the tax is way too low, so for those who are young and healthy it just makes sense to pay the tax.

You do not need to force insurance purchased or allow preexisting condition exclusions. You can simply penalize the people who do not have coverage when they need it and also do not have the ability to pay for their treatment. You can also mandate as part of that penalty that they maintain coverage for a certain period of time.

If the penalty is less than the total of all the unpaid premiums, then there is no incentive to buy insurance, and the insurer loses money on the patient (since the premiums are calculated as the amount of money needed to cover losses on average, plus a profit).

What you propose is like a retirement plan where you tell people to save up for retirement, and then if they fail to do so and have no money you fine them, except they have no money so you can't fine them, and you still have to pay for their retirement. If you want people to invest in the future you have to give them incentive to do it when they can actually do it (whether investment is for retirement, or future health problems, or whatever).

The thing is, the people who say they don't want/need insurance are more than happy to sign up for it once they get an expensive medical condition, so what they usually really want is to have the benefits of insurance without actually paying for it.

What people want is to not pay for something until they need it. They don't want to buy new tires for their car until their old ones need replaced, They do not want to buy another gallon of milk until the other is almost empty. Can you blame them for not wanting to be forced into buying something they do not need at the moment?

This is INSURANCE. The whole point of insurance is that you don't know when you'll need it, so you pay money now so that in the event you need it you know you'll have it. I "waste" money on fire insurance every month. My house will probably never burn down, and thus I'll probably never get anything back. However, if my house does burn down, then I get a new house for very little money.

The only way to allow people to not buy health insurance is if we as a society refuse to provide care for them when they get sick unless they can pay the full bill themselves. If we were all sociopaths that system would work just fine, and people WOULD buy insurance because they would understand the consequences if they didn't. They would call 911 with chest pains, the call center would be set up to do an automatic insurance/credit check, and the guy on the phone would tell them that if they'd like an ambulance they need to get somebody else to provide a credit card number if the credit check isn't good. That isn't the society most voters want to live in.

The thing is, the insurance available to those people who do not want it, is more or less the same as not having insurance for all practical purposes. I had a Health Savings Account and a catastrophic plan. The catastrophic insurance cost me $5 a week or $20 a month and covered any major medical like a broken bone, cancer, heart attach and so on.

And such issues don't cost that much money to treat or are incredibly rare, which is why regular insurance plans don't cost that little. What was your plan if you got diabetes or kidney failure? Is that when you sign up for the $110/month plan and stick everybody else with the bills since you didn't pay the $80/month they paid for the previous 20 years when you weren't sick?

Everything else was out of pocket which you will find that medical bills are dramatically cheaper when you are paying cash or cash equivalent at the time of service. That's where the HSA came in handy, the $95 Hemoglobin A1c with fasting glucose levels out the door cost me $22 total when paying cash at the local hospital.

You have a very nice local hospital. Most would have given you a steep discount and charged you only $50. However, no insurance company would pay the $95 - there is a good chance they might not even pay the $22 (though as I said you got a decent deal). Usually the hospital cash discounts are actually more expensive than what the insurance company pays, because the insurance company can basically shut the hospital down if they don't like the rate. I don't have a bill that just covers A1C, but a bill I recently paid included a $71 (list price) A1C test in a set of tests that cost $286 total, and the cost to me and the insurance was $47. That is pretty typical - insurance companies only pay 20% of the list price for most things. When the hospital cuts 60% off the bill for a cash customer they love to go on about the deal they got, even though they paid twice what most people pay.

Outside of getting that checked for a physical, I don't spend much more than $1.5-2k a year in medical with many years being less that $1000. Now I have to purchase insurance that costs $110 a month and carries a $3000 deductible.

You're missing the point of insurance. You're not paying for your current medical condition. You're paying for when you do (or don't) get diabetes, or kidney disease, or cancer.

I pay more than your health insurance bills every year for fire insurance on my house (a rather modest one at that). I spend $0 on repairs caused by fire. Sounds like I'm getting ripped off! Except, if my house burns down when I'm age 55 I won't be homeless for the rest of my life, or dependent on my fellow taxpayers for welfare or charity.

But yes, we can have preexisting condition coverage and not mandatory insurance if we treated it just like we treat every other crime and not penalize someone until they actually do something wrong.

Not buying insurance IS the thing they actually did wrong. An involuntary action can't be right or wrong - it just "is." So, getting sick can't be the thing that somebody does wrong. The time to pay for illness is BEFORE you're sick, not after.

Plus, lots of people may go through live for 70 years and never get sick, and then get hit by a truck and die on the scene. The way insurance works is that they pay for it all their life and never get a dime. Then some other poor kid gets leukemia at the age of 6 and the insurance company pays $20k/yr on medical bills for the next 40 years. It all works out, since the insurance costs are based on statistics. However, it doesn't work out when people only want insurance when they "need" it.

