Obamacare web sites crash to hide truth of high costs

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/14/obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/

A growing consensus of IT experts, outside and inside the government, have figured out a principal reason why the website for Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchange is crashing. Healthcare.gov forces you to create an account and enter detailed personal information before you can start shopping. This, in turn, creates a massive traffic bottleneck, as the government verifies your information and decides whether or not you’re eligible for subsidies. HHS bureaucrats knew this would make the website run more slowly. But they were more afraid that letting people see the underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans would scare people away.

                        

cool1 wrote:That raises an obvious question. If 50 million people are uninsured today, mainly because insurance is too expensive, why is it better to make coverage even costlier?



Exactly!

PkrBum wrote:That would explain the gates/steps and delays... if people find out that the healthcare doesn't kick in until a deductible that wouldn't normally be met in a year is basically the same as catastrophic insurance... there might be disillusion among the masses.

But I don't think the masses are able to connect those dots... and certainly wouldn't blame obama or the dems.

othershoe1030 wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/14/obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/

A growing consensus of IT experts, outside and inside the government, have figured out a principal reason why the website for Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchange is crashing. Healthcare.gov forces you to create an account and enter detailed personal information before you can start shopping. This, in turn, creates a massive traffic bottleneck, as the government verifies your information and decides whether or not you’re eligible for subsidies. HHS bureaucrats knew this would make the website run more slowly. But they were more afraid that letting people see the underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans would scare people away.

                        

Let me get this right...the article is complaining that the system as it is now set up would give consumers accurate information as to the cost of various policies based on verified income. Is that the complaint? Isn't it better to know up front the cost than to be scared away by being quoted an inaccurate figure due to subsidies not being taken into account?  Shouldn't people get correct information? Or maybe they would like to see wide spread fraud due to people just making stuff up to qualify for more subsidies? That doesn't sound like the conservatives we've come to know and love now does it?

I see no hard evidence in the article for all the claims that policies will now cost more. The heritage foundation came up with a good plan to keep dead beats from making the rest of us pay for their care and now the right wing, because it is a democratic plan, just totally hates it. That is just stupid. They proposed the individual mandate, it is working well in Mass. and now they just hate it. Go figure.

ppaca wrote:

cool1 wrote:That raises an obvious question. If 50 million people are uninsured today, mainly because insurance is too expensive, why is it better to make coverage even costlier?



Exactly!

Well it sort of like Bell's, they have anywhere from 20-70% off products, they mark everything up and then discount it. They have raised all premium's because they have to take everyone now and then the one's who get a subsidy it brings the premium's down. I used bells' because I was going to buy a shirt the other day marked down 40% and they had put a tag on it as original $74.00, even with the discount not worth it. lol

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:That would explain the gates/steps and delays... if people find out that the healthcare doesn't kick in until a deductible that wouldn't normally be met in a year is basically the same as catastrophic insurance... there might be disillusion among the masses.

But I don't think the masses are able to connect those dots... and certainly wouldn't blame obama or the dems.

From what I've seen there are so many different plans and those vary from one state to another that it is impossible to make a broad statement about the whole system like the one this article made.

The way the exchanges are set up it is supposed to be easy to see the cost of a plan, the deductibles etc. and to compare plans across the board.

People shouldn't have to "find out" about all this after they sign up. The information is supposed to be made clear before choosing a plan.

othershoe1030 wrote:

ppaca wrote:

cool1 wrote:That raises an obvious question. If 50 million people are uninsured today, mainly because insurance is too expensive, why is it better to make coverage even costlier?



Exactly!

Well it sort of like Bell's, they have anywhere from 20-70% off products, they mark everything up and then discount it. They have raised all premium's because they have to take everyone now and then the one's who get a subsidy it brings the premium's down. I used bells' because I was going to buy a shirt the other day marked down 40% and they had put a tag on it as original $74.00, even with the discount not worth it. lol

Actually increasing the size of the insurance pool reduces the cost not increases it because it also includes healthier people who will pay premiums and not need services. That is one of the main principals for the individual mandate proposed by the heritage foundation.

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:That would explain the gates/steps and delays... if people find out that the healthcare doesn't kick in until a deductible that wouldn't normally be met in a year is basically the same as catastrophic insurance... there might be disillusion among the masses.

But I don't think the masses are able to connect those dots... and certainly wouldn't blame obama or the dems.

From what I've seen there are so many different plans and those vary from one state to another that it is impossible to make a broad statement about the whole system like the one this article made.

