If I want subsidized insurance I have to enroll in medicaid. I bet you didn't realize that if your income is too low your only option for subsidized insurance is medicaid. I wouldn't touch that crap with a 10 foot pole.
What do you think Medicaid is? Under Obamacare, it's that exchange insurance policy with a subsidy. You'll be paying your portion of the premium to the insurance company and the government pays the rest. You don't have to take the bronze plan in order to get the subsidy, either.
And this is this typical anti-Obamacare response based on misrepresentation of how Obamacare works. Obamacare is basically two things: a private insurance exchange that has specific rules about what is covered and a medicaid program that subsidizes the premiums. The only people who are deciding whether or not your mother can have surgery are employees of the insurance company your mother chooses. That's right, the so-called death panels are run by a bunch of private for-profit (or sometimes not-for-profit) insurance actuaries. And even those not-for-profit insurance companies don't do losses unless they want to go out of business.
Sure, some people signing up in the exchange might end up being told that they qualified for subsidies when they should have, and will have to refund some or all of their subsidies. But your definition of "routinely" is bogus. I'm quite sure that it doesn't mean, at least 50% of benefits are calculated incorrectly, probably something like
Even though healthcare.gov is a government program, most of the development work was not done by government employees, it was done by a bunch of government contractors following the requirements of a bunch of political appointees who were in over their heads. People like your wife's coworkers aren't the ones setting up these systems, they're not the cause of the initial fiasco, they're not the ones on the death march to fix the problems. They're just shuffling the paperwork once the process is set up. And the paperwork they're shuffling has nothing to do with medical decisions whatsoever, it's just deciding whether somebody is going to have to pay full price for their insurance or if the government is subsidizing it.
I probably should have posted this anonymously like you did so I could mod you down, because your post isn't insightful at all. If Obamacare was a national healthcare system like the UK NIH you might have had a valid point, but it's not, and the Department of Health and Human Services is not in charge of your healthcare beyond requiring that any health insurance sold in the exchanges has to provide coverage for specific procedures and have specific out of pocket maximums. They're not even responsible for the insurance companies cancelling the existing policies that don't meet their requirements for the exchanges.
I've bought a lot of ebooks (well over a thousand), and most of them I bought on sale before agency pricing model took effect or after the settlements. I never bought any ebooks from Amazon before agency pricing model, and I calculated that I would have had to pay triple, at least $3,000 more, after agency pricing model took effect over what I paid. With that sort of price increase, I don't think they're being unfairly punished.
While Amazon's monopsony might make it harder for publishers to raise prices, they weren't alone in discounting best seller ebooks or hardcovers, sometimes even below cost. Who knows, maybe it would have forced the publishers to revise their business practices so they aren't so dependent on the blockbuster authors with the several million dollar advances. As for being disrupted by new technologies, it would be trivial for the publishers to compete with the used book stores by adding a new pricing tier at about half the new paperback book price when the paperback print run is over (instead of raising it to trade paperback prices like some publishers are doing). But they're not going to do that because they're afraid it will cannibalize the sales of their newly released books.
IANAL either, but they're not being penalized for doing a bunch of legal activities, they're being penalized for the collusion. The penalty is a limitation in their ability to make contracts using the legal activities they used during the collusion so that it will be harder for them to collude again in the near future. This includes forcing Apple to stagger their contracts with the publishers.
There's nothing illegal in the way Amazon got it's monopsony by sometimes selling ebooks cheaper by accepting lower profit margins, providing an easy way to buy ebooks and install them on the ereader, and creating ereaders that could only decrypt DRMd ebooks sold by Amazon. In general, once a Kindle owner, always a Kindle owner thanks to publisher DRM. If the publishers wanted to make it harder for Amazon to keep their monopsony, they should have dropped DRM or changed their contracts to stipulate the ebook format so Amazon couldn't lock Kindle owners into Amazon's proprietary format. Just because the publishers were afraid that Amazon was going to use it's monopsony to keep prices lower (a la Wal-Mart) doesn't give them the right to engage in collusion to fix prices.
When in doubt, mumble; when in trouble, delegate; when in charge, ponder. -- James H. Boren