4 ms·

Healthcare.gov crashes on the last day before deadline

28 points by deepakjc 13y ago

radmuzom 13y ago
If you wait till the last day, you are probably willing to pay the fine.
- emidln 13y ago
  Fining people for failing to properly utilize a system that has never consistently worked is asinine. I imagine it won't be long after the first fines that they are challenged in court.
  - danielweber 13y ago
    The administration has said that you can avoid the penalty if you sign up by April 15th and affirm that you couldn't use the website before March 31st.
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      There is no legal basis for that waiver. The administration has violated its own hard-won law in all kinds of ways trying to compensate for its failure to effectively implement it.
      - cgaudreau 13y ago
        The Administration actually does have legal authority to execute various parts of the law as they see fit. It does undermine credibility and set a bad future precedent, however.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Fining people for failing to purchase a product is asinine. There's more precedent for requiring people to buy guns (and fining them if they don't; see Militia Act of 1792), but imagine the outrage if every able-bodied male 17-45 were required to buy an M16 and a case of ammo at their own cost (about $1000).
    - cgaudreau 13y ago
      Mandating people to buy health insurance and mandating people to buy weapons are two entirely different things.
      - ctdonath 13y ago
        Arming the militia (draftable population) in the interest of national defense does contribute positively to general health.
      - hga 13y ago
        Yeah, the former has no Constitutional or prior to the 20th Century, US historical basis, the latter has both. And for the Constitutional basis, I'm not referring to the 2nd Amendment, but per Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    - cujo 13y ago
      I get the feeling that if we were in real fear of the Brits trying to reclaim the land, and an untrained militia had a chance of being useful, this might go over just fine.
      - ctdonath 13y ago
        We do from time to time invoke a draft, forcing men to fight for their lives using tools they do not own and do not understand because they are prohibited from owning & practicing with them in peacetime. Skills with large expensive crew-served equipment is understandably hard to come by and justify a standing army, but small arms are affordable for most (if new models were legal, M16s would cost about $700) and would better prepare prospective draftees. When (not if) the next draft occurs, we face calling up & sending men who not only couldn't own & practice with internationally standard front-line soldier's weapons (M16 or AK47) but would be severely punished if they tried, and will rely totally on the government supplying what they could have brought. (Yes, some M16s et al are legal, but they're at least 28 years old, cost >20x what new retail price would be without prohibition, supply is extremely limited (hence the price increase), and are smothered in regulative "red tape".) Ya know, it's kinda like making healthy youth pay into a healthcare system that they likely won't benefit from for a long time to come (if ever; most will put more in than they'll get out): giving people access to products (physical or financial) designed to save their lives in short-notice crises is arguably so important as to be compulsory.
  - tromobne8vb 13y ago
    There have been other ways to sign up. Via telephone, in person with a health advocate. The website is just one way.
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      By telephone just gets you someone who is using the website on your behalf. If website is down, by-phone is down too.
  - furyg3 13y ago
    This is ridiculous reasoning... First off, healthcare.gov is not the only way to get health insurance. Secondly, it's not even the only way to find health insurance using the ACA (you could do this in person, or via telephone). Finally, a snowstorm is an excellent excuse for not jogging today, but a horrible excuse for never exercising. The fine is, what, $95? So you could request a fee reduction of $0.26 per day that the system was down this year.
joshontheweb 13y ago
How exactly is this fine supposed to be enforced? Simply added to your taxes? For the record I think it's BS that I get fined for not giving my business to companies that I don't trust and are incentivized to screw me over. Signing up for Obamacare isn't signing up for health care, it's signing up insurance against grossly overpriced healthcare. Lets fix the problem, not play the insurance companies game.
- Kequc 13y ago
  You are asking how fines are enforced? Ideally you wouldn't have to pay for health insurance but this is what was able to be passed at this time. It has provided insurance to millions and largely reduced costs across the board. Everyone gets sick or at the very least eventually old. It isn't gambling, it isn't a risk, it's certain. You need to be insured. I'd just suggest it's better than what you had before.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    It has provided insurance to millions It has cancelled the insurance of more millions. You're not just required to have insurance, you're required to have insurance meeting higher standards than many can afford and/or were living just fine without (ex.: not paying for birth control coverage when there is absolutely zero chance of pregnancy).
    - cujo 13y ago
      It also gave a lot of us the ability to get insurance. Pre-existing conditions prevented an awful lot of people from getting insurance or changing jobs. This fixes that huge hole. No one is saying it's perfect, but it's going in the right direction.
      - bmelton 13y ago
        That's my biggest problem with the ACA, actually. I think it's great that insurance providers now have to accept pre-existing conditions, and while I'm against the ACA in general, I see that as the biggest good that it's doing. My dislike for it is that one provision could have been its own separate law that would have been passed easily, with more bipartisan support, and would have fixed much of what ails the system. We could quibble all day over whether or not the ACA is the best way to get there (and I think very few would suggest that it is), but there are parts of it that I would support in isolation that didn't require the individual mandate, which I believe wholly violates the Constitution, regardless of what Justice Kennedy maintains.
tomasien 13y ago
For anyone wondering, the Obama administration has already built in a system for letting people who tried to sign up in the next couple days but didn't complete an application sign up without a fine in preparation for this. I'm sure it won't handle all cases and seems odd given how strict they said the deadline would be, but just for clarity of debate I wanted that out there.
- JonFish85 13y ago
  Real Response: It's not so much a system as a "we're really not going to enforce this deadline for most people." It's not much of a system, it's more of a "we'll look the other way for some amount of time". Snark Response: The Obama administration built a system for buying health insurance, and here we are... Presumably this system will work better?
  - hga 13y ago
    "a system for buying health insurance" Except they didn't, as we usually view ecommerce sites. It sends (often erroneous) signup info to insurers, and it's between you and them to arrange payment.
bananas 13y ago
This is normal for any systems of this type. The online tax returns system for HMRC in the UK does the same thing every year. People need do it earlier.
3minus1 13y ago
It looks like it was down for 8 hours total, 5 of which were scheduled.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Scheduled a major prolonged system outage the day before a major deadline? WTF? Good morning, London. It is 6 am, the fifth of November 2019 and this is the voice of Fate. The new day brings good news and bright prospects from overseas, where negotiations with New China are moving in a positive direction. Last night's scheduled demolition of two deteriorating landmarks went off without a hitch. Spokesman for the Interior ministry said both structures were severely damaged and judged to be a danger to the unsuspecting public. Plans for new landmarks are well underway. - Prothero, _V_for_Vendetta_ (Government commentary spinning unexpected destruction as "planned".)
001sky 13y ago
Technical problems due to scheduled maintenance is to blame 'Scheduled maintenece' is either one hell of a euphamism or a most cynical Dark Pattern.
- Turing_Machine 13y ago
  Yep. Why would anyone "schedule maintenance" on the day of the deadline?

