3 ms·
I have not followed the development of this news closely, but skimming these updates has been amusing. I do have a couple very basic questions. If these are s
by bhauer 13y ago
I have not followed the development of this news closely, but skimming these updates has been amusing. I do have a couple very basic questions. If these are stupid, I apologize ahead of time.
My understanding from previous coverage is that some of the state exchange sites, such as California's, are performing acceptably. If that is true, do those state sites also connect to and query the same legacy systems as the federal site? If so, why doesn't the federal government simply ask for or take that code? Surely it's been made available to them? If not, are the legal requirements for the states' exchanges somehow different than the federal site? That seems unlikely since my understanding is the federal site is simply standing in for states that elected to not create exchange sites. I don't see why it would be subject to extra requirements.
What am I missing here?
- hga 13y agoFirst thing is only 4 state sites are reliably reported to be working well, and California's isn't one of them, although their's might be fixed by now. I haven't heard of any that didn't really do integration testing, and Hawaii and Oregon declined to launch their not ready sites Oct 1st. The obvious answer is that until late last week, the grossly incompetent CMS (and some people in the White House and perhaps others in HHS) were running the show. Now that it's under new management, maybe that possibility will be investigated. On the other hand, with a 7 week deadline for those who must get new insurance for 2014, like the 16 million with now outlawed, not grandfathered individual policies ... there's not much time to do something that disruptive. But an idea worth checking out in the next week or so.