Would it make sense for me to not pay for fire insurance for 20 years, then have a fire, and have society come along and spend $150k building me a new home, and then try to fine me for it? What happens if I don't have $150k, or even the total of 20 years worth of premiums? Plus, the insurance company is out more than 20 years worth of premiums - they're out the premiums from all the other people who didn't pay and whose houses didn't burn down (but which they apparently have to repair anyway).

Insurance premiums are based on most people paying and never collecting for most types of insurance. If you only charge people who do collect, then you'll have to charge them a LOT more.

Re:oh, sorry (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 5 months ago | (#46799295)

What happens if you have no insurance for 20 years, and never get sick. Then you sign up for insurance and pay your bills for 5 years. Then you get sick. What is the fine, and what happens if the person doesn't have the money to pay it at this point?

Do you even understand this question? What happens if I purchase insurance for 2 months and get sick. It doesn't matter, I purchased the insurance just the same as if I purchased it 20 years ago.

However, for whatever reason the government choosing your insurance policy turned people off, so instead we have a tax that people without insurance have to pay. The problem is that the tax is way too low, so for those who are young and healthy it just makes sense to pay the tax.

The problem is the tax is a penalty with no due process administrated by the one organization in the government that can make your life a living hell if you attempt to object to it. Nowhere in the law is the penalty called a tax either. The Obama administration actually argued it wasn't a tax when people took the mandate to court and one justice on the supreme court declared it a tax so it would be constitutional. But all that ignores that the tax is a punitive tax- it is applicable only if you fail to do something. All other federal income taxes are based and you get deductions or exemptions for doing something. This entire premise that the government can call a penalty a tax and continue to administer it as a penalty is an affront to freedom and everything in the bill of rights not to mention the US constitution. Start with the 9th amendment and then look at the others like the right to due process, the right to a jury trial, the right to freedom of religion.

This is INSURANCE. The whole point of insurance is that you don't know when you'll need it, so you pay money now so that in the event you need it you know you'll have it. I "waste" money on fire insurance every month. My house will probably never burn down, and thus I'll probably never get anything back. However, if my house does burn down, then I get a new house for very little money.

And some people do not and will not need it. Why are they forced to pay for it when they do not want to? Why are normal law abiding citizens being told they are no longer free and must do as the government says and purchase something from a third party when they do nothing wrong? You can waste your money all day long, why must you insist I waste mine too? What happens when some gun nut tea party gets elected and declares that anyone who doesn't own a gun has to pay a $2000 a year penalty?

The only way to allow people to not buy health insurance is if we as a society refuse to provide care for them when they get sick unless they can pay the full bill themselves. If we were all sociopaths that system would work just fine, and people WOULD buy insurance because they would understand the consequences if they didn't.

lol.. so the last 200+ years of this country didn't happen and everything starts right now because you though of something you pretend is the only possible logic?

They would call 911 with chest pains, the call center would be set up to do an automatic insurance/credit check, and the guy on the phone would tell them that if they'd like an ambulance they need to get somebody else to provide a credit card number if the credit check isn't good. That isn't the society most voters want to live in.

And that happens every day in the previous 200+ years of our country's existence? Am I right or are you making things up in order to justify your worldview?

And such issues don't cost that much money to treat or are incredibly rare, which is why regular insurance plans don't cost that little. What was your plan if you got diabetes or kidney failure? Is that when you sign up for the $110/month plan and stick everybody else with the bills since you didn't pay the $80/month they paid for the previous 20 years when you weren't sick?

How is signing up for a more expensive plan sticking everyone else with the bill? There is your logic flaw, if I purchase insurance, they do actuary studies and quote my prices based on my factors. It has nothing to do with you paying my expenses. Insurance is not some bank you put money into in order to get billions out later when you need medical care and that billions will disappear if someone else gets sick. I think someone has fooled you or something.

You have a very nice local hospital. Most would have given you a steep discount and charged you only $50. However, no insurance company would pay the $95 - there is a good chance they might not even pay the $22 (though as I said you got a decent deal). Usually the hospital cash discounts are actually more expensive than what the insurance company pays, because the insurance company can basically shut the hospital down if they don't like the rate. I don't have a bill that just covers A1C, but a bill I recently paid included a $71 (list price) A1C test in a set of tests that cost $286 total, and the cost to me and the insurance was $47. That is pretty typical - insurance companies only pay 20% of the list price for most things. When the hospital cuts 60% off the bill for a cash customer they love to go on about the deal they got, even though they paid twice what most people pay.

And you would be wrong there too. Hospitals inflate their costs to the consumer severely for several reasons. Those reasons all resolve back to the government being involved in the first place. The first problem starts with the HMO act of 64 or 68. It set up and established where medicare and medicaid payments would be payed out on a regional average of costs per procedure instead of the actual billed costs. The country was divided into 5 economic sectors and an average cost was developed and hospitals that took medicare and medicaid (which is more than half their business) had to take the average as payment in full. Congress did this to address that unexpected costs of medicare and shortly after, the started paying only a percentage of the averaged costs in order to try and save more money. Medical facilities started increasing their prices in order to raise the average costs up and insurance companies cried so congress exempted discounts to costs from the averaging and took the actual charged costs into account. This allows the hospitals and other medical facilities to jack the costs up while keeping insurance providers happy because they could give them steep discounts. But then another incentive kicked in which is taxes. If the medical facility gives a certain amount of charitable write offs each year, they get a tax break. So the inflated amounts count towards this when they write off bad debt for non-payment. This is why when you offer to pay cash, you get their corporate discount, a cash discount and an early payment discount which I am told is standard to all customers who pay before 30 days.

