The number of people needed to crash ACA website

The number of people needed to crash ACA website (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/25/2013 9:18:19 AM)
According to congressional testimony two days ago: 2,000. So the lies about crashing due to HUGE unforseen traffic: just that. Lies.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/25/2013 9:44:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux According to congressional testimony two days ago: 2,000. So the lies about crashing due to HUGE unforseen traffic: just that. Lies. Link? That seems incredibly low, imo. There has to be more to it than that.

RacerJim -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/25/2013 9:51:54 AM)
According to the pro-Obama, pro-Obamacare Washington Post it only took a couple hundred simultaneous users to crash "Healtcare.gov" during it's only known pre-launch test the week before it was launched. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-insurance-exchange-launched-despite-signs-of-serious-problems/2013/10/21/161a3500-3a85-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_print.html

farglebargle -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/25/2013 1:45:16 PM)
SOLUTION: Enroll everyone in medicare.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/25/2013 2:07:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle SOLUTION: Enroll everyone in medicare. Better solution - Use generic drugs and stop paying big pharma the big bucks. Stop all private medical insurance for those that don't want it or can't afford it. Cap the mega-buck claims and service charges. Scrap the fines for no healthcare insurance. Have a state-funded healthcare system and pay for it with people's taxes (which will work out a lot cheaper for the majority of working people).

DesideriScuri -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/25/2013 2:43:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle SOLUTION: Enroll everyone in medicare. Better solution - Use generic drugs and stop paying big pharma the big bucks. Who will buy the Name Brand drugs that helps fund research for new ones? quote: Stop all private medical insurance for those that don't want it or can't afford it. I have no idea what this means. Except for employees who get insurance through their employers, who would have private insurance they don't want? Who would have private insurance they can't afford? quote: Cap the mega-buck claims and service charges. I'm assuming the claims refers to malpractice awards. What do you mean by "service charges?" quote: Scrap the fines for no healthcare insurance. What is going to compel those who don't have insurance to get insurance? quote: Have a state-funded healthcare system and pay for it with people's taxes (which will work out a lot cheaper for the majority of working people). Have 50 "Romneycares" (one per State)? Is that what you mean?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/25/2013 9:49:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux According to congressional testimony two days ago: 2,000. So the lies about crashing due to HUGE unforseen traffic: just that. Lies. I hate it when the news is so biased. It was actually 2071 hits.

farglebargle -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/26/2013 2:47:00 AM)
quote: Have 50 "Romneycares" (one per State)? Is that what you mean? SOLUTION: Enroll everyone in medicare.

