Forbes: Why Obamacare's Website Keeps Crashing

[spacejamz]

Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...snt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/

Interesting information in the article....

Is this honesty by the government [cough]bullshit[/cough] or an attempt to prevent sticker shock??

All at the expense of providing a 3rd world experience to those using the Obamacare site...

 

[raildogg]

Obamacare is about some people paying a lot more in premiums so that they can subsidize it for other people. Though I don't really care if the website is crashing on purpose or not. Since people are behind it, I'm sure this is possible.

Another story:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...ease-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

Those young ones gotta pay more.

 

[IronWing]

Obamacare is about some people paying a lot more in premiums so that they can subsidize it for other people. Though I don't really care if the website iscrashing on purpose or not. Since people are behind it, I'm sure this is possible.

So is every other insurance scheme ever devised. If an insurance scheme was designed to pay out in exact proportion to what each participant paid in, it would be a savings account not an insurance plan.

 

[Tom]

The article is a bit of a lie. The website discloses the price and the subsidy, does it not ?

 

[First]

Business wants to attract customers by putting the best face on the price of their products and services.

News at 11.

EDIT: No one takes Avik Roy or the Manhattan Institute all that seriously. FYI.

 

[PokerGuy]

Pretty interesting read. Politics trumped all practical and logical considerations, and that's why we have this $500 million disaster that simply doesn't work.

 

[boomerang]

Sigh, yet another post with a link not approved by Central Planning.

 

[SaurusX]

So is every other insurance scheme ever devised. If an insurance scheme was designed to pay out in exact proportion to what each participant paid in, it would be a savings account not an insurance plan.

Negative. Since the time that the concept of insurance was originated the idea of pooling like risks together has been one of its tenets. Avoiding subsidization has always been a core principle of insurance and it's only through regulation has this been upended.

 

[PokerGuy]

Sigh, yet another post with a link not approved by Central Planning.

The Dear Leader will not be pleased. But then, since he and his cronies have never really been much for personal accountability for anything, I'm sure he'll find some way to blame Bush for the crashing website

 

[PokerGuy]

So is every other insurance scheme ever devised. If an insurance scheme was designed to pay out in exact proportion to what each participant paid in, it would be a savings account not an insurance plan.

Apparently you are not familiar with insurance at all. Perhaps some reading on the subject would be helpful before posting about it.

Insurance is about pooling of risk, about reducing overall variability of outcomes and spreading risk. It is not about redistribution or subsidization, unless you create regulations or mandates to make that happen.

 

[IronWing]

Negative. Since the time that the concept of insurance was originated the idea of pooling like risks together has been one of its tenets. Avoiding subsidization has always been a core principle of insurance and it's only through regulation has this been upended.

The pooling of risk implies that someone in the group may end up with a bigger payout than the average while most will end up with below average payouts. The income-based subsidies in the ACA not within the risk pools but are a separate issue.

 

[Doppel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/u...at-health-portal.html?hpw&pagewanted=all&_r=0

As late as the last week of September, officials were still changing features of the Web site, HealthCare.gov, and debating whether consumers should be required to register and create password-protected accounts before they could shop for health plans.

!!!!!!!!!!!

Jay SUS, that is a major requirement, and it hadn't been nailed down until the week prior to go-live!

"Hey guys, I know we are going live next week with a half billion dollar system, which represents the underpinnings of the most important piece of legislation passed in the United States in several years but, um, one question: Should we require account registration for users? I mean, let's just go back to the white board real quick and make sure we actually have this mapped out properly. We have like all of the rest of the week to put the changes in and tested. Also, brain fart! I totally forgot that task I was assigned back in May to integrate with Blue Cross. I mean, it seriously slipped my mind. Any volunteers to stay late tonight and just code that in? Pizza's on me, it really shouldn't take too long."

-----

Whomever ultimately had the decision to either keep this ready for Oct 1 or stop it has learned a lesson many have learned, which is: you cannot rush software. If it's not ready, it's not ready and you can scream and kick about a delivery date all you want, but nothing will change that. No amount of wishing and dreams will make it ready for you.