You're missing the point of insurance. You're not paying for your current medical condition. You're paying for when you do (or don't) get diabetes, or kidney disease, or cancer.

I'm not missing the point at all. I'm saying do not penalize someone when they have not done anything wrong. Don't make freedom illegal either.

I pay more than your health insurance bills every year for fire insurance on my house (a rather modest one at that). I spend $0 on repairs caused by fire. Sounds like I'm getting ripped off! Except, if my house burns down when I'm age 55 I won't be homeless for the rest of my life, or dependent on my fellow taxpayers for welfare or charity.

Most likely you are paying that because you had to barrow money to purchase the house. Either way it doesn't matter because for what ever reason it is what you chose to do with your money. I didn't demand you purchase fire insurance, I didn't demand you buy the house. What makes you think you can demand I spend my money a certain way when I cost you nothing, have no loans with or without conditions from you nor do I really care about you in any way? Why are you so greedy that you think if I don't have insurance there might be a chance I might not be able to cover my own treatment and you might have to pay slightly more for coverage so I must without ever indicating I couldn't provide for myself, spend my money the way you want me to? That's pretty selfish of you isn't it?

Not buying insurance IS the thing they actually did wrong. An involuntary action can't be right or wrong - it just "is." So, getting sick can't be the thing that somebody does wrong. The time to pay for illness is BEFORE you're sick, not after.

Not buying insurance can never be the wrong. The entire you have to spend your money a certain way is what is wrong. People get sick and pay for themselves all the time. People will continue to get sick and pay for it themselves even after this freedom hating law is fully in place. That is because the deductibles are so outrageous in some cases, it will surpass most people's medical needs.

Plus, lots of people may go through live for 70 years and never get sick, and then get hit by a truck and die on the scene. The way insurance works is that they pay for it all their life and never get a dime. Then some other poor kid gets leukemia at the age of 6 and the insurance company pays $20k/yr on medical bills for the next 40 years. It all works out, since the insurance costs are based on statistics. However, it doesn't work out when people only want insurance when they "need" it.

lol.. then penalize only those without that need it.

Would it make sense for me to not pay for fire insurance for 20 years, then have a fire, and have society come along and spend $150k building me a new home, and then try to fine me for it?

OF course it wouldn't. Society doesn't rebuild your home, your insurance would. Society other then some people purchasing policies at their own discretion has nothing to do with you having insurance or not or the outcome of a fire outside of paying for fire fighting that we do through taxes whether you had insurance or not.

What happens if I don't have $150k, or even the total of 20 years worth of premiums? Plus, the insurance company is out more than 20 years worth of premiums - they're out the premiums from all the other people who didn't pay and whose houses didn't burn down (but which they apparently have to repair anyway).What's your point. If they offer insurance and you just built your house and only payed the insurance for 2 months, you would be in the same boat. It's a risk the insurance company takes when it offers coverage and they employ actuaries that mitigate that risk. They are surprisingly good at it too.

Insurance premiums are based on most people paying and never collecting for most types of insurance. If you only charge people who do collect, then you'll have to charge them a LOT more.

Who said anything about charging only people who collect from insurance? 85% of the population had coverage before the ACA became law, we were only talking about needing to get around 45 million people covered or 15% of the population who either couldn't afford health insurance or didn't want it. What in this world makes you think that those 85% or 270 some million people would all the sudden cancel their insurance when they didn't cancel it before the law mandated it?

You are working from a lot of assumptions that don't seem to fit with reality.

Re:oh, sorry (2)

Rich0 (548339) | about 5 months ago | (#46799739)

What happens if you have no insurance for 20 years, and never get sick. Then you sign up for insurance and pay your bills for 5 years. Then you get sick. What is the fine, and what happens if the person doesn't have the money to pay it at this point?

Do you even understand this question? What happens if I purchase insurance for 2 months and get sick. It doesn't matter, I purchased the insurance just the same as if I purchased it 20 years ago.

The whole point of insurance is that in order for it to work, people need to pay MORE than they consume on average. If people wait until they're sick to sign up, it can't work.

This is INSURANCE. The whole point of insurance is that you don't know when you'll need it, so you pay money now so that in the event you need it you know you'll have it. I "waste" money on fire insurance every month. My house will probably never burn down, and thus I'll probably never get anything back. However, if my house does burn down, then I get a new house for very little money.

And some people do not and will not need it. Why are they forced to pay for it when they do not want to? Why are normal law abiding citizens being told they are no longer free and must do as the government says and purchase something from a third party when they do nothing wrong?

