×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

HealthCare.gov Back-End Status: See You In September

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the later-than-sooner dept.

IT 251

theodp writes: "The consumer-facing parts of the Obamacare website may now work (most of the time) for people buying insurance, writes Politico, but beneath the surface, HealthCare.gov is still missing massive, critical pieces that are essential for key functions such as accurately paying insurers — and the deadline for finishing them keeps slipping. Without a fully built and operational system, federal officials can't determine how many of the 8 million Obamacare sign-ups announced last week will have actually paid their premiums. The Obama administration earlier this month indicated that insurers will continue to be paid through an 'interim' accounting process — pretty much a spreadsheet and some informed estimates — until at least September, when what is being called 'the mother of all reconciliations' will be conducted, which some fear could reveal the need for a massive correction and rate adjustments. Still, Oregon decided Friday to switch to Healthcare.gov from its own nothing-wrong-that-$78-million-couldn't-fix Cover Oregon online healthcare exchange."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"What difference (4, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 7 months ago | (#46849879)

At this point, what difference does it make?"

Re:"What difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850219)

Keep humping that rooster, and it might lay an egg for you one of these days.

Re:"What difference (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 7 months ago | (#46850287)

Keep ignoring that rooster, and when she runs, it will doom her.

Re:"What difference (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46850225)

Consult your accountant for disappointing tax news. If you don't know from where that blood's to be extracted, it's your flesh.

Re:"What difference (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850483)

That sounds like something a Republican would say. Well, guess what? You people lost. Almost 1.7 million new people have insurance now.

Re:"What difference (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850577)

And 6 million lost the insurance they had due to this shit law. Asshole.

Supposed loss of insurance (0, Troll)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 7 months ago | (#46850911)

Millions of people have their insurance cancelled every year by insurance companies, sometimes while they are receiving treatment.

In some cases, the "lost" insurance had become illegal because it didn't provide the minimum required benefits. Better policies are available for those people.

Some people got those policies for less money, others got more benefits for the same, or more money. Those that pay more, probably got better insurance and won't have to declare bankruptcy if they get sick or are injured. They can carry their insurance from one job to another, so they aren't pinned like a dead butterfly to one employer. People with pre-existing conditions are now being treated, instead of being cast off like roadkill.

The only significant hole in the system is in states like Montana where the medicaid supplement was refused by the state legislature, and so people under specific income levels that were intended to be covered by medicaid, now aren't. If that's happened in your state, you can put the blame for that directly on your state legislators -- the republicans -- not on the ACA. Do something about it at election time.

As far as media coverage goes, almost every person they've tried to use as a "poster child" for "lost insurance" has been debunked. So many million can gain coverage, and there's barely a word about it. But a handful of people say they've lost coverage (which they can easily replace), and the media -- and you -- scream to high heaven. Then there was the bullshit about my insurance is now $xxx dollars a month and I can't afford it. Again, turns out these people were refusing to participate in the insurance exchange setup, and were basically being complete morons.

The states that participated in creating and operating the exchanges, instead of Koch-blocking the system as designed via the tools in the republican party whose only goal -- as they stated -- was to "see Obama fail", have had a much higher level of success. Again, blame your state legislature, specifically, the republicans.

So stop with the "insurance loss" meme. It's been dead for months. The ACA is doing ok for what it is, which is a baby step along the road to single payer.

Re: Supposed loss of insurance (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850969)

Good recitation of the democrat party line talking points.
You get a cookie.

Re:"What difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850917)

The insurance plans they lost were crap. If they may have been really cheap but they substandard.

Re:"What difference (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 7 months ago | (#46850691)

What about the other 45.3 million we told didn't have insurance?

Re:"What difference (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 7 months ago | (#46850623)

Indeed. This makes little difference in the actual outcome. The accounting will take a little longer to set up correctly, but the costs will not change. Argue that as long as you like, I'll judge it in a year or so.

But this plan, to manually estimate the payments and do the complete reconciliation later? I'm shocked, shocked... except no, yawn, this is how it's done with most of the health insurance industry. I know, I do this for a living.

-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46849901)

I guess I missed the memo, but isn't shitting on Obamacare last year's bugaboo? After you guys proclaimed that meeting the enrollment goal was impossible, you looked like complete morons when they exceeded it. Why double down on a losing hand?

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46849943)

I guess I missed the memo, but isn't shitting on Obamacare last year's bugaboo? After you guys proclaimed that meeting the enrollment goal was impossible, you looked like complete morons when they exceeded it. Why double down on a losing hand?