DaddySatyr -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/26/2013 3:44:23 AM)
I have been saying for years (at least 20 of them) that the best way to reform healthcare is to remove the words "over 65" from Medicare. It's an easy fix. Yes, taxes would go up but even I think this is one of those times when you should just picture the flag and bend over like a good little citizen.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/26/2013 4:50:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle SOLUTION: Enroll everyone in medicare. Better solution - Use generic drugs and stop paying big pharma the big bucks. Who will buy the Name Brand drugs that helps fund research for new ones? You don't think big pharma already make more than enough profit to fund R&D? For the compainies I've worked for (not big pharma I might add), the R&D budget is quite small compared to the estimated profit margins of the final products. I'm guessing that big pharma would still make make more than enough profit in the first year even if they reduced the end price to less than 10% of what they charge the people of USA. They do it around the rest of the world and still make a huge profit so why are they charging US citizens such a high price?? Because the insurance companies and everyone down the line pass those charges on to the last one in the chain - the patient in the US! 2012 must have been a tough year for the CEOs of the big pharmaceutical corporations. The cumulative salaries of the CEOs of the top 11 global pharmaceutical companies jumped from $174.4 million in 2011 to $199.2 million in 2012, a one-year increase of 14.2 percent. Source: http://nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/22260-big-pharma-ceos-took-salaries-of-1-57b-during-last-10-years.html And that's just the CEO salaries!!! quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: Stop all private medical insurance for those that don't want it or can't afford it. I have no idea what this means. Except for employees who get insurance through their employers, who would have private insurance they don't want? Who would have private insurance they can't afford? If you had a choice of private healthcare at a high price or general healthcare given free (yes, I said FREE), what would the majority of US workers, and those not working or on low incomes, actually choose? That would also eliminate those crazy laws where fines are issued for those not having healthcare insurance because everyone would be covered, regardless of income level. And of course, things like deductables just don't exist in a nationally-funded healthcare system. Of course it's not really free, the whole thing is paid for by taxes - individual taxes, company taxes, windfall taxes.... every tax available to the government using the money to pay for it. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: Cap the mega-buck claims and service charges. I'm assuming the claims refers to malpractice awards. What do you mean by "service charges?" All awards by the courts and all charges leveied by everyone down the line. UK The amount paid in in medical negligence claims for misdiagnosis last year increased by over three quarters, figures by from NHS litigation Authority (NHSLA) have revealed. The total figure paid in compensation for misdiagnosis claims made against NHS trusts in the period 2010-11 was over £98 million; an increase of £42 million on 2009 - 2010 figures. According to the statistics, 1,204 claims resulted in a compensation payout last year; ten per cent of which were for misdiagnosis of cancer. The largest single sum paid out for a cancer misdiagnosis claim was £959,000; a further 12 cases saw compensation of £300,000 or more. The figures, reported in the Daily Telegraph last week, were released following a Freedom of Information request. Source: http://www.farleys.com/blog/figure-paid-out-by-nhs-in-medical-negligence-claims-soars USA Researchers analyzed 350,706 diagnosis-related claims from the National Practitioner Data Bank over a 25-year period (1986-2010), comparing frequency, severity and cost to other paid malpractice claims. Results showed diagnostic errors to be the leading type of paid claims (100,249 claims, 28.6 percent of the total) and represented the highest proportion of total malpractice claim payments (35.2 percent). The inflation-adjusted total of diagnosis-related payments was $38.8 billion over the 25-year period. Source: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/study-diagnostic-errors-represent-most-common-costly-malpractice-claims.html ETA: Note our highest ever payout of £959,000 - less than a £million. In the US, that claim would probably run into tens of millions and maybe even top £100m. This is what I mean about a cap. Not so much a physical monetary cap but make much much lower personal awards through the courts. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: Scrap the fines for no healthcare insurance. What is going to compel those who don't have insurance to get insurance? In a nationally-funded healthcare scenario, private insurance is no longer a necessity - it becomes optional. Ergo, compulsion to buy private healthcare insurance doesn't exist any more. