13 ms·

Obamacare Website Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know Cost of Plans

12 points by Cbasedlifeform 13y ago

minikites 13y ago
Yes, because applying for private insurance is so easy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql9RVy6FWkg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql9RVy6FWkg > "Avik Roy is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of the Forbes blog The Apothecary. He has stated he is an "outside adviser to the Romney campaign on health care issues." He is a contributor to National Review Online, where he was described as a member of Mitt Romney's Health Care Policy Advisory Group." Hmm, I wonder if this author has an axe to grind. > "The answer is that Obamacare wasn’t designed to help healthy people with average incomes get health insurance. It was designed to force those people to pay more for coverage, in order to subsidize insurance for people with incomes near the poverty line, and those with chronic or costly medical conditions." Um, isn't that literally the function of all insurance?
- lowmagnet 13y ago
  > Um, isn't that literally the function of all insurance? It used to be about spreading risk. Now, I'm not so sure. The reason the ACA exists is that instead of spreading risk into pools, insurance companies have been denying coverage to reduce risk. This seems like the opposite of what they once were.
  - hga 13y ago
    The problem is that most medical insurance isn't really insurance as it's otherwise known. If you know someone has a preexisting condition that is (statistically) going to cost more than the maximum premiums you can charge, then cost shifting of some sort must occur. And it becomes a healthcare + insurance policy, the latter protecting against the true risks, like an unrelated auto accident or illness. I.e. the now outlawed high deductible "major medical" plans that covered catastrophic costs but expected you to pay out of pocket for the rest. Which of course is another reason healthcare has gotten so expensive and opaque, when a third party pays most everything. Your eyes may go wide at the total 6 figure cost of a major procedure, but since you're only paying a relatively small copay....
- jnevill 13y ago
  This article lacks any shred of analytics. There isn't an example given where someone pays more under ACA then they would have under private. It's all fluff with no substance. It's a shame too, because there are probably some very interesting numbers to come out of this change over to ACA. The addition of saying the website is slow because the powers-that-be are trying to hide that ACA causes people to pay more is ridiculous. The website is slow because it was built by the federal government. They are inept at this sort of thing. To say it's because folks are trying to hide a "truth" turns the whole thing into a conspiracy theory.
  - hga 13y ago
    "There isn't an example given where someone pays more under ACA then they would have under private." I would assume the article didn't bother because it has been so well established by now. E.g. see it tangentially in the infamous "Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally." I cite elsewhere in this discussion http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacar...
    - NateDad 13y ago
      There have been a very small handful of people who have claimed (without much supporting evidence) that they would pay more. There has been pretty much zero evidence given that people who have insurance through their employer will see any changes. Saying "because it's so well established" 14 days after the website opened, when most people can't even get onto the site, and a vast majority of people aren't even trying... is BS.
      - hga 13y ago
        Your latter point is incorrect because we're hearing this from people who have insurance and are finding their policies canceled or drastically more expensive. I don't know if it was part of the plan, but rather obviously that should happen before or soon after the website opens, so they'll know they have to go to it, or should go to see if they can get a better deal. You're claiming it's "a very small handful" simply tells me your normal sources of information aren't seriously covering this problem.
zedpm 13y ago
Apparently addressing a quasi-free-rider issue with health insurance (those folks who pay almost nothing but still get coverage) is a bad thing. I mean, yeah, it's a bad thing for them, in the same way that it's bad whenever someone has to contribute to society to any meaningful degree. These complaints about an individual's premium going up massively (e.g. 100%) under ACA appear to be mostly the result of extremely limited plans being phased out and replaced with more comprehensive ones. That is, the old cheap plan barely covered anything but technically qualified as insurance. The new, more expensive plan that's the minimum includes much more broad coverage. Part of tackling extremely high costs for health care is having more things covered so providers don't have to write them off; currently people with little or no insurance coverage get care and stick the rest of us with the costs. The idea here is to expand the coverage so those folks who used to have pseudo-insurance that didn't actually cover much would have proper coverage (which costs more than the skimpy plan they previously had). It is a pain and a burden for some people? Sure, just like everything else in life. Policies change all the time and there are always winners and losers; the best policy in the world ends up impacting someone negatively. Discussing issues like adults means understanding this and not simply ignoring the good and the sensible so we can shriek and moan about the bad bits.
- hga 13y ago