28 points by deepakjc 13y ago

radmuzom 13y ago

If you wait till the last day, you are probably willing to pay the fine.

emidln 13y ago
Fining people for failing to properly utilize a system that has never consistently worked is asinine. I imagine it won't be long after the first fines that they are challenged in court.
- danielweber 13y ago
  The administration has said that you can avoid the penalty if you sign up by April 15th and affirm that you couldn't use the website before March 31st.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    There is no legal basis for that waiver. The administration has violated its own hard-won law in all kinds of ways trying to compensate for its failure to effectively implement it.
    - cgaudreau 13y ago
      The Administration actually does have legal authority to execute various parts of the law as they see fit. It does undermine credibility and set a bad future precedent, however.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Fining people for failing to purchase a product is asinine. There's more precedent for requiring people to buy guns (and fining them if they don't; see Militia Act of 1792), but imagine the outrage if every able-bodied male 17-45 were required to buy an M16 and a case of ammo at their own cost (about $1000).
  - cgaudreau 13y ago
    Mandating people to buy health insurance and mandating people to buy weapons are two entirely different things.
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      Arming the militia (draftable population) in the interest of national defense does contribute positively to general health.
    - hga 13y ago
      Yeah, the former has no Constitutional or prior to the 20th Century, US historical basis, the latter has both. And for the Constitutional basis, I'm not referring to the 2nd Amendment, but per Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
  - cujo 13y ago
    I get the feeling that if we were in real fear of the Brits trying to reclaim the land, and an untrained militia had a chance of being useful, this might go over just fine.
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      We do from time to time invoke a draft, forcing men to fight for their lives using tools they do not own and do not understand because they are prohibited from owning & practicing with them in peacetime. Skills with large expensive crew-served equipment is understandably hard to come by and justify a standing army, but small arms are affordable for most (if new models were legal, M16s would cost about $700) and would better prepare prospective draftees. When (not if) the next draft occurs, we face calling up & sending men who not only couldn't own & practice with internationally standard front-line soldier's weapons (M16 or AK47) but would be severely punished if they tried, and will rely totally on the government supplying what they could have brought. (Yes, some M16s et al are legal, but they're at least 28 years old, cost >20x what new retail price would be without prohibition, supply is extremely limited (hence the price increase), and are smothered in regulative "red tape".) Ya know, it's kinda like making healthy youth pay into a healthcare system that they likely won't benefit from for a long time to come (if ever; most will put more in than they'll get out): giving people access to products (physical or financial) designed to save their lives in short-notice crises is arguably so important as to be compulsory.
- tromobne8vb 13y ago
  There have been other ways to sign up. Via telephone, in person with a health advocate. The website is just one way.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    By telephone just gets you someone who is using the website on your behalf. If website is down, by-phone is down too.
- furyg3 13y ago
  This is ridiculous reasoning... First off, healthcare.gov is not the only way to get health insurance. Secondly, it's not even the only way to find health insurance using the ACA (you could do this in person, or via telephone). Finally, a snowstorm is an excellent excuse for not jogging today, but a horrible excuse for never exercising. The fine is, what, $95? So you could request a fee reduction of $0.26 per day that the system was down this year.

