Forbes: Why Obamacare's Website Keeps Crashing

[DominionSeraph]

Apples and oranges.

It's a straight comparison, moron. Price seen by the consumer to overall cost or place within subsidized pricing structure.

 

[spacejamz]

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.

This article is not about the insane costs of Obamacare or the website...It about the decision to force users to create accounts which they knew would make using the website slow and unstable to prevent the users from seeing the actual premium costs which the administration felt would discourage people from signing up.

 

[DominionSeraph]

This article is not about the insane costs of Obamacare or the website...It about the decision to force users to create accounts which they knew would make using the website slow and unstable to prevent the users from seeing the actual premium costs which the administration felt would discourage people from signing up.

Again, it funnels you into a method that shows you the actual cost. Ummm... you know, like any responsible company will try to do?

Both even wanted a zip code just to get to those pages. OH NOES THEYS ARE TRYING TO HIDE THE COSTS IN OTHER ZIP CODESES WHY DO THEY NOT TELL ME WHAT IT WOULD COST ON MARS IF I OWNED THREE BENTLEYS IT'S A CONSPIRACY TO HIDE THE TRUTH!!

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
"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? ...

Yes, that would certainly be stupid ... if that's what happened. That's not what the article says, however:

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.

Note that key word? "Before". The site already required users to register and create a password in order to apply for coverage. Therefore, registration was not something new added at the last minute. The question was whether that registration process had to be completed before people could shop. That should be a fairly minor change, potentially as simple as a single line of code (or at least a single function point) inserted at the beginning of the shopping process. Big Deal not found.

 

[SaurusX]

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.

Nor are they the topic here, but that's all right. Go back to sleep.

 

[Bowfinger]

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."

Your main failure here is you think you quoted an article. You didn't. You quoted a column, i.e., an op-ed piece. His opinion that these changes were done to hide costs are no more credible than yours. He is a partisan with an axe to grind; his opinions must be weighed in that light.

 

[Bowfinger]

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.

Please cite your source. I keep seeing that $500 million figure tossed out as if it is the cost of the computer system, yet that's not the case based on what I've read. The $500M figure includes all expenses: offices, call centers, administrative costs, marketing, etc. The IT systems are only one portion of that total.

 

[AViking]

What is crashing? For CA at least the federal website required maybe 3 clicks before I was sent to the state specific website. I have done this 3 times and not had it crash.

 

[AViking]

The state website required about 2 clicks and a few fields filled out before a final click. So from beginning to end I could count it out but it is less than 10 clicks easily.

 

[Moonbeam]

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).

My point was that in happier societies people do not find it irrational to pay more for health care than they use because they prefer the piece of mind that comes from knowing that people who need medical care get it and they will too if they have the need and as they get old and on the advantaged end of things. A society in which the old and the young try to insure their individual risks is a society based on competition between the segments of that society which is society destructive. You can argue whatever you want but the science says that folk who live in such societies are happier.

The sicker a society becomes the more in love with itself it becomes. This is the substitute the mind creates for its real miserable condition, fake pride, fake joy.

 

[PokerGuy]

What is crashing? For CA at least the federal website required maybe 3 clicks before I was sent to the state specific website. I have done this 3 times and not had it crash.

You're "special"

 

[ivwshane]

I thought this article was better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/u...at-health-portal.html?pagewanted=1&=_r=6&_r=1

 

[SaurusX]

My point was that in happier societies people do not find it irrational to pay more for health care than they use because they prefer the piece of mind that comes from knowing that people who need medical care get it and they will too if they have the need and as they get old and on the advantaged end of things. A society in which the old and the young try to insure their individual risks is a society based on competition between the segments of that society which is society destructive. You can argue whatever you want but the science says that folk who live in such societies are happier.

The sicker a society becomes the more in love with itself it becomes. This is the substitute the mind creates for its real miserable condition, fake pride, fake joy.

Well, I can see you understand the concept, but our end goals are different. The idea of fairness to the individual doesn't matter to you, since you're more concerned with the state of the collective.

Though I do disagree with the highlighted statement. This plan is only going to breed resentment towards the people getting the free ride from those paying for the gas. Going against human nature is a sure losing bet.

 

[Tom]

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)...

What would be more honest about a website that "just" showed the premium amount without showing a subsidy a prospective buyer would be eligible for ?

That's what makes the article a bit of a lie. The article says there's something nefarious about giving people both pieces of information, and that this nefarious purpose outweighed the importance of the speed with which people could get half the information they need.

But there is nothing nefarious about people getting the policy cost and the amount of the subsidy they qualify for.

 

[Fern]

Please cite your source. I keep seeing that $500 million figure tossed out as if it is the cost of the computer system, yet that's not the case based on what I've read. The $500M figure includes all expenses: offices, call centers, administrative costs, marketing, etc. The IT systems are only one portion of that total.

The costs you reference above are apparently not included in the $500 million estimate.

While GAO states that the “highest volume” of that $394 million was related to the development of “information technology systems,” a more detailed look at that cost shows that a portion that $394 million was spent on things like call centers and collection services. Take that out, and you’re left with roughly $363 million spent on technology-related costs to the healthcare exchanges – the bulk of which ($88 million) went to CGI Federal, the company awarded a $93.7 million contract to build Healthcare.gov and other technology portions of the FFEs.

That’s already a hell of a lot of money, but that does not account for all costs accrued for this project. As the GAO states, the $392 million figure does “not include CMS salaries and other administrative costs” associated with the Obamacare exchanges. In other words, the actual cost for the development and implementation of the total Obamacare exchange system is far higher. We’ve reached out to CMS for an exact figure, but thanks to the government shutdown, we have yet to hear from them on this matter. However, we do know, according to CMS’s 2014 budget request (pdf), that agency spent more than $150 million in 2012 and 2013 in relation to the Affordable Care Act – a lowball figure considering that, in its 2013 budget request (pdf), the agency asked for more than $1 billion in additional funds “needed to support operation infrastructure” and open-enrollment preparations of the FFEs.