So, your choices are force everybody to buy insurance even if they don't "need" it, or let people die when it turns out that they needed it after all.

In most cases insurance is voluntary, but then you suffer the loss if you don't have it. That's how health care was supposed to work before the ACA. The problem with that is that insurance companies were scumbags and if there was any lapse in coverage they assumed that your sickness started during the lapse and denied coverage. On the other hand, if you get rid of that loophole then everybody else behaves like scumbags and avoids paying for insurance until they start to feel sick.

What happens when some gun nut tea party gets elected and declares that anyone who doesn't own a gun has to pay a $2000 a year penalty?

If people who didn't own guns cost the average citizen money, then I'd be fine with such a law. People without health insurance DO cost others money, unless we as a society choose to let them die.

The only way to allow people to not buy health insurance is if we as a society refuse to provide care for them when they get sick unless they can pay the full bill themselves. If we were all sociopaths that system would work just fine, and people WOULD buy insurance because they would understand the consequences if they didn't.

lol.. so the last 200+ years of this country didn't happen and everything starts right now because you though of something you pretend is the only possible logic?

Yeah, I guess everything being peachy is the reason Obama won the election... The previous system worked reasonably well for anybody with a job with a large employer. The problem is that costs are spiraling out of control and the model just wasn't sustainable, and MANY people had no healthcare at all.

They would call 911 with chest pains, the call center would be set up to do an automatic insurance/credit check, and the guy on the phone would tell them that if they'd like an ambulance they need to get somebody else to provide a credit card number if the credit check isn't good. That isn't the society most voters want to live in.

And that happens every day in the previous 200+ years of our country's existence? Am I right or are you making things up in order to justify your worldview?

200 years ago if you dialed 911 you wouldn't get an answer, because you didn't have a phone. We hardly have 200 years of experience with modern medicine. Go take a look at the average inner city hospital and tell me that the previous status quo made any kind of financial sense.

And such issues don't cost that much money to treat or are incredibly rare, which is why regular insurance plans don't cost that little. What was your plan if you got diabetes or kidney failure? Is that when you sign up for the $110/month plan and stick everybody else with the bills since you didn't pay the $80/month they paid for the previous 20 years when you weren't sick?

How is signing up for a more expensive plan sticking everyone else with the bill? There is your logic flaw, if I purchase insurance, they do actuary studies and quote my prices based on my factors. It has nothing to do with you paying my expenses. Insurance is not some bank you put money into in order to get billions out later when you need medical care and that billions will disappear if someone else gets sick. I think someone has fooled you or something.

The problem is that normally you can't change insurance plans AFTER a problem happens and have them pay at the higher level of service. Most insurance applies to point-in-time events like fires, accidents, etc. You can say that on one day you had a house, and on the next you had a pile of ashes.

With something like diabetes you just get gradually sicker. In the first year your costs are barely higher at all. So, you can get a cheap plan today, and switch after you get sick. If you did that with fire insurance they wouldn't pay a dime towards your pile of ashes. With health insurance the company is forced to pay for pre-existing conditions under the ACA. Previously they wouldn't have, and as I already said that model is perfectly valid but subject to abuse.

You have a very nice local hospital. Most would have given you a steep discount and charged you only $50. However, no insurance company would pay the $95 - there is a good chance they might not even pay the $22 (though as I said you got a decent deal). Usually the hospital cash discounts are actually more expensive than what the insurance company pays, because the insurance company can basically shut the hospital down if they don't like the rate. I don't have a bill that just covers A1C, but a bill I recently paid included a $71 (list price) A1C test in a set of tests that cost $286 total, and the cost to me and the insurance was $47. That is pretty typical - insurance companies only pay 20% of the list price for most things. When the hospital cuts 60% off the bill for a cash customer they love to go on about the deal they got, even though they paid twice what most people pay.

...when you offer to pay cash, you get their corporate discount, a cash discount and an early payment discount which I am told is standard to all customers who pay before 30 days.

Most hospitals will not offer this much of a discount to cash customers. Also, looking at our bills it looks like I paid a lower percentage of my cost with insurance than you did with your cash discount. The figures are close enough that it is hard to compare, but most people pay substantially more when paying cash. True, they don't pay list, but most people can't negotiate the deals insurance companies get.

I pay more than your health insurance bills every year for fire insurance on my house (a rather modest one at that). I spend $0 on repairs caused by fire. Sounds like I'm getting ripped off! Except, if my house burns down when I'm age 55 I won't be homeless for the rest of my life, or dependent on my fellow taxpayers for welfare or charity.

Most likely you are paying that because you had to barrow money to purchase the house. Either way it doesn't matter because for what ever reason it is what you chose to do with your money. I didn't demand you purchase fire insurance, I didn't demand you buy the house. What makes you think you can demand I spend my money a certain way when I cost you nothing, have no loans with or without conditions from you nor do I really care about you in any way? Why are you so greedy that you think if I don't have insurance there might be a chance I might not be able to cover my own treatment and you might have to pay slightly more for coverage so I must without ever indicating I couldn't provide for myself, spend my money the way you want me to? That's pretty selfish of you isn't it?