The way the exchanges are set up it is supposed to be easy to see the cost of a plan, the deductibles etc. and to compare plans across the board.

People shouldn't have to "find out" about all this after they sign up. The information is supposed to be made clear before choosing a plan.

PkrBum wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:That would explain the gates/steps and delays... if people find out that the healthcare doesn't kick in until a deductible that wouldn't normally be met in a year is basically the same as catastrophic insurance... there might be disillusion among the masses.

But I don't think the masses are able to connect those dots... and certainly wouldn't blame obama or the dems.

From what I've seen there are so many different plans and those vary from one state to another that it is impossible to make a broad statement about the whole system like the one this article made.

The way the exchanges are set up it is supposed to be easy to see the cost of a plan, the deductibles etc. and to compare plans across the board.

You are correct pkr and that is why some top people need to go. They should have set it up exactly how we do Medicare Advantage plans, take a few minutes, goes to insurance company and then on to Medicare for verification. At anyone time over 3 million people are on Medicare or SS website but they could not design a system to accomodate more than 200,000

People shouldn't have to "find out" about all this after they sign up. The information is supposed to be made clear before choosing a plan.

Ideally... but that doesn't appear to be the case for some reason. It would've been simple enough to put that info out if transparency and efficiency was the intent. I just find it hard to believe it could be rolled out this badly... even for the govt.

ppaca wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/14/obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/

A growing consensus of IT experts, outside and inside the government, have figured out a principal reason why the website for Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchange is crashing. Healthcare.gov forces you to create an account and enter detailed personal information before you can start shopping. This, in turn, creates a massive traffic bottleneck, as the government verifies your information and decides whether or not you’re eligible for subsidies. HHS bureaucrats knew this would make the website run more slowly. But they were more afraid that letting people see the underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans would scare people away.

                        

Let me get this right...the article is complaining that the system as it is now set up would give consumers accurate information as to the cost of various policies based on verified income. Is that the complaint? Isn't it better to know up front the cost than to be scared away by being quoted an inaccurate figure due to subsidies not being taken into account?  Shouldn't people get correct information? Or maybe they would like to see wide spread fraud due to people just making stuff up to qualify for more subsidies? That doesn't sound like the conservatives we've come to know and love now does it?

I see no hard evidence in the article for all the claims that policies will now cost more. The heritage foundation came up with a good plan to keep dead beats from making the rest of us pay for their care and now the right wing, because it is a democratic plan, just totally hates it. That is just stupid. They proposed the individual mandate, it is working well in Mass. and now they just hate it. Go figure.

The deal is they should have reversed (which they have) the way you do it. Yes, everyone would like to know if they qualify for a subsidy, but they also wanted to see plans first. I think they should have let you see plans with real cost with disclaimer that it could be lower depending on your subsidy and then go back and fill out subsidy application. Even now they let you see plans but as of two days ago they only asked what age group you were in and not your actual age which give's a false impression. The govt had over 2 years to put this together and did fail miserably. Their coding does/didn't work, it crashed over and over. Anyone who did get in to fill out an application for subsidy only met obstacles on identity verification. So yes they spent millions or billions, whatever on a system that did not work. HHS secretary should have fired day 3 into this and the out of country company that set up the system.

ppaca wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

ppaca wrote:

cool1 wrote:That raises an obvious question. If 50 million people are uninsured today, mainly because insurance is too expensive, why is it better to make coverage even costlier?



Exactly!

Well it sort of like Bell's, they have anywhere from 20-70% off products, they mark everything up and then discount it. They have raised all premium's because they have to take everyone now and then the one's who get a subsidy it brings the premium's down. I used bells' because I was going to buy a shirt the other day marked down 40% and they had put a tag on it as original $74.00, even with the discount not worth it. lol

Actually increasing the size of the insurance pool reduces the cost not increases it because it also includes healthier people who will pay premiums and not need services. That is one of the main principals for the individual mandate proposed by the heritage foundation.

In theory you are correct, but if you place all sick people into a plan that does not happen.

ppaca wrote:Not cold hard date, no. But everyone on here who is on group insurance (unless your employer doesn't let you know) have experience double digit rate increases over the year's or had to change plans because of the double digit. Why they have is because of group insurance have been carrying all sick people over the years and paying out more claims than premiums. It's only reasonable that enough healthy people will not be plans to support all the claims of sick one's in the future.