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/#ixzz2hjSbvtis

Fern

 

[Paul98]

Yeah getting more information and educating people is baaad...

 

[Fern]

What would be more honest about a website that "just" showed the premium amount without showing a subsidy a prospective buyer would be eligible for ?

That's what makes the article a bit of a lie. The article says there's something nefarious about giving people both pieces of information, and that this nefarious purpose outweighed the importance of the speed with which people could get half the information they need.

But there is nothing nefarious about people getting the policy cost and the amount of the subsidy they qualify for.

My impression from the article and sactoking's post is that the website is not displaying the data you claim.

You're saying the website provides both the actual cost of the insurance and the govt subsidy amount (and of course the net amount/cost after the subsidy).

But my impression is that they're claiming the website only gives you the net amount. If so, I object to that.

Fern

 

[Genx87]

I didn't read the article. But the crashing and shitty service doesn't surprise me at all. It is govt run so why is anybody surprised? They brought the DMV experience to Obamacares website.

 

[Bowfinger]

The costs you reference above are apparently not included in the $500 million estimate.


Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/#ixzz2hjSbvtis

Fern

Read it again, Fern. That's exactly what it says:

"a portion that $394 million was spent on things like call centers and collection services"
​

 

[First]

It's a straight comparison, moron. Price seen by the consumer to overall cost or place within subsidized pricing structure.

Relax, sactoking is the furthest thing from a moron. He's a state insurance regulator, he has actual real world experience dealing with the ACA. There's no reason to dismiss what he's saying out of hand, he's merely pointing out the difference between cost and price.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I always get the following when I try (7 attempts since 10/1) to use healthcare.gov.

We have a lot of visitors on the site right now.
Please stay on this page.

We're working to make the experience better, and we don’t want you to lose your place in line. We’ll send you to the login page as soon as we can. Thanks for your patience!

Each visit I quit after 30 minutes of waiting and not moving forward.

 

[Fern]

Read it again, Fern. That's exactly what it says:

"a portion that $394 million was spent on things like call centers and collection services"
​

Take your own advice friend:

Take that out and you’re left with roughly $363 million spent on technology-related costs to the healthcare exchanges

I.e., backing out the costs associated with "things like call centers and collection services" leaves a total of $363 million. Then add:

That’s already a hell of a lot of money, but that does not account for all costs accrued for this project. As the GAO states, the $392 million figure does “not include CMS salaries and other administrative costs” associated with the Obamacare exchanges....

However, we do know, according to CMS’s 2014 budget request (pdf), that agency spent more than $150 million in 2012 and 2013 in relation to the Affordable Care Act

$363M plus $150M = +$500 million.

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

Nor are they the topic here, but that's all right. Go back to sleep.

IN response to "What's fair and just is people pay for what they use."

I found a clear examples of this, that pretty much everyone agrees is OK, (Medicare and SS), and you just poopoo my argument b/c, uh, you're suddenly uncomfortable about how absurdly relevant that is?

yeah, no. My point stands and laughs at you.



Further--you want to buy and drive a WRX? that's a "pre-existing" condition to insurers. meaning, you get to pay a premium for this condition, compared to those buying a Camry, because of the population driving WRX. Of course, those kids gunning it from stop light to stop light are part of the larger pool, as well.

For whatever reason, we have accepted this behavior of insurers. Why is it suddenly so offensive?

Also, transferring money from the young (poor?) to the older (wealthy?) classes? Since when are people being booted off of medicare? Why is a high deductible but average premium so expensive for a younger person? Doesn't that plan actually make a lot of sense for a younger and supposedly healthier person?

 

[sactoking]

It's a straight comparison, moron. Price seen by the consumer to overall cost or place within subsidized pricing structure.

It's not a straight comparison at all. In your example you're trying to equate cost accounting, such as distributing fixed and sunk costs across a production run, with using government intervention to mask the cost of a product/service and influence buying behavior.

If, in your example, Intel spread the cost of R&D and production equipment across the production run, added it to the marginal cost of materials and labor, and then marked down the price by 50% because a federal subsidy program was reimbursing them the other 50% of the production cost, that would be an apt comparison.

It's also important to note that there is a huge difference between the screenshots you posted, wherein Progressive and Geico are soliciting demographic information for the purpose of displaying eligible products, and what is alledgely happening with Healthcare.gov, wherein HHS/CMS/CCIIO is soliciting demographic information that is not necessary to determine eligible products for display but is necessary for manipulating purchasing behavior, a step which may be resulting in lockup of the system (since the eligibility engine/data hub is being unnecessarily overloaded).

 

[Doppel]

Yes, that would certainly be stupid ... if that's what happened. That's not what the article says, however:
Note that key word? "Before". The site already required users to register and create a password in order to apply for coverage. Therefore, registration was not something new added at the last minute. The question was whether that registration process had to be completed before people could shop. That should be a fairly minor change, potentially as simple as a single line of code (or at least a single function point) inserted at the beginning of the shopping process. Big Deal not found.

I was excercising a little hyperbole.

Please be assured to the most emphatic degree possible that this decision is not a single line of code. Beyond the technical consideration it speaks to a lack of certainty on an extremely fundamental portion of the user experience. It is a design decision that should have been made months earlier. It is a fundamental part of the process and quite incredible that it was changed or facing potential change this late in the game.