It’s weird to me that “Obamacare” has become a simple “for” or “against” in our culture. I especially don’t understand when people put themselves in the “against” column.
So you think insurance companies should be allowed to exclude children based on pre-existing conditions? Probably no.
Ok, so you think lifetime coverage limits should be implemented, so if you end up costing the insurance company too much, you’re cut off? Who cares about your long-term disease? Well, I guess probably not.
Ok, so you don’t think that insurance plans should be affordable and easy to choose between because they’re all available in one place? Well, yeah. Forcing companies to price and market a certain way is bad. FREE MARKET, BRO. - Well that’s weird, because Utah already has an insurance Exchange, and Utah seems to be doing fine, economically.
Ok, so you probably don’t like the individual mandate - the thing that makes it a law for every American to carry insurance? YEAH. THAT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But, technically the Supreme Court ruled it as constitutional if the penalty for not carrying insurance is considered a tax, and I doubt you’re a better constitutional lawyer than those guys.
OK FINE. NO TAXES NO TAXES.
Well all right, but remember all that stuff we talked about that are new as part of the health care reform law? Disallowing insurance companies to exclude children with pre-existing conditions, prohibiting them from imposing lifetime coverage limits, making a law for states to have to implement some kind of insurance Exchange - it wouldn’t be “economically viable” for insurance companies to have such severe “restrictions” if they don’t have some guarantee that their “lost revenues” will be recovered. (We can talk about how disgusting the idea of concerning ourselves with “lost revenues” in healthcare is, later.) That guarantee to the insurance companies IS the individual mandate. Without it, the law is too huge of a cost to the economy (rather than a boon).
So what is it you’re “against” again?
Please notice that Snoop Dogg and Ludacris seem to still look exactly the same.
In response to my previous letter, I received an email from someone in my ISP’s customer service department. As stated, their customer service has always been polite and helpful, and that is clearly not the problem I’m having.
Anyway, this person said something to the effect of, “I’m guessing your problems with the website may be due to your poor connection, so let’s diagnose that.”
This is, unfortunately untrue. While I’m not saying that my connection is in any way “good,” that is certainly not my problem with the website - primarily because I was not on MY connection when dealing with the website. (I was using our connection at work.) So - because I care - here was part of my response:
Please don’t disregard my comments about the website. From a UX perspective, it is supremely horribly awful, and needs dramatic improvements to be even remotely usable. For example, I later called your billing department to make sure that I wasn’t getting double- or triple-billed, and they said that, in fact, my payment failed with the company that handles the online transactions.
So, let’s be clear, here; my payment FAILED, and yet the site still said “Success” in big green letters. Failure and success are opposites. The website not only should have told me that there was some problem with the system (perhaps, “Sorry, your payment cannot be processed at this time, Please try again later,”), but should most certainly NOT have told me that there was any inkling of “success” in the process.
Basically all I’m saying is, “Don’t try to tell me your website isn’t horrible. Please just accept that it basically is worse than Hitler’s website, and pass this up the chain in hopes that we might do some good and fix it.”
Permit me to share with you a complaint letter I recently penned in an online email form for my internet service provider. Conveniently, this form permitted A LOT of typing, so be prepared (it’s a little bit long):
"Everything about my service with *COMPANY* has been awful except for the customer service. I’ve been a customer for a month, and in that time, the internet connection was off during the day for about 5 days, and would suddenly, as if by magic, start working at night. Then there was an outage for about 24 hours on another time, not to mention the intermittent outages at random points. So I’ve actually been able to USE the service for about 80% of the time I’ve been signed up. Any provider of any service should know that 20% downtime during which the service is SUPPOSED to be up is absolutely unacceptable. (Does that mean the cost for my bill should be reduced by 20%? That would be acceptable.)
Secondly, the website is literally the worst online experience I can imagine. Simply signing in is a chore in which one must slog through an abundance of archaic and unnecessary practices.
I was initially sent a temporary password to use at sign in, but by the time I actually needed to sign in, the password had expired, so I had to get a new one. Simple enough, right? Just type in my email address and they’ll send me a password reset link like any other normal online service. Actually, that is incorrect. You need a security code from your paper bill (?!) in order to reset your password.
Oh and also, if you signed up for e-billing, you’ll need to sign in to see your bill to get the code before we can help you get your password to sign in to see your bill. Or you can contact a person at customer service, who will be helpful, but whose job is unnecessary because you never should have had to contact them in the first place.
Once you’ve finally been able to sign in to the website, you can, by all appearances, pay your bill. However, appearances can be deceiving. If you try to pay your bill with a checking account, you’ll be taken to a page that says “SUCCESS!” (hooray!), but just kidding, you have to wait on this page until we have retrieved your information (boo!), and we’ll just give you a little animated .gif that sort of makes it look like something’s happening. But after you’ve waited for 260 seconds, you will have pretty much assumed that nothing is actually happening.
Oddly enough, you would be wrong. The website is actually communicating with somewhere (liveperson.net - seems legit), and that place is continuously sending back a JSON result that tells the website to wait ten more seconds. It will do this until you’ve given up, and surprise! Contrary to what the website told you, there was never any real success. Your payment is not posted, and you’ll have to try again, which makes you feel really uncomfortable because it seems like you’re about to double-pay on your bill, which you haven’t budgeted to do, obviously.
Anyway, I still haven’t been able to pay my bill online, so if you guys could help out with that, that would be great.”