I'll be the first to agree that normally insurance is voluntary, and that is really where it makes the most sense. I can choose to get fire insurance or not. Of course, if I don't get it nobody will buy me a new house when it burns down.

Society for whatever reason has decided that you have a right to medical treatment if you get sick. Heck, it is illegal to kill yourself.

So, if society is not willing to let people die, then it has to have a way to pay for people not to die. That means somebody has to pay the bills. An insurance mandate is just a way to force those with the means to help pay. Other countries don't require anybody to "purchase" insurance as it is all tax-funded, but you still don't get a choice to participate.

It is basically socialism. You can love it or hate it, but either way it only works if you're forced to participate. Welcome aboard, comrade!

Snip a bunch of debate about a point you claim you didn't make

Who said anything about charging only people who collect from insurance?

You did. You said that people shouldn't be penalized if they didn't get insurance. Instead they should only be penalized when they sign up after they're sick. If you aren't claiming that, then fine, but that was about half of your previous post...

85% of the population had coverage before the ACA became law, we were only talking about needing to get around 45 million people covered or 15% of the population who either couldn't afford health insurance or didn't want it. What in this world makes you think that those 85% or 270 some million people would all the sudden cancel their insurance when they didn't cancel it before the law mandated it?

I never claimed they would. People who stay insured pay no penalties. Those who do not pay a penalty immediately, but one that is way too small. Thus, the ACA is fairly likely to fail unless it is adjusted.

My original statement was a simple one. Either you have to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions (which is how things worked before the ACA), or you have to force people to buy insurance. That's just a matter of how insurance works. You're making it into some kind of overall debate about the ACA.

Show me any insurance program anywhere which allows people to submit claims for pre-existing conditions without a mandate to buy insurance. You certainly won't find one anywhere in the last 200 years of history of the US that you keep going on about.

Re:oh, sorry (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 6 months ago | (#46803525)

You might as well just give it up. All you arr doing id regurgitsting the same yhing differrnt ways. You think it is fine that i am compelled to lose my money and freedom for the financial security of some third party because you might use that third party and it might cost you slightly more if i didn't.

I believe that is a crock of crap and that just like anything else in a free country, you arent penalized and lose your freedom until you actuslly do something wrong. I doubt i will ever agree your concept is good.

It's a tax. Not a fine (0)

tomhath (637240) | about 5 months ago | (#46799207)

If it was a fine the Supreme Court would have struck down the law. But they recognized Congress' authority to impose taxes, so the law stands.

Re:It's a tax. Not a fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46799253)

A tax on living.

Guess that makes large numbers of the homeless etc into tax evaders too now.

Re:It's a tax. Not a fine (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 5 months ago | (#46799303)

A tax on living.

Guess that makes large numbers of the homeless etc into tax evaders too now.

What do you think socialized healthcare is? Socialism only works if you don't let people opt-out.

Granted, the homeless folks aren't really the problem, since for the most part they're the recipients in any socialized benefit. The issue is the person who makes plenty of money and doesn't feel they need to pay taxes (which mostly benefit others).

Re:It's a tax. Not a fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46800271)

Required purchase of health insurance is NOT Socialism!
Many will still not be able to afford it or obtain sufficient assistance to do so.
Prices will continue to go up.

This kind of stuff just sets off a bidding war to get regulations past which benefit the assorted providers of insurance, pharmaceuticals, medical centers, doctors,,,,etc..

If you really socialized it, that would turn the medical insurance providers efforts elsewhere or they would become buggy whip companies. Of course it would also mean that all the required fields for the provision of medical services would have to be owned by the State with the related historic problems there of. As bad as that may sound, it is perhaps a better option then forced insurance purchase. Especially to the lower end of the 99%. Just because there is "assistance" there, doesn't mean one can get or maintain it, nor that it will be sufficient.

Re:It's a tax. Not a fine (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 5 months ago | (#46802085)

Required purchase of health insurance is NOT Socialism!
Many will still not be able to afford it or obtain sufficient assistance to do so.

True, on its own it isn't. ACA does include subsidies for the poor which is a form of socialism, though limited in scope.

Prices will continue to go up.

Well, they don't have to under a system like this if it is done right (aside from inflation, or rising levels of service). I don't think the ACA was really done right - it was a compromise all-around. The US health system is a nest of problems, and ACA really only hits a few of them. There is no one thing that you can do to fix it.

Re:It's a tax. Not a fine (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 5 months ago | (#46799293)

If it was a fine the Supreme Court would have struck down the law. But they recognized Congress' authority to impose taxes, so the law stands.

Semantics. But, whatever. s/fine/tax and my argument stands. You can't force insurance companies to treat pre-existing conditions unless you make people pay for insurance when they're healthy (or have somebody else pay for it for them).