That MUST be why the Obama administration has yet to release the number of people who've actually PAID for the Obamacare plans they got.

Oh, yeah, and the fact it's SOOOO SUCCESSFUL must be why Obama keeps delaying Obamacare provisions in spite of what the law says.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 7 months ago | (#46850035)

Its not last year cause Obama every time he speaks on tv says "we signed up xxxxxxx people through health care exchange" but never says a word about how many paid for coverage if any have.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (-1, Flamebait)

sphealey (2855) | about 7 months ago | (#46850601)

- - - - - but never says a word about how many paid for coverage if any have - - - - -

It is fascinating how the hard radical Right obtains talking points from centralized sources and then starts pumping them near simultaneously. Does it not occur to you that doing this is utterly obvious?

sPh

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (0)

Artifakt (700173) | about 7 months ago | (#46850883)

I like that "If any have", as though it were even remotely possible that out of eight million plus people, no one at all has paid for coverage. If that isn't flat out delusional, nothing is. That's not a political viewpoint, it's mental illness talking.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1)

sribe (304414) | about 7 months ago | (#46850121)

That MUST be why the Obama administration has yet to release the number of people who've actually PAID for the Obamacare plans they got.

I'm sure it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that the last wave have until April 30th to pay...

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1)

John Jorsett (171560) | about 7 months ago | (#46850263)

That MUST be why the Obama administration has yet to release the number of people who've actually PAID for the Obamacare plans they got.

I'm sure it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that the last wave have until April 30th to pay...

And there's no possible way to know how many have paid SO FAR until the deadline has passed? That doesn't seem to stop them when it comes to announcing how many have "enrolled" (whatever their definition of that is).

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 7 months ago | (#46850381)

I'm sure it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that the last wave have until April 30th to pay...

...nor does it consider shenanigans like signing up jail inmates whether they want it or not [oregonlive.com] , counting medicaid enrollees as obamacare signups [washingtonpost.com] , and similar.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1)

kenh (9056) | about 7 months ago | (#46850807)

Because they can't do any calculations until enrollment is closed? They can't say, for example, as of Nov. 1st, Dec. 1st, Jan. 1st, Feb. 1st, Mar. 1st, or Apr. 1st how many people have paid their premiums? Are you really arguing that they can ONLY say as of May 1st how many people have paid their premiums?

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46849951)

The government doesn't know how many signed up. They don't know how many have paid a premium. They don't know how much is due to the insurance companies.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 7 months ago | (#46850021)

they know # of people that signed up, they just don't know how many people PAID.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850097)

they know # of people that signed up, they just don't know how many people PAID.

Good. Hopefully none. Hopefully no one will be fined. The whole damn thing is insurance company welfare anyway.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1, Interesting)

iggymanz (596061) | about 7 months ago | (#46850113)

you missed the memo where administration claims 8 million plus subscribers, supposedly 2.7 million appeared out of nowhere after March to give us this 8M total. In short, it's lies and bullshit and the adminstration still can't prodce an accurate state breakdown supporting their rather incredible assertion

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (2, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46850143)

you missed the memo where administration claims 8 million plus subscribers, supposedly 2.7 million appeared out of nowhere after March to give us this 8M total

And apparently you both missed the memo where those weren't paid subscribers, either, but supposedly the number who applied.

So... Obama has decided to bypass even more of the law he helped shove down our throats and is now ignoring on a massive scale?

Hint, Mr. President: you aren't a King. When you sidestep laws passed by Congress, you're a criminal. Even if it's your own pet law.

(Or he would be, if the law were Constitutional in the first place. SCOTUS says it's a "tax"? Well, tax laws have to originate in the House. Obamacare didn't.)

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850393)

If Obama were acting like a king, he'd put some heads on pikes and you know what? Most of the pointless bickering would end.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850501)

Wow. No a damn civil would start.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850795)

You dare defy the rightful king on the Iron Throne?

Re: -1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850965)

Todays equivalent to pikes are armed drones, he has put plenty of heads on pikes, even started to make claims he can do so to American citizens without a trial...

Sounds like a kimg to me.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1, Informative)

rockout (1039072) | about 7 months ago | (#46850455)

(Or he would be, if the law were Constitutional in the first place. SCOTUS says it's a "tax"? Well, tax laws have to originate in the House. Obamacare didn't.)

"The Affordable Health Care for America Act (or HR 3962) was a bill that was crafted by the United States House of Representatives in November 2009."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (2)

kenh (9056) | about 7 months ago | (#46850817)

Wikipedia is an authoritative source? Seriously?