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: Have a state-funded healthcare system and pay for it with people's taxes (which will work out a lot cheaper for the majority of working people). Have 50 "Romneycares" (one per State)? Is that what you mean? Not per state, no - across the whole nation at a national level. We covered most of the reasoning and funding in another thread. Most of the US posters on here (yourself included) can't seem to get their head out of either local or state level legislation and get their heads around something that is truly universally country-wide. This is almost uniquely part of the US way of life where everything is done at local or state level with very little done at country level. Even your taxes are done at state level whereas for most other people around the world, it's done at the national level. Even simple stuff like getting/having a driver's license is done at state level with different rules and laws in each state. How fucked up can it get??? If I make a comparison between the USA and the UK on the major points... Cost per employed person for healthcare: USA 35% (and more I've heard); UK 8.6%. Doctors visit: USA: $50~ish per visit; UK $free. Hospital visit: USA $???; UK $free. Childbirth: USA $5000+; UK $free. Cataract surgery (avg, per eye): USA $3,250; UK $free. Other hospital proceedure (example): US $75000; UK $free. Pack of pills (example): USA $145; UK $0.50-$0.80. Prescription charges (per item): USA $12; UK $12 (pretty much the same tbh). And of course, everyone on low incomes, not employed or on benefits and all children under 18, in the UK everything is completely free. That cannot be said for US citizens in the same fiscal position. So when you compare the two systems, the cost per person is much lower in the UK than the US and yet you still have to pay for a doctor visit, medical proceedures, etc etc on top of that as well as your usual income taxes. Who is ripping you off if it isn't the whole healthcare topic (insurance companies, doctors, lawyers etc) and big pharma?? The whole US healthcare system is powered by sheer greed and huge profits.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/26/2013 6:41:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle SOLUTION: Enroll everyone in medicare. Better solution - Use generic drugs and stop paying big pharma the big bucks. Who will buy the Name Brand drugs that helps fund research for new ones? You don't think big pharma already make more than enough profit to fund R&D? It is ridiculously expensive to get a drug developed and passed through the FDA approval process. http://mises.org/daily/6567/The-FDA-A-Pain-From-the-Neck-to-the-Big-Toe $45M application fee to the FDA That's on top of whatever other costs are going to go into completing the studies. While the article certainly does point out Corporate greed on the part of the Pharmaceutical company, the leverage it had to exert that greed was government granted. R&D for drugs is expensive. It's also expensive to get the drug through the FDA after R&D has come up with a viable drug. My point isn't that we should all buy name-brand medications, but, we do have to have name-brand medications bought to fund that R&D. I am all for using generics whenever possible. The only time I'll buy a medication that is name-brand is when there is no generic available, or when the cost of the name brand medication is lower than the generic (for over-the-counter medications, there are times when a good sale and a coupon result in lower costs for name-brands over store-brands). If my physician is going to prescribe me a medication, I specify generic when it's possible. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: Cap the mega-buck claims and service charges. I'm assuming the claims refers to malpractice awards. What do you mean by "service charges?" All awards by the courts and all charges leveied by everyone down the line. The GOP is typically all for medical malpractice tort reform. Typically, the Democrats oppose it. In his State of the Union address in 2011, President Obama even mentioned wanting to reform tort law to reduce frivolous lawsuits. It's only been 3-3/4 years since that speech, so I suppose there just hasn't been enough time to get that through. [8\|] As far as charges levied by everyone down the line, that isn't going to even be possible until it's figured out exactly what the drivers of cost are. And then, there are limits as to what the Government can do. I can't even imagine what would happen if the Federal Government capped CEO remuneration at a very low level (compared to today's levels). quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: Have a state-funded healthcare system and pay for it with people's taxes (which will work out a lot cheaper for the majority of working people). Have 50 "Romneycares" (one per State)? Is that what you mean? Not per state, no - across the whole nation at a national level. My mistake. I took your phrase "state-funded" to mean funded by each individual state. I see you meant "state" as in "government," in general. I don't know how much cheaper it would be, though, for the majority of working people. For that to be the case, they would have to be spending more than whatever the tax rate is for health care. Right now, a taxpayer can get a tax deduction for medical expenses not covered by insurance as long as it's over 10% of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). It used to be (pre-2013) 7.5%, but that was raised for everyone under 65 until 2016, after which, the 10% limit is extended to include those 65 or over. quote: And of course, everyone on low incomes, not employed or on benefits and all children under 18, in the UK everything is completely free. That cannot be said for US citizens in the same fiscal position. So when you compare the two systems, the cost per person is much lower in the UK than the US and yet you still have to pay for a doctor visit, medical proceedures, etc etc on top of that as well as your usual income taxes. Who is ripping you off if it isn't the whole healthcare topic (insurance companies, doctors, lawyers etc) and big pharma?? The whole US healthcare system is powered by sheer greed and huge profits. The problem is reining in the costs. Greed makes the world go 'round, regardless of what anyone thinks. Greed is why you work, work harder (to gain more income) and take risks. The US Government is already spending around 10%GDP for health care. And, that does have government negotiated reimbursements for the care.