If you want to understand how insurance works, first look at what the insurance pays for. Then figure out the total annual US cost of paying for that thing. Then divide that by the total population of the country, and add a few percent. That is the cost per-person of insurance if everybody buys it (whether they think they need it or not).

On the other hand, if you only want people who need it to pay for it, then instead of dividing it by the total population, divide it by the number of people who think they need insurance, and since you're dividing by a smaller number you get a bigger insurance premium.

In the case of health insurance, if only people who get sick want to pay for insurance then the cost will be something like 20x higher, and then the sick people won't want insurance since it costs more than their care.

Insurance is normally just voluntary socialism. The problem with healthcare is that we don't like making people die without treatment when they get really sick, so we don't want to make it voluntary. Insurance only works as a voluntary program if you actually let people who don't buy in suffer the full consequences of their decision. As soon as you create a "safety net" you've basically created an insurance program where all the taxpayers are paying for insurance for everybody, and that only works if you tax them enough to pay for it. However, Obamacare expects private insurance companies to actually pay the bills (aside from subsidies applied to premiums). So, you can't have a "safety net" in that case.

Re:It's a tax. Not a fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46799789)

The vast majority of medical spending is on chronic illness for the elderly. You should have your argument focus on this type of common outcome rather than "suddenly gets sick/hurt".

Re:It's a tax. Not a fine (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 5 months ago | (#46802103)

The vast majority of medical spending is on chronic illness for the elderly. You should have your argument focus on this type of common outcome rather than "suddenly gets sick/hurt".

Sure, but it doesn't really change anything. In fact, most people become elderly so it only stands to reason that most people are going to need insurnace, and the money they pay in when they're young makes up for the money they take out when they're old.

Re:oh, sorry (1)

Smurf (7981) | about 5 months ago | (#46799811)

The latest CBO report [cbo.gov] shows that the law is on track to reduce the total number of uninsured people by 12 million this year. Page 8 of the PDF.

I don't see the mention of 12 billion at all on that page or the ones next to it.

Of course you mean 12 million, not 12 billion.

The reason you can't find the number is because you are (quite correctly) looking at the page labeled as number 8. Unfortunately the PDF was not formatted correctly and the numbering is not restarting after the four-page preamble. Because of that, @artor3's PDF reader is incorrectly telling him that the page he is looking at is number 8, while you will find it's labeled as number 4.

So, go to page 4, Table 2, and look at the column for 2014. The Item (Change in Insurance Coverage Under the ACA) for Uninsured shows an increase of -12 (millions).

Re:oh, sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798159)

But keep lying. Maybe if you repeat it enough, it'll turn true!

should probably look at yourself.

You're not too good at reading comprehension (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798349)

nor at understanding the CBO, are you?

First, let me explain something about the CBO: The CBO is an accounting organization (NOT a true policy analysis organization) that serves the congress by running whatever numbers the congress asks it to run. In other words, if a member of congress asks for a report that says "Assuming I have a warp drive that can propel any mass through space for free at up to 10 times lightspeed, and assuming Jupiter has a solid surface at a height above the planet's core where 1G would be felt, how much will it cost to colonize Jupiter?" The CBO would dutifully calculate costs and project timetables for the endeavor WITHOUT ANY REGARD for whether the specifics I have provided as a "given" are, in fact correct. Citing the resulting CBO report would then look GREAT on a website but would be sheer insanity. The CBO does not question the presuppositions the congress members give it, as a matter of policy, in order to avoid becoming a partisan entity within a political fight - i.e. they'll generate good results based on good assumptions, or a mathematically-solid pile of crap based upon piles of pre-supposed crap, on a bi-partisan and equal-opportunity basis. CBO analysis is almost always wrong (because politicians always feed it rosy scenarios for policies they like and dismal scenarios for policies they hate). For those engineers reading this: CBO numbers should be take as "figures of merit" which may be used to compare competing policy ideas WHEN THOSE IDEAS COME WITH MATCHING BI-PARTISAN GROUNDRULES.

Second, even though the specific report you linked to was generated with Democrat pre-suppositions, it STILL shows the ACA to be a lie... Obama said the thing would not increase the deficit, but the report you cited says it will cost an extra $1.3 to $1.8 TRILLON over the next ten years with fine-print noting: "These numbers exclude effects on the deficit of provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are not related to insurance coverage." In other words, huge costs involved in oversight and regulation of (1) Insurers (2) hospitals (3) drug companies (4) individual taxpayers and also expenses for things like the website, and the annual marketing to remind people of enrollment periods, plus all the statistical data the plan requires the government to gather and analyze on everybody.... and on, and on, and on is NOT accounted for

Third, even with it's pro-Democrat bias, the report admits that in the year 2024 (ten years from now) there will still be 31 MILLION uninsured Americans even after we've spent the (ballpark) $1.5 TRILLON (plus not-analyzed-but-acknowleged-other-costs) AND after we've kicked MILLIONS of people off the policies that Obama swore they'd be able to keep and cut-off their access to the doctors he swore they'd be able to keep. "Obamacare" was built on lies, sold on lies, will be kept on life support using lies, and will be devestating to younger Americans who will pay far higher taxes over their lives, get worse healthcare, and have many fewer opportunities. Good policies do not need to be marketed with years of lies .... but then this HAS been a long-term goal of Progressives, for whom "the ends justify the means"

Fourth, the report admits that the Republican who yelled "You Lie!" at Obama during his State of the Union speech was, in fact, the one who was telling the truth: Under the ACA, illegal immigrants are not required to spend any money or buy anything BUT they get access to our hospitals - so THEY get coverage without ANY of the requirements the law burdens middle-class Americans with.