The bill that passed in the house was an completely re-written bill that originated in the Senate and passed to the House for a reconciliation vote quick before Scott Brown was sworn into office. See, there wasn't enough time to properly pass a House bill though the Senate before Brown took office and messed up their party-line vote.

But hey, what do I know - I just paid attention while this train wreck occurred - it's not like I read it on Wikipedia.

oops, you looked-up the wrong bill. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850851)

The Democrats lost their super-majority in the Senate before they could ram-through Pelosi's house bill as the "Affordable Care Act" and since they were absolutely determined that no Republican input would be tolerated they needed a scheme to solve their dilemma. Harry Reid (Nevada Democrat who runs the Senate) used a tactic of taking another bill, stripping out all its content and then injecting in whatever language he wanted; Harry inserted the ACA language we ended-up (which could not perfectly match Nancy's language for complex legal reasons) into the hollow shell of a bill that had previously worked its way partially through the senate (the bill Harry used as a shell had already cleared the 60 vote "cloture" hurdle) and then THAT mess was handed over to Nancy Pelosi in the House where it should have had to go through reconcilliation (but couldn't because the resulting "reconciled" bill would have needed another Senate vote WITH that pesky 60 vote cloture) . Nancy's team however, could not pass it properly "as-is" because the Senate version had language some of her House democrats did not want to be held accountable for..... so she worked out a scheme to pass a separate resolution in the house that would "deem" the ACA to have passed rather than actually passing it, and that whole ball of wax was what Obama ultimately signed. The "affordable care act" written by the U.S. House of Representatives never actually went anywhere (no matter what a lazy wikipage editor may claim) ..... the Senate's verson is what went through (and, incidentally, this is one of the major reasons it is such a mess - all the normal committee work to unify house and senate bills into a joint bill, which usually cleans-up conflicts between sepearate parts of complex bills written by various interests, never happened).... all those shenanigans were done just to block any Republican input that WOULD have been enabled by the election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. Scott Brown campaigned to be the vote to stop the supermajority from passing the ACA, and he won that election, but Harry and Nancy simply manipulated the process to block the new Senator from interfering in their plans for a pure-Democrat health law.

When the Supreme Court took up the ACA in that big case Republicans believed they'd win and which Democrats still crow about to this day, they ruled that the thing could NOT be implemented using the "Commerce Clause" and with "penalties" but COULD stand if it was all really just a big tax scheme - so they declared it a big tax scheme and let it stand as Constitutional (shocking conservatives, who now see John Roberts as a traitor) ........ which brings us to the lawsuit "Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services" [thehill.com] which points out that the Constitution specifically and explicitly forbids any tax law from originating in the Senate, and given that the SCOTUS has already certified that this is exactly what Obamacare is..... the SCOTUS will be a pack of hypocrits if they let it win this suit. Oral arguments are scheduled for May 8, 2014.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1, Informative)

sphealey (2855) | about 7 months ago | (#46850619)

- - - - - And apparently you both missed the memo where those weren't paid subscribers, either, but supposedly the number who applied. - - - - -

Every one of these hard radical Right talking points and phony anecdotes that has been investigated has proven to be false, most of the maliciously so. Every single one. But apparently we are supposed to just blindly swallow the latest from the breitbart propaganda machine ?

sPh

What is it with the hard radical right talking points infesting Slashdot of late? Is this a concerted effort to take over the site?

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 7 months ago | (#46850949)

They've been shown to be false by who? John Stewart or Stephen Colbert? The mainstream media that you probably insist isn't liberally biased? The White House?

Because the "phony anecdotes" I keep seeing are from people whose insurance got cancelled because of Obamacare, people whose hours got cut because of Obamacare, and people whose premiums shot up because of Obamacare.

You can keep insisting everyone who claims to have been hurt by this legislation is a liar, but that wears thin after the thousandth time.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (0, Flamebait)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 7 months ago | (#46850215)

They didn't give the number of those who lost insurance as a direct result of Obamacare and those who are very likely to lose insurance when the employer mandate kicks in. Obamacare is still very much a failure but it's being spun as a success in most dishonest ways by the administration and compliant media.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 months ago | (#46850597)

It doesn't really matter if the sign ups are people who otherwise lost insurance from some other means- even if it is due to obamacare. The number of people signed up or enrolled in the exchanges were never about the number of people uninsured who are now insured.

The point of needing a number of people was in order to make the exchange profitable for the insurance companies so the government wouldn't need to bail them out (which is built into the law if for some reason the insurance market place becomes a loss to the insurance companies for participating). If the participation pool wasn't large enough to absorb the costs of the sick we knew would use it, then the policies offered are unsustainable. So even if the pool ends up being 2 people who didn't have insurance plus 7 million who lost their coverage, it would still be a success as it would be self sustainable.