  Were plans that didn't cover your children through age 26 "pseudo-insurance"??? I've read there's around 10 things including that clearly indefensible one mandated; perhaps these are on top of the now outlawed high deductible major medical true insurance plans that I've bought in times past. Without going through the entire list your thesis is a also indefensible. And then there's stuff like the 2.3% excise tax on medical devices. You can't deny that that doesn't raise costs across the board. Another thing I wonder about: somewhere on the net there's a general tools for looking at Obamacare policy costs. Someone ran a bunch of scenarios on it and he found that there was not a single one where being married wasn't more expensive that living together.... Anyway, you may say this is better, and it could be a legitimately debatable point, but it ignores one of the major points the article makes: "But the laws’ supporters and enforcers don’t want you to know that, because it would violate the President’s incessantly repeated promise that nothing would change for the people that Obamacare doesn’t directly help. If you shop for Obamacare-based coverage without knowing if you qualify for subsidies, you might be discouraged by the law’s steep costs." The Obamacare that was sold to the public was a lie. It's hard to see how lying to take control of 1/6th of the economy is going to end well, no matter how much the site can disguise it for some people. We're already getting some delightful gems like http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacar... ""I was laughing at Boehner -- until the mail came today," Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare. "I really don't like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family's pocket each year, that's otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy." Both Vinson and Waschura have adjusted gross incomes greater than four times the federal poverty level -- the cutoff for a tax credit. And while both said they anticipated their rates would go up, they didn't realize they would rise so much. "Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.""
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rblatz 13y ago
Having been on the technical advisory group for the implementation of Oracle's identity management system at a large public university, I am not surprised to hear that they are having problems. Eventually they got it up and running, but way way way behind schedule, and without a lot of the promised features.
- NateDad 13y ago
  That's the problem with the government and software... the release date and features are mandated by law. The only thing that can give way is quality.
  - hga 13y ago
    There's also the "large institution", scratch that, clueless organization---since most of us have seen it in small companies as well---mandate to deliver requirements late and make last minute changes. We've heard the latter was still going on for major stuff in September, and that serious code cutting didn't start until February (the source said all, a HN commentator said it wasn't quite that bad).
  - greenyoda 13y ago
    Any law that was passed by Congress can be amended by Congress. If the Democrats in Congress wanted to delay the implementation of Obamacare until the web site was ready for prime time, it's unlikely that the Republicans would have objected.
NateDad 13y ago
The main point of the article is what appears to be an intentional gross misinterpretation of a single quote. "the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies." Yes. So? There's basically three ways they could have approached this: 1.) They could show the "lowest possible price" anyone could get, and then have individuals suffer sticker shock when they log in and it turns out they make more than $5k a year and don't have 8 kids (or whatever else entitles you to the best discounts). 2.) They could show the highest possible price, and have individuals not even bother to sign up, because they assume they can't afford the insurance, even though they may get huge discounts due to their particular circumstances. 3.) They could force you to log in first, so they make sure they only show you prices that apply to you, avoiding either of the sticker shocks above. #1 is underhanded and misleading (and is what typical corporations do with "up to 80% off or up to $3000 cash back!! (some restrictions apply)" #2 would scare away the people who are among the people who need insurance the most and would get the most help from the law. So... they went with #3. It's a usability faux pas, but at least they're being honest without scaring people away.
- hga 13y ago
  Or they could ask a few questions about your income et. al. and let you window shop. Which would also allow you to see how you'd fair under different financial circumstances, which is rather important since as I recall there are some nasty cliffs where making one more dollar/year results in massive cost increases. Someone else used another web resource and claims that he could not find any scenario where being married didn't cost more than living together, and that would be another financially useful thing to be able to know, albeit at a serious cost to society. The process that the article is claiming doesn't allow researchers or individuals to ask these sort of "what if" questions. Wondering why is entirely legitimate.
  - NateDad 13y ago
    That's a good point, but I think it can still give a misguided view of what you would pay, depending on how many factors go into the discounts. They would have to ask you questions for every possible factor that could influence your healthcare costs. To be fair, I don't know what all the factors are, but if it's anything else like the government provides, there's probably a huge list of factors. I suppose that if 90% of it is income and number of people being covered, that's probably a decent starting point and would at least let people see approximately how much it costs.

