4 ms·

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 awar

by 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.
  - hga 13y ago
    The really big one that cuts against this is the need for credit scores. Evidently that's a component of plan pricing, which makes sense because the price needs to reflect the probability the policy holder will pay all the way through the end of the year, adverse selection in jumping into and out of policies based on getting sick or major but not emergency procedures is a big problem with these sorts of scheme. And better verification will help keep rough credit score indications from leaking to others posing as you. But if the system disallows window shopping once IDed, e.g. plugging in different, by definition unverifiable income figures, family structures, etc., then the highest level thesis is supported.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  Also, people may be interested in shopping around without having to provide their social security number and other sensitive information to a web site that doesn't seem to be completely debugged yet.

by NateDad 13y ago

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.
- hga 13y ago
  The really big one that cuts against this is the need for credit scores. Evidently that's a component of plan pricing, which makes sense because the price needs to reflect the probability the policy holder will pay all the way through the end of the year, adverse selection in jumping into and out of policies based on getting sick or major but not emergency procedures is a big problem with these sorts of scheme. And better verification will help keep rough credit score indications from leaking to others posing as you. But if the system disallows window shopping once IDed, e.g. plugging in different, by definition unverifiable income figures, family structures, etc., then the highest level thesis is supported.
greenyoda 13y ago
Also, people may be interested in shopping around without having to provide their social security number and other sensitive information to a web site that doesn't seem to be completely debugged yet.