The government could pass a law saying that everyone making under $100k a year had to use the exchanges and the number would still not matter as long as the pool of insured is large enough. That is why the number of enrolled verses the number who purchased insurance is so important. It's like slashdot that has user id numbers in the millions but less the 20,000 comments by probably 10,000 people a day (I pulled that off my ass considering that most stories get less than 500 comments and believe it to be high). So a lot of people created accounts but don't actually participate often outside of viewing maybe. Or maybe a twitter analogy might be better, 10,000 followers means exactly what when they don't run out and purchase whatever you are promoting or vote the way you would like them to. There was something about paid followers a while back where companies employed drones and clone accounts in order to up their numbers. And yet they don't purchase or vote (that we know of). So right now, all we know is that people made accounts. We don't know how many purchased a product that would make the exchanges sustainable. Well, someone might know, but they will not tell us who ultimately flips the bill with taxation.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1)

kenh (9056) | about 7 months ago | (#46850829)

The point of needing a number of people was in order to make the exchange profitable for the insurance companies so the government wouldn't need to bail them out (which is built into the law if for some reason the insurance market place becomes a loss to the insurance companies for participating).

Not so much profitable as viable - it was/is believed that a lower number might be indicative of a risk pool that is overly skewed toward the sick and elderly as opposed to the young and healthy.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 months ago | (#46850869)

Profitable is the correct term. If a risk pool pays too much out, it doesn't make a profit- it is unprofitable. If it breaks even, there is no profit and little motivation to participate. If it is skewed towards the young and healthy, it will be profitable. Companies do not typically stay in business when they are not making a profit or losing money. It's likely the number one reason why they discontinue products or close down.

So if anything, viable equals profitable. It seems to be one in the same, one sounds a little softer then the other but either could be used.

In character (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46850443)

It's like, how much more dishonest could the #ObamaCare be? The answer is none. None more dishonest.

Reality (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46850235)

Reality: the ultimate conservative talking point. If you thought that 'bugaboo' was done sucking, you know nothing of statist vampires.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 7 months ago | (#46850291)

It's actually just as destructive now as it was last year, if not more so. So if you actually care about the country it would still be a bugaboo.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850465)

Keep talking out of your ass. Too bad we won't see when YOU need some help and you get it... from the progressives you hate so fiercely.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1, Insightful)

Bartles (1198017) | about 7 months ago | (#46850697)

Your "help" made my insurance unaffordable. Stop calling yourselves progressive. You're really totalitarian fascists. Progressive is newspeak.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 7 months ago | (#46850979)

Prove it. Original cost and benefits and exact policy, your income, your state. Show us that we can't slot you right into the ACA at a reasonably similar cost and benefit.

Because so far, *everyone* who has made this claim just doesn't *want* to purchase insurance. Under the ACA, no one has to pay over 10% of their income. Period. If you failed to use the exchange and went galloping off to the local insurance broker, you may indeed be paying more, but that would be YOUR failure for not keeping yourself informed and for doing precisely the wrong thing, financially speaking.

If you had taken the trouble to be informed, instead of being glued to Faux Newz hysteria, you would have known approximately what your new insurance would be under the ACA, and you had almost *two years* to prepare yourself. Exact prices weren't known, but that ten percent limit was.

The only exception to this are those people who got fucked by their republican state legislatures when they refused the 3-year Medicaid expansion. Those people had a legitimate place under the ACA, and those state legislatures threw them under the bus. That's not a fault with the ACA, it's a fault with paid-off Koch-sucking republican sycophants.

People who refuse to buy insurance -- distinct from those who cannot -- will likely end up in the ER, running up huge bills, all of which end up coming out of everyone else's pockets anyway.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (4, Insightful)

SylvesterTheCat (321686) | about 7 months ago | (#46850311)

The administration has no idea :
1. how many have insurance now that did not a year ago
2. how many do not have insurance now that did a year ago
3. how many that have insurance through the federal exchange have paid for it
4. how many that have insurance through the federal exchange have a significantly higher rate and/or deductible than before
 

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 7 months ago | (#46850361)

I guess I missed the memo, but isn't shitting on Obamacare last year's bugaboo?

No, it will continue until the mid-term elections on November 4th.