Yes, because applying for private insurance is so easy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql9RVy6FWkg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql9RVy6FWkg > "Avik Roy is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of the Forbes blog The Apothecary. He has stated he is an "outside adviser to the Romney campaign on health care issues." He is a contributor to National Review Online, where he was described as a member of Mitt Romney's Health Care Policy Advisory Group." Hmm, I wonder if this author has an axe to grind. > "The answer is that Obamacare wasn’t designed to help healthy people with average incomes get health insurance. It was designed to force those people to pay more for coverage, in order to subsidize insurance for people with incomes near the poverty line, and those with chronic or costly medical conditions." Um, isn't that literally the function of all insurance?

lowmagnet 13y ago
> Um, isn't that literally the function of all insurance? It used to be about spreading risk. Now, I'm not so sure. The reason the ACA exists is that instead of spreading risk into pools, insurance companies have been denying coverage to reduce risk. This seems like the opposite of what they once were.
- hga 13y ago
  The problem is that most medical insurance isn't really insurance as it's otherwise known. If you know someone has a preexisting condition that is (statistically) going to cost more than the maximum premiums you can charge, then cost shifting of some sort must occur. And it becomes a healthcare + insurance policy, the latter protecting against the true risks, like an unrelated auto accident or illness. I.e. the now outlawed high deductible "major medical" plans that covered catastrophic costs but expected you to pay out of pocket for the rest. Which of course is another reason healthcare has gotten so expensive and opaque, when a third party pays most everything. Your eyes may go wide at the total 6 figure cost of a major procedure, but since you're only paying a relatively small copay....
jnevill 13y ago
This article lacks any shred of analytics. There isn't an example given where someone pays more under ACA then they would have under private. It's all fluff with no substance. It's a shame too, because there are probably some very interesting numbers to come out of this change over to ACA. The addition of saying the website is slow because the powers-that-be are trying to hide that ACA causes people to pay more is ridiculous. The website is slow because it was built by the federal government. They are inept at this sort of thing. To say it's because folks are trying to hide a "truth" turns the whole thing into a conspiracy theory.
- hga 13y ago
  "There isn't an example given where someone pays more under ACA then they would have under private." I would assume the article didn't bother because it has been so well established by now. E.g. see it tangentially in the infamous "Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally." I cite elsewhere in this discussion http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacar...
  - NateDad 13y ago
    There have been a very small handful of people who have claimed (without much supporting evidence) that they would pay more. There has been pretty much zero evidence given that people who have insurance through their employer will see any changes. Saying "because it's so well established" 14 days after the website opened, when most people can't even get onto the site, and a vast majority of people aren't even trying... is BS.
    - hga 13y ago
      Your latter point is incorrect because we're hearing this from people who have insurance and are finding their policies canceled or drastically more expensive. I don't know if it was part of the plan, but rather obviously that should happen before or soon after the website opens, so they'll know they have to go to it, or should go to see if they can get a better deal. You're claiming it's "a very small handful" simply tells me your normal sources of information aren't seriously covering this problem.

zedpm 13y ago

Apparently addressing a quasi-free-rider issue with health insurance (those folks who pay almost nothing but still get coverage) is a bad thing. I mean, yeah, it's a bad thing for them, in the same way that it's bad whenever someone has to contribute to society to any meaningful degree. These complaints about an individual's premium going up massively (e.g. 100%) under ACA appear to be mostly the result of extremely limited plans being phased out and replaced with more comprehensive ones. That is, the old cheap plan barely covered anything but technically qualified as insurance. The new, more expensive plan that's the minimum includes much more broad coverage. Part of tackling extremely high costs for health care is having more things covered so providers don't have to write them off; currently people with little or no insurance coverage get care and stick the rest of us with the costs. The idea here is to expand the coverage so those folks who used to have pseudo-insurance that didn't actually cover much would have proper coverage (which costs more than the skimpy plan they previously had). It is a pain and a burden for some people? Sure, just like everything else in life. Policies change all the time and there are always winners and losers; the best policy in the world ends up impacting someone negatively. Discussing issues like adults means understanding this and not simply ignoring the good and the sensible so we can shriek and moan about the bad bits.