Sorry, but I've been reading CBO reports for decades, and I know both how to fully read them and also where to go to see and read the context.... kindly take your dishonest lazy talking points back to Kos and HuffPo where the gullible dupes lurk.

Re:You're not too good at reading comprehension (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 5 months ago | (#46798977)

someone mod this post up. There is too much rationality being told

Re:oh, sorry (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 5 months ago | (#46798849)

Oh lord, I attracted one of the premiere trolls on Slashdot. I take that as a sign that I'm not too far off the track.

I don't have the time to read your response, but don't let that stop you from posting more nonsense.

Re:oh, sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46799361)

You mean the ones whoes insurance cover was sooooo bad it wouldnt have covered it anyway right?

Re:oh, sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46799443)

Exactly, such as all the men without abortion coverage and that sort of thing that the new law makes available .... at a cost. Oh, and exclude the people that no longer have coverage due to the penalties such that their hours were cut back and they no longer have coverage.

Re:oh, sorry (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 6 months ago | (#46798231)

Wroooooooong. It's illegal to not accept you as a health insurance customer due to a pre-existing condition. It's not illegal to make you sign a waiver saying they won't cover it, like for example seasonal allergies, like for example my policy.

Re:oh, sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798267)

Yeah, actually it is, and seasonal allergies are mentioned by name as verboten for exclusion purposes. You should probably man up and ask for professional help if you want to avoid getting screwed in the ass so publicly in the future.

Re:oh, sorry (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 5 months ago | (#46798855)

Well you convinced me! You can't be wrong - you dipped into your emergency supply of o's to put *8* of them in one word.

I'm thinking Claritin overdose. Am I right?

This does not seem to be news (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 6 months ago | (#46797891)

I have no love for Healthcare.gov, but honestly just about every site is sending out notices that people may want to change passwords. Heck, Yahoo *made* me change my password.

Like everyone else they don't know if anything was taken. And frankly, Heatbleed is probably the least of the security issues Healthcare.gov has... I'd be way more worried about backbend systems, and then it doesn't matter what your password is.

Re:This does not seem to be news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798007)

I'm old fashioned. I don't do any banking on the internet. I prefer to see them in person.

The worst that could happen to me is someone might steal my e-mail account. I have several. I no longer have Yahoo. I dutifully changed my password after their security breach a coupe of months ago.

Unfortunately, I was drunk when I changed my password and I'm sure it was a very clever password too. In fact, it was so clever that I haven't a clue what it is.

Hmmmm...maybe I could go on to one of these cracker sites and find out what my password actually is. I don't really regret losing my Yahoo e-mail address, but there are a few people who only had that as a way to contact me...and I actually might want to talk to a few of those people. /And no, I didn't give Yahoo my phone number //The email address for confirmation was NetZero, which I haven't logged into in almost 10 years ///can't log into my NetZero e-mail either, but whether that's because I can't remember the password or because they deleted it due to 10 years of inactivity is unclear to me.

Re:This does not seem to be news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798061)

Sounds like you're a victim of your own hard-headed policy.

Re:This does not seem to be news (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 6 months ago | (#46798215)

This.
Every single site that was vulnerable to heardbleed should be resetting all passwords.
There are a LOT sites that were vulnerable, but very few have done large scale password resets.
The only bad thing Healthcare.gov is doing, is letting people choose to change passwords; they should do like Yahoo did.

Re:This does not seem to be news (2)

dkf (304284) | about 6 months ago | (#46798325)

Like everyone else they don't know if anything was taken. And frankly, Heatbleed is probably the least of the security issues Healthcare.gov has... I'd be way more worried about backbend systems, and then it doesn't matter what your password is.

As I understand it, the majority of the implementation of healthcare.gov is Java. Java's SSL implementation doesn't have the heartbleed bug at all (and implementing this bug would actually take a lot more work than doing it right). If there's a problem, it's most likely in a front-end load balancer; I don't know if you'd see a lot of user credentials in that case, as the damage wouldn't be in systems that handle client authentication.

The database(s) might be affected too, but you probably can't reach them from a normal system; the heavily firewalled approach is a favorite of Big Software Contractors and is actually right in this case. I suppose if they were affected, processing the update to them (carefully as you don't want to lose data!) would count as preventative treatment while still properly supporting the assertion that no real damage was done.