Re:-1 Copied from Republican Talking Points (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 7 months ago | (#46850395)

One things for sure. They're going to push things back so the shit doesn't fully hit the fan until after the midterm elections...every wonder why? It's not because things are all wonderful. I don't know how bad it is but we'll find out down the road. The bill comes due eventually and the longer you put it off the worse it's going to be. It's not going to hurt the President any, he'll be winding up things by then getting ready for those lucrative speaking deals and such in his retirement years. I guess maybe it'll be Hillary's turn next. That should be interesting.

"Back end' is sooo appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46849911)

Wonder why Obama keeps delaying ACA provisions? Especially until after the 2014 elections?

Because we're gonna get horse fucked in the back end.

And just wait until things like the "Cadillac plan tax" kick in - when the US government starts taxing health benefits. That'll really piss people off.

I'm honestly beginning to think that if you get money from the government you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Re:"Back end' is sooo appropriate (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 7 months ago | (#46849959)

I'm honestly beginning to think that if you get money from the government you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

That would just result in a law being passed that somehow ends up with the government giving $0.01/year to all those people it thinks shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Re:"Back end' is sooo appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850029)

I vote they come try to take my guns from me. That's what I vote for.

Re:"Back end' is sooo appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850943)

Why would you vote that? That makes no sense unless you want to hurt someone or get hurt.

Re:"Back end' is sooo appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850039)

I'm honestly beginning to think that if you get money from the government you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

That would just result in a law being passed that somehow ends up with the government giving $0.01/year to all those people it thinks shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Yeah, but as it is now we have people with no skin in the success of society as a whole voting themselves bread and circuses.

Re:"Back end' is sooo appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850469)

You couldn't be more ignorant if you gave yourself a lobotomy.

Re:"Back end' is sooo appropriate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850477)

Yeah, like the Koch Brothers. The sooner they can destroy the government, the sooner they can finish raping the rest of us.

Re:"Back end' is sooo appropriate (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 7 months ago | (#46850049)

o yea and people like me that are just naturally healthy forced to pay MORE for coverage then i will or ever use. That is how obama expects to pay for his law, young healthy people supporting everyone else. So much for lowering costs.

Re:"Back end' is sooo appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850559)

I'm honestly beginning to think that if you get money from the government you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I know what you're saying, but that requirement would keep a lot [slashdot.org] of people from voting.

Fuck Obama (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46849971)

And fuck congress. Not a single one of them that voted this bullshit in even read its entirety much less comprehended it or questioned all the vagueness in it before voting yes. They got a fat check from someone and signed it in just like that.

Re:Fuck Obama (0)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 7 months ago | (#46850565)

Welcome to democrat logic, "I don't know what bill does but if my party wants me to vote for it, i will regardless if i agree with it or not." "

Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (4, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 7 months ago | (#46850051)

True, clueless politicians made last minutes changes like, "don't show them raw premium, sticker shock, make them do subsidy calculation first" a week before roll out. True, dimwitted bureaucrats gave out contracts with idiotic levels of fragmentation and blame-dodgeability. Obama raised expectations insanely by saying "as easy as buying books in Amazon..".

But despite all of it, what the crack team of unsung IT gurus did in Nov 2013 is nothing less than heroic. How long did it take for the comparable services like Amazon, Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL, gmail, eBay etc to create 3 million accounts? OK, that is an earlier generation. Take the current generation of Twitter, WhatsApp, SnapChat, FaceBook, how long did they take to ramp up to 3 million accounts?

Helathcare.gov is something like eBay for health insurance. How long did it take eBay to refer 32 billion dollars worth of business? (8 million accounts, 4 K a year premium per person). No body had done in two quarters. Even banking and mutual fund sites like Schwab, Vanguard, Fidelity do not do 32 billion dollars a year. Even if the do, they did not ramp up in 2 quarters.

They bungled the roll out. They probably squandered tons and tons of money to get it done. But despite all that, no body has ever created a web site that did what Healthcare.gov has done. It is easy to criticize and do Monday morning quarterbacking. But the task they failed to well was not some simple task any hack could do or something others have done before.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (5, Interesting)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about 7 months ago | (#46850109)

I'm not saying the website isn't a big deal, but how many of those websites had the kind of advertising push that this one did? Plus, there's the whole fine if you don't have health insurance thing, and old insurance plans being canceled.

Half of the original problem with the website was the overuse of "Web 3.0" and not showing customers what they wanted to see without them creating an account beforehand. A few static pages on a high volume server could have prevented most of the embarrassing problems the original site had.

Actually my largest gripe is the site has a login E-Mail, and a separate E-mail for something else. The problem is the separate E-mail rejects anything that's not yahoo, google, hotmail, etc... It's really frustrating since they don't restrict the login E-mail.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 7 months ago | (#46850409)

I'm not saying the website isn't a big deal, but how many of those websites had the kind of advertising push that this one did?