hga 13y ago
Were plans that didn't cover your children through age 26 "pseudo-insurance"??? I've read there's around 10 things including that clearly indefensible one mandated; perhaps these are on top of the now outlawed high deductible major medical true insurance plans that I've bought in times past. Without going through the entire list your thesis is a also indefensible. And then there's stuff like the 2.3% excise tax on medical devices. You can't deny that that doesn't raise costs across the board. Another thing I wonder about: somewhere on the net there's a general tools for looking at Obamacare policy costs. Someone ran a bunch of scenarios on it and he found that there was not a single one where being married wasn't more expensive that living together.... Anyway, you may say this is better, and it could be a legitimately debatable point, but it ignores one of the major points the article makes: "But the laws’ supporters and enforcers don’t want you to know that, because it would violate the President’s incessantly repeated promise that nothing would change for the people that Obamacare doesn’t directly help. If you shop for Obamacare-based coverage without knowing if you qualify for subsidies, you might be discouraged by the law’s steep costs." The Obamacare that was sold to the public was a lie. It's hard to see how lying to take control of 1/6th of the economy is going to end well, no matter how much the site can disguise it for some people. We're already getting some delightful gems like http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacar... ""I was laughing at Boehner -- until the mail came today," Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare. "I really don't like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family's pocket each year, that's otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy." Both Vinson and Waschura have adjusted gross incomes greater than four times the federal poverty level -- the cutoff for a tax credit. And while both said they anticipated their rates would go up, they didn't realize they would rise so much. "Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.""

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rblatz 13y ago

Having been on the technical advisory group for the implementation of Oracle's identity management system at a large public university, I am not surprised to hear that they are having problems. Eventually they got it up and running, but way way way behind schedule, and without a lot of the promised features.

NateDad 13y ago
That's the problem with the government and software... the release date and features are mandated by law. The only thing that can give way is quality.
- hga 13y ago
  There's also the "large institution", scratch that, clueless organization---since most of us have seen it in small companies as well---mandate to deliver requirements late and make last minute changes. We've heard the latter was still going on for major stuff in September, and that serious code cutting didn't start until February (the source said all, a HN commentator said it wasn't quite that bad).
- greenyoda 13y ago
  Any law that was passed by Congress can be amended by Congress. If the Democrats in Congress wanted to delay the implementation of Obamacare until the web site was ready for prime time, it's unlikely that the Republicans would have objected.

NateDad 13y ago

The main point of the article is what appears to be an intentional gross misinterpretation of a single quote. "the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies." Yes. So? There's basically three ways they could have approached this: 1.) They could show the "lowest possible price" anyone could get, and then have individuals suffer sticker shock when they log in and it turns out they make more than $5k a year and don't have 8 kids (or whatever else entitles you to the best discounts). 2.) They could show the highest possible price, and have individuals not even bother to sign up, because they assume they can't afford the insurance, even though they may get huge discounts due to their particular circumstances. 3.) They could force you to log in first, so they make sure they only show you prices that apply to you, avoiding either of the sticker shocks above. #1 is underhanded and misleading (and is what typical corporations do with "up to 80% off or up to $3000 cash back!! (some restrictions apply)" #2 would scare away the people who are among the people who need insurance the most and would get the most help from the law. So... they went with #3. It's a usability faux pas, but at least they're being honest without scaring people away.

hga 13y ago
Or they could ask a few questions about your income et. al. and let you window shop. Which would also allow you to see how you'd fair under different financial circumstances, which is rather important since as I recall there are some nasty cliffs where making one more dollar/year results in massive cost increases. Someone else used another web resource and claims that he could not find any scenario where being married didn't cost more than living together, and that would be another financially useful thing to be able to know, albeit at a serious cost to society. The process that the article is claiming doesn't allow researchers or individuals to ask these sort of "what if" questions. Wondering why is entirely legitimate.
- NateDad 13y ago
  That's a good point, but I think it can still give a misguided view of what you would pay, depending on how many factors go into the discounts. They would have to ask you questions for every possible factor that could influence your healthcare costs. To be fair, I don't know what all the factors are, but if it's anything else like the government provides, there's probably a huge list of factors. I suppose that if 90% of it is income and number of people being covered, that's probably a decent starting point and would at least let people see approximately how much it costs.