leonine -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/26/2013 8:38:50 AM)
Edited for conciseness... quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 So when you compare the two systems, the cost per person is much lower in the UK than the US and yet you still have to pay for a doctor visit, medical proceedures, etc etc on top of that as well as your usual income taxes. And bear in mind that a significant part of the cheapness of the UK system comes from the Department of Health being able to negotiate bulk contracts with service and goods providers, and a sanely organised US health service would have ten or a hundred times the purchasing muscle. They could get discounts the NHS can only dream of. Which is why not only the insurance giants, but the healthcare industries as well, will do anything up to and including fomenting armed revolt to stop it happening. Threatening to crash the global economy was just the latest shot in an ongoing war.

leonine -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/26/2013 9:04:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri R&D for drugs is expensive. It's also expensive to get the drug through the FDA after R&D has come up with a viable drug. My point isn't that we should all buy name-brand medications, but, we do have to have name-brand medications bought to fund that R&D. This is a talking point the pharma companies repeat every chance they get, but the figures belie it. In the first place, they spend more on advertising than they do on R&D. In the second place, the vast majority of that R&D is not aimed at new discoveries, because the low hanging fruit in medical research was picked long ago, and the as yet unsolved big problems are the ones that have defied solution for a century, so nobody who looks at the bottom line is going to put much money into yet another try. The real research on things like cancer and heart disease is done by charities that don't have to show a profit. What they spend their R&D budget on is trying to reverse-engineer the competition's most currently profitable patents, so they can make a duplicate that bypasses the patent and creams off some of those profits. Which doesn't add a thing to the sum of medical knowledge, but requires the FDA to duplicate a whole set of trials making sure that in modifying the drug enough to end-run the patent, they haven't rendered it useless or toxic. quote: quote: And of course, everyone on low incomes, not employed or on benefits and all children under 18, in the UK everything is completely free. That cannot be said for US citizens in the same fiscal position. So when you compare the two systems, the cost per person is much lower in the UK than the US and yet you still have to pay for a doctor visit, medical proceedures, etc etc on top of that as well as your usual income taxes. Who is ripping you off if it isn't the whole healthcare topic (insurance companies, doctors, lawyers etc) and big pharma?? The whole US healthcare system is powered by sheer greed and huge profits. The problem is reining in the costs. Greed makes the world go 'round, regardless of what anyone thinks. Greed is why you work, work harder (to gain more income) and take risks. The US Government is already spending around 10%GDP for health care. And, that does have government negotiated reimbursements for the care. You haven't come close to answering the question. If greed is the cause of high US healthcare charges, does that mean the British are less greedy? I wish.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/26/2013 9:57:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leonine ...If greed is the cause of high US healthcare charges, does that mean the British are less greedy? I wish. Not less greedy at all but their 'greed' is often capped or they aren't allowed to charge such high sums. The whole overall effect is the prices aren't so exorbitant and personal claims don't look like a national debt. quote: ORIGINAL: leonine And bear in mind that a significant part of the cheapness of the UK system comes from the Department of Health being able to negotiate bulk contracts with service and goods providers, and a sanely organised US health service would have ten or a hundred times the purchasing muscle. They could get discounts the NHS can only dream of. This is exactly it... in a nutshell. If the US goverment said to big pharma that if they wanted a license to sell their drugs in the US bulk market (doctors, hospitals, clinics etc) they couldn't charge more than x amount, any nationally funded healthcare would cost only a tiny fraction of what they currently charge US patients.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/26/2013 10:27:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri $45M application fee to the FDA That's what I mean - pure greed. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri R&D for drugs is expensive. It's also expensive to get the drug through the FDA after R&D has come up with a viable drug. My point isn't that we should all buy name-brand medications, but, we do have to have name-brand medications bought to fund that R&D. R&D is a tiny fraction of what it actually costs to develop a drug and do the tests. And I really do mean a tiny fraction. The high cost of the final product is just pure profit for the CEO's and shareholders. When they form a budget for an R&D project, most companies aim to recoup thoses costs within the first year. It may run into millions and millions but compared to the profits, it's a mere drop in the ocean. The proof of that is in the fact that those very same drugs, including the additional costs of overseas transport and extra import duties, costs less than 10% of what they charge in the US and they still make $billions in profit. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri As far as charges levied by everyone down the line, that isn't going to even be possible until it's figured out exactly what the drivers of cost are. And then, there are limits as to what the Government can do. I can't even imagine what would happen if the Federal Government capped CEO remuneration at a very low level (compared to today's levels). It can easily be capped and vastly reduced if those costs were dictated by the goverment in a nationally-funded healthcare system. The drivers of the cost are irrelevant. They would be paid a vastly reduced fixed sum if they want to market their drugs in the US. Very simple to implement. This is what you can't seem to wrap your head around. Everything down the line is cost-controlled by the government healthcare department. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The problem is reining in the costs. Greed makes the world go 'round, regardless of what anyone thinks. Greed is why you work, work harder (to gain more income) and take risks. The US Government is already spending around 10%GDP for health care. And, that does have government negotiated reimbursements for the care. In a nationally-funded healthcare system, there are no re-imbursments whose price is dictated by private companies. They are paid a strictly reduced set amount and that's the end of it. If the companies don't like the reduced cost (ie, less unit profit for vast sales and a captive market), they don't get a license to market it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/26/2013 1:26:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leonine quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The problem is reining in the costs. Greed makes the world go 'round, regardless of what anyone thinks. Greed is why you work, work harder (to gain more income) and take risks. The US Government is already spending around 10%GDP for health care. And, that does have government negotiated reimbursements for the care. You haven't come close to answering the question. If greed is the cause of high US healthcare charges, does that mean the British are less greedy? I wish. Greed is part of the higher cost, but it isn't the entirety of the increased cost. That was my point. Greed is everywhere. Very few people do something without any possibility of benefit; few are truly altruistic. Does a Dr. work for free? Of course not. There is pay involved. Why? So the Dr. can buy desirable stuff. The Dr. is greedy. Now, the question is, what's wrong with being greedy? What is the acceptable amount of greed?