While that is true, there was also an equally large advertising push trying to convince people not to enroll. That's something that Twitter and Facebook never had to confront.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 months ago | (#46850633)

I tell people all the time they are idiots for using face book and twitter. Especially when they tweet they are getting coffee or some stupid shit like that. Let's go on face book and brag about the big settlement of my dad's lawsuit just to get it revoked with no recourse. A bagillion likes I guess. But I doubt any push of reality was anywhere close to equal to the advertising for the services.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (5, Informative)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 7 months ago | (#46850115)

Obama raised expectations insanely by saying "as easy as buying books in Amazon..".

Having actually used the website (in March, long after it was fixed from early issues), it's pretty much on the same level as Amazon. They have all the information you need to make an informed purchase, including links to each insurance company's list of providers and covered medications. There might be plenty of arguments about big vs. small government and continuing problems with the back end, but they definitely have a very user-friendly interface.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (5, Informative)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 7 months ago | (#46850247)

Being self-employed, my biggest issue is the near TRIPLING of my insurance costs.
Most people, having their insurance paid for by their employer don't see this, and don't care.

However, my biggest gripe about the "Affordable Care Act" is just how UNAFFORDABLE it has made my health care, and how I am now paying nearly as much for a SHIT TIER BRONZE PLAN as I was for what would be comparable to a Gold Plan.

The only upside is I claim that added insurance cost -- oh but wait, that will certainly put me over the $5,000/year write-off limit on my 1040SE, so I have to fill out additional paperwork for my end of the year tax write-offs. BONUS!

Frankly, ObamaCare is the Worst of All Worlds and I will be surprised if it hasn't turned into a complete Consumer Raping within 10 years a la the California Free Energy Market.

MODS!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850285)

Moderators, mod this clown into oblivion. He is obviously a Republican shill paid for by the Koch brothers. Obamacare is a godsend, and will lift this country out of third world status.

Troll alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850699)

If anybody who says their coverage is now worse and costs more "is obviously a Republican shill paid for by the Koch brothers" then allow me to assert that any idiot who insists this is impossible is obviously a stupid moron under the age of 26 living in mommie's basement and on HER insurance plan.

I'm self-employed like the earlier poster and not only have my costs gone up for less coverage, but I find that everybody I have talked with who is also a small business operator has had the same experience. In the REAL world where we adults live, the basic economic laws apply. When the government intervenes and demands that all healthcare policies must now cover all sorts of stuff they never used to cover, the price of a policy MUST rise; denying this is as stupid as denying the law of gravity. Health insurance companies MUST pass these additional costs on to their customers, and when the government decrees that certain customers must get a discount, that means other customers MUST pay more; denying this is as ignorant as claiming the Earth is flat. Go back to your Hot Pockets and your X-Box and leave the discussion of serious matters to those of us who work to pull the wagon jokers like you are riding in.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (4, Informative)

Bartles (1198017) | about 7 months ago | (#46850305)

I'm self-employed and got completely fucked over like you did. 255% increase with a reduction in benefits, in my case.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850603)

I'm self-employed and got completely fucked over like you did. 255% increase with a reduction in benefits, in my case.

Good - in this lie you tell about your false negative outcome, I hope you really get it in the ass.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850827)

Fuck off.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850993)

Oh please. You sound like one of the people that had substandard coverage that now have good coverage, but they whine about actually having to pay for the coverage they should have had in the first place. As our leader said, "if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage." You shouldn't have liked your substandard coverage.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#46850347)

I wonder for how much of that is Obamacare to be blamed, and how much guilt actually goes to the general medical-legal-social culture of the US, where incredible extra costs for things much cheaper just about everywhere else in the world seem to be jumping at you like dwarves leaping from holes in the ground. (OK, the dwarves don't really do that, but the extra costs apparently do.)

um, the trial lawyers in the US support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850665)

the Democrats [opensecrets.org] , which is why there is NO legal reform in Obamacare (as Howard Dean admitted in 2009 [youtube.com] when he was running the Democratic National Committee). FYI: "Trial lawyers" are the type of lawyers who sue people for things like medical malpractice (as opposed to prosecutors, defense lawyers, patent lawyers, contract lawyers, etc)

So, given that Obamacare is a Democrat thing and you claim it's not to blame the legal culture of American medicine, but THAT culture too is driven by the Democrats, perhaps you ought to think a bit more...... there's a common thread to all this.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about 7 months ago | (#46850961)

The entire cost of litigation is peanuts compared to the overall costs of healthcare. That's partially why it didn't make it into the ACA (why go to all that effort to save a couple billion dollars a year?).