Absurd position by the government (1, Interesting)

JohnM4 (1709336) | about 6 months ago | (#46797895)

This is completely absurd. They have to know right away whether or not their website logins were vulnerable (that is, were they running OpenSSL with the bug) or whether they were running other versions of SSL without heartbleed. It's a black and white situation. There's no gray middle ground.

Re:Absurd position by the government (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798053)

Vulnerable is not the same as compromised (even though best practices dictate it should be treated as such when rebuilding systems). You can be vulnerable to a security issue without that issue having been exploited -- or, in most cases, vulnerable without having any evidence that issue was exploited.

Re:Absurd position by the government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798155)

That assumes of course, that none of the millions of people with accounts on healthcare.gov used the same login/pass there as they did on any website using OpenSSL, a very poor assumption indeed.

And... (1)

maz2331 (1104901) | about 6 months ago | (#46797971)

Nobody can type "yum update openssl"?

Re:And... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798037)

Does `yum update openssl` generate new keys, generate new CSRs, submit CSRs with payment information to the CA, update sites with the new certificates once the CA has signed them, and then notify all users that they should change their passwords? Didn't think so.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798239)

No, you open source freaks are still carefully (re)examining the patch. REMEMBER? Problem is bad source code produces bad binaries.
What part of writemyownmallocOuch_it_hurts_when_i_pee don't you get?
Just go back to telnet. Once you realize your data is opensource you'll stop spraying it all over the internet.
We simply have to rediscover our roots and use the internet for what it was designed for.
ascii porn.

foundational propositions (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798071)

The have autonomous justification that does not depend upon any further justification which could be provided by inferential relations to other propositions. Like to eat my cum and my shit!!!11

This new Republican scam... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46798261)

is ridiculous. They created this "bug' then took advantage of it for years. One Democrat estimated that the Republicans made more than two billion dollars off of this bug. Why is the DC police not rounding-up Republicans? They created this problem then took advantage of it. They even admitted to the recent breach at Michael's. Of course, Obama doesn't have the power to pursue the Republicans that broke the law. They still control the judicial branch and the executive branch so none of them have been arrested for what they did yet. Fuck them and their scams.

Re:This new Republican scam... (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 5 months ago | (#46798985)

ummmm WHAT?

Re:This new Republican scam... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46799219)

Same stupid off topic troll post in every thread. What a moron.

Re:This new Republican scam... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46801363)

Typical Obama voter... probably has a free "Obama phone" too...

"They (Republicans) created this "bug' then took advantage of it for years."

No. Everybody with a brain knows it was a simple, dumb coding error by one guy, in Germany IIRC ... they guy probably ran out of Mtn Dew at 3AM

"One Democrat estimated that the Republicans made more than two billion dollars off of this bug."

You can find one anonymous Democrat who'll say ANYTHING. Hell, you can find one NAMED Democrat to say almost anything - consider Democrat Congressman Henry C. "Hank" Johnson Jr. [youtube.com] for example.

"Why is the DC police not rounding-up Republicans? They created this problem then took advantage of it."

The DC police are not rounding up Republicans because they'd have to have some teensy tiny shred of evidence that some law had been broken, rather than just your clueless random accusations that lack ANY evidence.

"They even admitted to the recent breach at Michael's."

No "they" did not, and again you cite NO evidence because there's as much for your accusations as there is for the idea that president Obama ever did anyting productive before getting elected, which is to say: none. zip. zero. diddly-squat. nada ....

"Of course, Obama doesn't have the power to pursue the Republicans that broke the law. They still control the judicial branch and the executive branch so none of them have been arrested for what they did yet."

Ummmm.... ever attend a school? President Obama is RUNNING the executive branch of the government. HIS GUY (Eric Holder) is in charge of all law enforcement at the national level; he's the guy in charge of prosecuting terrorists, he's the guy in charge of the FBI, every single federal prosecutor, every single employee in the ENTIRE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. In fact, Holder is the reason nobody is in jail for the criminal acts that Obama's IRS comitted against TEA Partiers (the IRS releasing private tax records to somebody's political opponents is a FEDERAL CRIME) because, as top-dog in the justice department, Holder can simply drag his feet and effectively refuse to investigate and prosecute the President's people. Your drivel about Republicans controlling the Judicial branch is just as ignorant - The majority of the judges in the federal system are Clinton (Democrat) and Obama (Democrat) appointees. Sure, Bush43 was in office for 8 years appointing judges, but the 8 years before that were Clinton appointees and the 5 years post-bush are Obama years; many judges appointed by previous presidents are dead or retired by now. The Supreme court is en exception because people tend to stay there until they rot and die... but THAT court decides very few cases (mostly it lets the rulings of the lower courts stand)

Good thing the ACA passed (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 6 months ago | (#46798333)

Because with Heartbleed being introduced early 2012, long before that website launched, it would have been one hell of a pre-existing condition. :P

Contacts lenses (-1, Offtopic)

dhrubo (3622821) | about 5 months ago | (#46798821)

Thanks for your post . Healthcare is very important to of all us . If find more about please click this ..... http://www.sheniko.com/angel-c... [sheniko.com]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?