From what I heard today, the problem is as follows:

1. 1) patient goes to pharmacy to get prescription filled
2. 2) pharmacy contacts authorizer to find out what the cost of the prescription is under patient's plan
3. 3) patient buys drugs for price returned by authorizer
4. 4) authorizer sends bill on to insurance company

Step 2 is an immediate response, step 4 is handled in batch processing nightly. So far so good. Except that the Affordable Care Act makes it *illegal* to make a patient pay more than the annual limit. The authorizer and/or the pharmacy can be charged for forcing the patient to pay above the annual limit. This means that the authorizer must be aware of limit of each patient and be able to respond in real-time so that neither they nor the pharmacy will be sued. The insurance company doesn't have that information available real-time, nor do they make it available to the authorizer.

It is a computer issue, but as simple as everyone thinks. Putting individual insurance files on-line so that the out of pocket expenses can be tracked real-time isn't trivial. Now, maybe the Insurance companies were hoping the law wouldn't be implemented so they didn't do the hard work necessary to get set up, or maybe the rules were only written as to how to handle the annual limit must be handled.

Just remember, the last time companies put together a real-time on-line credit/debit system, the government decided that they charged too much to support the infrastructure, and started regulating it. That was the Durbin amendment to Dodd-Frank, which put a fixed limit on per swipe fees - regardless of what the infrastructure and support costs actually are.

jerry

Would you care to cite a specific US Statute or US constitutional article and then the specific violating act?

But it does! Because its not the Executive's job to adjudicate the constitutionality of the laws; that job belongs to the courts. The President has an opportunity to veto a law at the time it is passed and (not) signed. There is no constitutional provision for an after-the-fact veto.

Yes, practically the entirety, otherwise the Republic would have fallen long ago. I can not name any other time of SYSTEMIC lawlessness by the executive, not even Watergate. The only thing that come close was Jackson and Indian removal (trail of tears).

You may or may not agree with the wisdom of any particular law, but the executive branch and the President have an obligation to see that the laws are faithfully executed until such time the law is repealed, even when they disagree personally (or politically) . Under the Constitution, it is not the place of President or his advisers to second-guess a duly passed law. If they think the law is unwise, they should go through the democratic process of petitioning Congress to repeal it. Just unilaterally deciding to ignore the law undermines the rule of law and the democratic process.

Here are some laws that the administration has famously ignored, instead of pursuing a repeal through the democratic process. There are probably more.

• The Defense of Marriage Act
• Mandatory Sentencing
• Yucca Mountain

Again, I'm not saying any one of these laws is a wise law, but they are (or were in the case of DOMA until overturned) duly legislated, therefore the executive had a constitutional duty to enforce them until such time the laws are repealed by the legislature or overturned by the courts. Where is the Republic going when the executive branch no longer feels constrained by the law or the democracy?

I read RT for the first time today and was surprised how crude it was. It consisted mostly of articles that were obviously written to stir up hatred/anger towards the US, and towards the west more generally. One article referred to the Bank of England as "monetary jihadists" and claimed they are "financial terrorists".

That kind of propaganda is just way too crude. The average person can see through it.

RT would be much more persuasive if they toned it down a lot. Right now, it's just silly.

There *was* an issue with updates for the initial CentOS 6 release, but that hasn't been an issue for awhile. The last update to RHEL (6.4), CentOS had the release out in something like 9 days. Normal day-to-day updates keep pace. I haven't had any issues.

Who taught you to cast "black and white" aspersions as your "excuse" for the bad excuse?

(a) willingly vote for someone that you know is bad
(b) willingly vote for someone that you think might be good

Yes it really is black and white, but no it is not wrong or bad to see it for what it really is.

Do you know why?

Because the argument doesnt present an opinion. Instead, the argument examines an excuse that relates to your own opinion. The argument deals with your opinion of a man and your actions given that opinion of that man. Specifically the argument destroys the excuse of willingly voting for the lesser of two (in your opinion) evils, because it shows quite succinctly that you still voted for what you believed to be evil.

Its black and white because it doesnt present an opinion. I know its uncomfortable when someone tells you that you willingly voted for fucking evil. Doesnt change the fact that you willingly voted for fucking evil.

I'm not sure I agree on the land-owner qualifier but this I can get behind 100% -- If we draw the line somewhere that is even remotely close to some measure of "skin in the game", then the people that accept tax dollars as the means of their basic survival would certainly fall on the "you don't get to vote right now" side of things.

I would suggest however that "land owner" is probably not even close to the best metric of "skin in the game", even though it is probably easily provable that it is better than the current "a citizen that is not currently in prison" metric. Many wealthy people enjoy that wealth entirely due to the government in some way, people that have not contributed to the production of any real value at all. They are just as much leaching off the government as those on welfare, yet they often own plenty of land.

My fear with drawing a voter line however, is that it will be redrawn in a series of tactical moves that repeatedly culls the set of illegible voters. To defend against this, all people should have a vote as to where the line should be drawn and what metric is used while only the reduced set get to vote on anything else.

There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.

This excuse of yours only convinces other people that are also looking for an excuse for why they willingly voted to increase evil. Excuses only help the conscience of people willing to swallow them.

Humans have evolved a tendency towards tribalism.

The problem of course is that a nation is not a tribe. They are a collection of tribes.

But this is why leaders do not call the thing that they are exploiting tribalism. Nationalism is sometimes what its called, but thats only once removed. The term patriotism on the other hand is twice removed.

Actually the mess was a result of unions bureaucratizing the business, not capitalists. Under that system they had, if you had a freight truck only half full of bread and you also had several pallets of twinkies that needed to go to the same store, tough shit you had to put them on a different truck. One union had to do the breads, the other union did the sweets. Bread workers weren't allowed to handle sweets, which was a union rule.

There were all kinds of rules like that which made hostess operate extremely inefficiently, all of them union imposed. It finally came to a head when the teamsters demanded more rules and money than they already had, and the management finally said "Look, we just can't afford this anymore. We're broke. If you keep asking for this our one and only option is to close shop." The union leadership called the bluff, and as a result all of the employees lost their jobs and an American icon was destroyed, which the union leadership hailed as a victory because they stood their ground, meanwhile they go home and eat their dinner paid for on the backs of the workers via union dues from other companies.

Now without union involvement they can actually run a business.

And what talent did it lose exactly? They're still the same ol' twinkies they've always been.

Why would you support unions so vehemently by the way? They are the ones pricing Americans out of jobs in exactly the manner I described above.

The problem with the majority of the world is that they forgot (or never knew) how to make good bets. Elon considers many things, but only puts piles of money down on stuff that will pan out.

ummm... yes, they are.

It depends on whether you end up reducing your carb load overall. Remember diabetics still get told to eat carbs, and if they have problems with insulin, why eat any carbs?? Slow or not. I think the figure is something like I teaspoon of sugar is your normal blood sugar level. Less than 70 grams of carbs a day. If you're inside that then fine. Basically you'll get that from some veggies. So yes ask yourself why it is better to choose slow release, and then asks why no release isn't better yet?