My money is more on the insurance companies using it as an excuse to jack up their rates. If Obamacare was repealed tomorrow, I really doubt the rates would go down.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850405)

I'm paying for my health insurance as I'm working for a company with only a couple of employees. Not only is the premium a blow to my checkbook every month, it turns out that lab tests aren't completely covered, and half of my prescriptions are not covered, so one checkup ($40 copay) turned into about $400 in prescriptions and $200 in lab tests.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (0)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 7 months ago | (#46850561)

Why don't you contact the Republican party, the cross roads GPS, Americans for prosperity etc who are desperately looking for Obamacare horror stories? Every ad they made with specific claim was debunked and they are airing it with vague generalities. I am sure a well documented scare story like yours will be received with great joy and you will soon be getting a starring role in ad. Don't miss this opportunity.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850683)

Being self-employed, my biggest issue is the near TRIPLING of my insurance costs.
Most people, having their insurance paid for by their employer don't see this, and don't care.

I'm not republican. I'm not democrat. I've never voted in an election and don't give a shit about politics. But this is exactly what I've found as I am in the same situation. I simply can't afford Obamacare. So before saying "I'm a republican troll" please consider I am just an engineer who does consulting and got fucked by politicians. I don't care what party they are with. In fact I don't blame democrats for Obamacare. I don't blame republicans. If the republicans were in charge they would simply fuck me in a different way. But this time around I got a democrat dick in my ass.

I'm sick of how polarized America has become. If you say you hate Obamacare then you're instantly a "republican troll." I like guns, care about the environment, support Israel, support gay rights, and feel our presence in Afghanistan is the right thing to do for our safety. Apparently I can't exist in the US because there is no silo for me.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (1)

Livius (318358) | about 7 months ago | (#46850987)

It was always about the insurance companies.

Anyone who was paying attention knew that.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850417)

Obama raised expectations insanely by saying "as easy as buying books in Amazon..".

Having actually used the website (in March, long after it was fixed from early issues), it's pretty much on the same level as Amazon. They have all the information you need to make an informed purchase, including links to each insurance company's list of providers and covered medications. There might be plenty of arguments about big vs. small government and continuing problems with the back end, but they definitely have a very user-friendly interface.

i'll pray for you.

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850669)

Having actually used the website (in March, long after it was fixed from early issues), it's pretty much on the same level as Amazon. They have all the information you need to make an informed purchase, including links to each insurance company's list of providers and covered medications.

Except for any kind of affordable insurance. The only choice I could make after perusing the site is that the cost of insurance through it is far beyond what I can afford.

Working for You (2)

xdor (1218206) | about 7 months ago | (#46850133)

True, clueless politicians made last minutes changes like, "don't show them raw premium, sticker shock, make them do subsidy calculation first" a week before roll out. True, dimwitted bureaucrats gave out contracts with idiotic levels of fragmentation and blame-dodgeability. Obama raised expectations insanely by saying "as easy as buying books in Amazon..".

Of course, these are the reasons government-run health care will be so much better: politicians can control it and tell you how much better off you are.

Re:Working for You (2)

kenh (9056) | about 7 months ago | (#46850889)

For example, wait times were down [cnn.com] for VA doctor visits in Arizona and waiting times in the ERs [telegraph.co.uk] in UK's NHS are down, the government has no problem finding ways to lower certain metrics... And rewarding employees [wsj.com] for their efforts!

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 7 months ago | (#46850313)

Seriously, if all you need is a front end, and a DB to dump data, and aren't concerned about whether the data is consistent, accurate or anything, doing it in a month isn't very impressive. Especially since all the art and content was already made, they just needed to debug it (and drop the stuff that was too hard to fix).

Re:Healthcare.gov is really big deal. (1)

kenh (9056) | about 7 months ago | (#46850857)

Helathcare.gov is something like eBay for health insurance. How long did it take eBay to refer 32 billion dollars worth of business? (8 million accounts, 4 K a year premium per person). No body had done in two quarters. Even banking and mutual fund sites like Schwab, Vanguard, Fidelity do not do 32 billion dollars a year. Even if the do, they did not ramp up in 2 quarters.

The size of the transaction isn't an issue, it's the number of transactions. After three years of planning, it took healthcare.gov 6 months to successfully process 8 million transactions of moderate, but not that significant, complexity.