But Mr. Chao’s [chief digital architect for the Obama administration’s new online insurance marketplace] superiors at the Department of Health and Human Services told him, in effect, that failure was not an option, according to people who have spoken with him.

They have learned that it is always an option.

the White House, which was calling the shots, feared that any backtracking would further embolden Republican critics who were trying to repeal the health care law

Good call! Because this hasn't emboldened them at all.

 

[SaurusX]

The pooling of risk implies that someone in the group may end up with a bigger payout than the average while most will end up with below average payouts. The income-based subsidies in the ACA not within the risk pools but are a separate issue. .

Within any group of like risks the severity of claims is going to vary, but should remain within a calcuated confidence interval. This results in an overall fairly predictable stream of claim amounts. The premium charged to each individual is roughly equivalent to the expected claims, administrative costs, and of course, profit. To say that people within the same pool are subsidizing each other isn't correct.

The income-based subsidies are not the issue. The idea of younger people paying more in premiums so that the older people pay less is the problem.

 

[spacejamz]

The article is a bit of a lie. The website discloses the price and the subsidy, does it not ?

The point of the article is that by forcing prospective Obamacare users to register and enter their income/personal information so that subsidy information can be verified beforehand (to prevent the site from displaying just the actual premium amount which it appears the Obama did not want), the site is prone to bottlenecks and crashes (which have been widely reported already)...

 

[DominionSeraph]

So funneling you into a method that tells you exactly how costly the plan is is not wanting you to know how costly the plan is?

The author must be up in arms over IRS forms, then. The darned things keep hiding the cost of you paying the top rate as a flat tax with these things called "marginal rates" and, "deductions."

 

[Moonbeam]

We know that since insurance companies want to maximize profit, they will want to insure only the healthiest people. This will leave many people who can't get insurance at any price that's reasonable. To take from those who have money and insure those who would not otherwise be insurable is a matter of social justice and self preservation. A society in which folk have some chance at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a win win for all. Unfortunately, the US has grown a population of savages who worry only about themselves, as happens in a dog eat dog world. The greater the insecurity created by fear, in direct proportion to the level of winner take all competition, the greater the selfishness that results.

This is why it is a well known fact among those amenable to the acquisition of factual information, that folk in left leaning democracies are the happiest people. The difference between the rich and poor is minimized. The competitive need is thus minimized too. Fear is reduced and people can take pleasure in odd pursuits like just the joy of being alive. People can relax and have dinner with their family. Maybe cook and eat real food and play with the kids. Crime goes down as does the fear of the Bogie Man under the bed or the White House.

But America has an idiot infestation, idiots who can't help themselves, or actually do nothing but.

 

[SaurusX]

We know that since insurance companies want to maximize profit, they will want to insure only the healthiest people. This will leave many people who can't get insurance at any price that's reasonable. To take from those who have money and insure those who would not otherwise be insurable is a matter of social justice and self preservation. A society in which folk have some chance at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a win win for all. Unfortunately, the US has grown a population of savages who worry only about themselves, as happens in a dog eat dog world. The greater the insecurity created by fear, in direct proportion to the level of winner take all competition, the greater the selfishness that results.

What's fair and just is that people pay for what they use. Insurance companies would take anybody given that they pay a commensurate premium. Forcing them to accept existing conditions mean that the premiums would be higher than the normal cost of treatment and everyone just wants to pay less than the bill. The current scheme is a money transfer from the poorest segment of society (young people) to the richest (old people). It's really diabolical.

In a normal market this plan would spiral to failure with young people finding it irrational to purchase insurance at inflated prices while the oldest and sickest would sign up in droves. It's called adverse selection. The only way this twisted plan would ever work would be that it's mandated (check) and that the penalties for not complying are draconian (missed the mark on that one).

 

[sactoking]

So funneling you into a method that tells you exactly how costly the plan is is not wanting you to know how costly the plan is?

The author must be up in arms over IRS forms, then. The darned things keep hiding the cost of you paying the top rate as a flat tax with these things called "marginal rates" and, "deductions."

Cost is not just the price you pay. Consumers are being told that they are going to pay X, they are not being told that the insurance company is charging Z and the the difference, Y, has to come from somewhere.