Phydeaux -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/26/2013 5:13:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leonine quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri R&D for drugs is expensive. It's also expensive to get the drug through the FDA after R&D has come up with a viable drug. My point isn't that we should all buy name-brand medications, but, we do have to have name-brand medications bought to fund that R&D. This is a talking point the pharma companies repeat every chance they get, but the figures belie it. Then please provide some figures for that pablum. because the average cost to get a drug approved in the united states tops $700 million dollars. I doubt they spend $700,000 dollars getting it approved in most countries.

tazzygirl -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/26/2013 11:10:18 PM)
http://www.voxeu.org/article/consumer-adverts-pharmaceuticals-impact-prices-and-sales 1993 - 150 million in advertising 2005 - 4.24 billion Think the consumer isnt paying for that?

Phydeaux -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/27/2013 2:29:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl http://www.voxeu.org/article/consumer-adverts-pharmaceuticals-impact-prices-and-sales 1993 - 150 million in advertising 2005 - 4.24 billion Think the consumer isnt paying for that? Your own study said that this was in a market of $49.5 billion dollars. And that the net result of this was %6 higher costs. So -its a good idea when the federal government advertises Obamacare - but its a bad idea when drug companies advertise their products. uhuh. Additionally, the market was transiitoning from no dca to our present model. Current numbers show a significantly lower contribution. Much as many here seem to hate it - companies are in business to make money. Successfully making money allows them to continue developing products that have made our lives better. One study said that 80% of the medical innovations since 1980 were developed in the US. Finally, and more to the point - this does nothing to address the point in question which is that getting drugs through US government trials is Ridiculously expensive - to the tune of $700 million, on average.

tazzygirl -> RE: The number of people needed to crash ACA website (10/27/2013 4:46:45 AM)
Read again, big boy. This column examines the effect on demand, finding that broadcast advertising was responsible for 18% of the overall increase in prescription drug expenditures in the US during the period. quote: The benefits derive from improved health due to increases in the number of individuals using prescription drugs and increased adherence with drug therapy. Detecting and treating health conditions at an earlier stage, through primary care, may also be more cost-effective relative to treatment at a later stage through acute care. In addition to potential misuse, the costs of DTCA result from increased drug prices and increased use of more expensive drugs in place of equally effective lower-priced drugs. Higher drug and health care expenditures in general tend to raise insurance premiums and may lead to a larger prevalence of uninsured. Based on our estimates, the increase in broadcast DTCA appears to have been responsible, on the net, for about 18% of the overall increase in prescription drug expenditures between 1994 and 2005 in the US, with about 12% due to greater sales and 6% attributed to higher prices. Gee, prices go up as demand goes up. Why is demand going up? Because people see the ad on TV. Between advertising and demand for product A over product B as a result of more advertsing money being spent on product A, we have higher costs. quote: Finally, and more to the point - this does nothing to address the point in question which is that getting drugs through US government trials is Ridiculously expensive - to the tune of $700 million, on average. Have YOU looked into why? I have. Might open your eyes a bit. In FY 2012, the fee for filing an NDA (new drug application) that requires clinical data is $1,841,500. For an application that does not require clinical data, the fee is $920,750. The most recent year for which the payment amounts are available is 2010. In FY 2010, the total amount paid to the FDA for application fees was $172,238,150. Establishment fees (another, smaller component of PDUFA) totaled $183,328,513. Product fees (yet another, still smaller component) came to $173,709,880. (Fun task: See if you can make heads or tails of the definitions on establishment fees and product fees at this FAQ on PDUFA) That brings the grand total of PDUFA fees collected in FY 2010 to $529,276,543. http://blogs.plos.org/workinprogress/2012/01/25/how-much-money-do-drug-companies-pay-the-fda/ 700 million? 530 million for 86 NDA's. 6.2 million for each one, on average. However, we cant average., some dont require as much testing as others. *because the average cost to get a drug approved in the united states tops $700 million dollars.* I had to go back and retrieve your words. A drug? Just one? Do tell me where you are getting your figures from. Just how is the FDA costing 700 million for each NDA?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125