Let's not forget, the website does NOT process financial transactions (that part STILL) hasn't been written yet (see above story summary) - so technically, after three years of planning, one year of programming and two "miraculous" quarters of "heroic" coding, healthcare.gov still hasn't completely processed one financial transaction independently...

Working hard is admirable, but not the same as getting the job done the first time.

Web site fail == Health care bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850145)

Give me a break, if that's what the people spouting this nonsense really think, they should stop receiving health care to prove their point.

Re:Web site fail == Health care bad (1)

kenh (9056) | about 7 months ago | (#46850891)

No one says that - they say the Health Care LAW (PPACA) is bad...

A failure... (1)

AmazingRuss (555076) | about 7 months ago | (#46850185)

...of our corporate-controlled government.

I'm sure the insurance companies have it set up so they make out like bandits no matter what happens.

Re:A failure... (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 7 months ago | (#46850253)

...of our corporate-controlled government. I'm sure the insurance companies have it set up so they make out like bandits no matter what happens.

All the better reason to not force people to buy insurance from them.

Re:A failure... (1)

John Jorsett (171560) | about 7 months ago | (#46850303)

...of our corporate-controlled government.

I'm sure the insurance companies have it set up so they make out like bandits no matter what happens.

Well ... yeah. What better system could you ask for than a federal law that mandates that people buy your product, or else, especially when that "or else" includes fines and the IRS on your neck? And by the way, insurance companies can't pass laws, politicians have to do it for them. Thank you oh so much, Democrats.

Re:A failure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850359)

On that note I will be reporting a lot less earnings than I actually made with my business. Tax free cash sales and report nothing. Easy.

Just another (0, Flamebait)

meglon (1001833) | about 7 months ago | (#46850399)

republican propaganda piece by the in house radical conservative trolls. When did /. become such a propaganda rag?

Re:Just another (2, Insightful)

Q-Hack! (37846) | about 7 months ago | (#46850517)

As a Libertarian, I am going to have to side with the republicans on this one. The ACA is complete and utter crap. The fact that the backend of the website doesn't work is just the tip of the iceberg. But by all means, go ahead and continue to follow your elites and their welfare state agenda.

Re:Just another (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850715)

republican propaganda piece by the in house radical conservative trolls. When did /. become such a propaganda rag?

Sorry -- saying Obamacare is a failure is something I completely agree with and I have no political party affiliation and don't care to bolster one side or the other at all. But having this unaffordable crap forced down my throat when I can't afford it is not a success. The name has "affordable" in it. It is anything but.

When did reality become Republican propaganda? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850749)

It is a FACT, admitted by the Obama admin in testimony under oath before congress that [1] the backend of the website is not yet written, [2] the Obama administration has no solid numbers on how many people have paid (heck, they even said under oath that they did not have a count of people who'd "signed up" about a month before the deadline) and [3] that they are using estimates to pay insurers for now and will need to "settle-up" at some point. It's also true that insurance companies have started issuing warnings to congress, the administration, and some employers that they forsee a large rate increase for next year.

So, given these facts..... what insane act of childish Obama meatpuppet rage causes you to claim this is "republican propaganda" "by the in house radical conservative trolls"? Are you saying that the Obama administration is part of some "vast right-wing conspiracy" to help Republican trolls with their talking points? I am simply mystified by the sheer incomprehensible mental flatulence that must be occurring in your locale. Are you truly claiming that reality is, in itself, a Republican troll talking point? Wow..... just sayin' .... that's really - out there.

Re:Just another (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850769)

When did /. become such a propaganda rag?

When people like you began to start every post with "republican...". Besides, Obamacare is just a "Budget Reconcilliation", not a real law. Don't be surprised it it gets reconcilled right out of a future budget.

Re:Just another (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850773)

You forgot to mention the Koch brothers. You always have to work them in. Heck, might as well work in Lyndon LaRouche and facism while you're at it - get all the standard points in one go. Saves scrolling.

Just remember folks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850419)

The extra millions being spend on a web infrastructure, government payouts to insurance companies, and accounting that like would not be able to survive an actual audit are going to improve the quality and cost of your health care. Right? That's what we were promised, right?

mod d03n (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850593)

the project as a FrreBSD had long

Smoke and mirrors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46850659)

Its all that and more about focusing on certain positives rather then any of the negatives. Yea, you can delay the facts, but in the end they do come out.
Politics is all about perception these days. I give Obama and his White Staff credit for creating great positives in the face of negatives. But it wears thin after a while when all you do is cook the numbers.

See You In September? (1)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 7 months ago | (#46850789)

See you in November might be the more important question.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?