joshontheweb 13y ago

How exactly is this fine supposed to be enforced? Simply added to your taxes? For the record I think it's BS that I get fined for not giving my business to companies that I don't trust and are incentivized to screw me over. Signing up for Obamacare isn't signing up for health care, it's signing up insurance against grossly overpriced healthcare. Lets fix the problem, not play the insurance companies game.

Kequc 13y ago
You are asking how fines are enforced? Ideally you wouldn't have to pay for health insurance but this is what was able to be passed at this time. It has provided insurance to millions and largely reduced costs across the board. Everyone gets sick or at the very least eventually old. It isn't gambling, it isn't a risk, it's certain. You need to be insured. I'd just suggest it's better than what you had before.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  It has provided insurance to millions It has cancelled the insurance of more millions. You're not just required to have insurance, you're required to have insurance meeting higher standards than many can afford and/or were living just fine without (ex.: not paying for birth control coverage when there is absolutely zero chance of pregnancy).
  - cujo 13y ago
    It also gave a lot of us the ability to get insurance. Pre-existing conditions prevented an awful lot of people from getting insurance or changing jobs. This fixes that huge hole. No one is saying it's perfect, but it's going in the right direction.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      That's my biggest problem with the ACA, actually. I think it's great that insurance providers now have to accept pre-existing conditions, and while I'm against the ACA in general, I see that as the biggest good that it's doing. My dislike for it is that one provision could have been its own separate law that would have been passed easily, with more bipartisan support, and would have fixed much of what ails the system. We could quibble all day over whether or not the ACA is the best way to get there (and I think very few would suggest that it is), but there are parts of it that I would support in isolation that didn't require the individual mandate, which I believe wholly violates the Constitution, regardless of what Justice Kennedy maintains.

tomasien 13y ago

For anyone wondering, the Obama administration has already built in a system for letting people who tried to sign up in the next couple days but didn't complete an application sign up without a fine in preparation for this. I'm sure it won't handle all cases and seems odd given how strict they said the deadline would be, but just for clarity of debate I wanted that out there.

JonFish85 13y ago
Real Response: It's not so much a system as a "we're really not going to enforce this deadline for most people." It's not much of a system, it's more of a "we'll look the other way for some amount of time". Snark Response: The Obama administration built a system for buying health insurance, and here we are... Presumably this system will work better?
- hga 13y ago
  "a system for buying health insurance" Except they didn't, as we usually view ecommerce sites. It sends (often erroneous) signup info to insurers, and it's between you and them to arrange payment.

bananas 13y ago

This is normal for any systems of this type. The online tax returns system for HMRC in the UK does the same thing every year. People need do it earlier.

3minus1 13y ago

It looks like it was down for 8 hours total, 5 of which were scheduled.

ctdonath 13y ago
Scheduled a major prolonged system outage the day before a major deadline? WTF? Good morning, London. It is 6 am, the fifth of November 2019 and this is the voice of Fate. The new day brings good news and bright prospects from overseas, where negotiations with New China are moving in a positive direction. Last night's scheduled demolition of two deteriorating landmarks went off without a hitch. Spokesman for the Interior ministry said both structures were severely damaged and judged to be a danger to the unsuspecting public. Plans for new landmarks are well underway. - Prothero, _V_for_Vendetta_ (Government commentary spinning unexpected destruction as "planned".)

001sky 13y ago

Technical problems due to scheduled maintenance is to blame 'Scheduled maintenece' is either one hell of a euphamism or a most cynical Dark Pattern.

Turing_Machine 13y ago
Yep. Why would anyone "schedule maintenance" on the day of the deadline?