Hell, it would be easy to argue that Z isn't even the real cost. But one thing's for sure, it sure as hell ain't X.

 

[spacejamz]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/u...at-health-portal.html?hpw&pagewanted=all&_r=0

!!!!!!!!!!!

Jay SUS, that is a major requirement, and it hadn't been nailed down until the week prior to go-live!

"Hey guys, I know we are going live next week with a half billion dollar system, which represents the underpinnings of the most important piece of legislation passed in the United States in several years but, um, one question: Should we require account registration for users? I mean, let's just go back to the white board real quick and make sure we actually have this mapped out properly. We have like all of the rest of the week to put the changes in and tested. Also, brain fart! I totally forgot that task I was assigned back in May to integrate with Blue Cross. I mean, it seriously slipped my mind. Any volunteers to stay late tonight and just code that in? Pizza's on me, it really shouldn't take too long."

-----

Whomever ultimately had the decision to either keep this ready for Oct 1 or stop it has learned a lesson many have learned, which is: you cannot rush software. If it's not ready, it's not ready and you can scream and kick about a delivery date all you want, but nothing will change that. No amount of wishing and dreams will make it ready for you.



They have learned that it is always an option.Good call! Because this hasn't emboldened them at all.

Dilbert in real life...LOL

 

[spacejamz]

So funneling you into a method that tells you exactly how costly the plan is is not wanting you to know how costly the plan is?

The author must be up in arms over IRS forms, then. The darned things keep hiding the cost of you paying the top rate as a flat tax with these things called "marginal rates" and, "deductions."

from the article:

"...masking the true underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans—far outweighed the operational objective of making the federal website work properly."

 

[FerrelGeek]

Pretty interesting read. Politics trumped all practical and logical considerations, and that's why we have this $500 million disaster that simply doesn't work.

From what I've read, it cost over $600M. That's appalling for a project like that. If Amazon or FB had launched a major upgrade and had the level of issues that the Obizmalcare websits had / has, people would be spitting mad and heads would roll. I'm sure the people that dreamed up ACA website will get bonuses and promotions.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Cost is not just the price you pay. Consumers are being told that they are going to pay X, they are not being told that the insurance company is charging Z and the the difference, Y, has to come from somewhere.

If I'm the first buyer of an Intel chip on a new node, am I paying the $3 billion cost of the new fab? Does the price illegally hide that the profit margin on the chip doesn't make up Intel's entire profit margin, and that their high-end processors add to the profit margin such that Intel can offer their lower-end processors for less while maintaining the same overall margins?

It must be a slow faux outrage day.

 

[zinfamous]

Obamacare is about some people paying a lot more in premiums so that they can subsidize it for other people. Though I don't really care if the website is crashing on purpose or not. Since people are behind it, I'm sure this is possible.

Another story:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...ease-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

Those young ones gotta pay more.

Yes, because your car insurance premiums are in no way effected by the driving habits of teenagers.

 

[sactoking]

If I'm the first buyer of an Intel chip on a new node, am I paying the $3 billion cost of the new fab? Does the price illegally hide that the profit margin on the chip doesn't make up Intel's entire profit margin, and that their high-end processors add to the profit margin such that Intel can offer their lower-end processors for less while maintaining the same overall margins?

It must be a slow faux outrage day.

Apples and oranges.

 

[zinfamous]

What's fair and just is that people pay for what they use. Insurance companies would take anybody given that they pay a commensurate premium. Forcing them to accept existing conditions mean that the premiums would be higher than the normal cost of treatment and everyone just wants to pay less than the bill. The current scheme is a money transfer from the poorest segment of society (young people) to the richest (old people). It's really diabolical.

In a normal market this plan would spiral to failure with young people finding it irrational to purchase insurance at inflated prices while the oldest and sickest would sign up in droves. It's called adverse selection. The only way this twisted plan would ever work would be that it's mandated (check) and that the penalties for not complying are draconian (missed the mark on that one).

I've been paying for Medicare and SS for well over a decade now.

I have yet to use either of these services, nor have I ever bitched at length about them.