Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Umm, if no one can sign up, then there's nothing for the "core of the ACA" to apply to. Further, it's irresponsible for anyone, including you, to declare ACA a victory when in fact no one, including you, can determine if the program will actually be solvent. Solvency is the measure for which this program will be evaluated, not the mere fact that it is a law. ACA does not exist in a vacuum. If it becomes top heavy due to more sickly enrollees then healthy enrollees, it will collapse.
Of course, we wouldn't expect the swooner's to acknowledge that, though.
It's just as irresponsible for anyone to declare the ACA a failure when no one, including you, can determine if the program will actually be solvent. You're absolutely right that solvency is a measure for which the program will be evaluated, and that will take time. We're years away from being able to declare the ACA a success or failure. Sure the website is a dismal failure, but that doesn't say anything about the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vejadu
I've been trying to use the website, because my wife's insurance is being cancelled at the end of the year thanks to the ACA and I need to find a replacement plan. The one we were moved to had 300% higher out of pocket costs than the one we previously had.
The experience has been horrible. Right now I'm trying to log in and it's not working. I've experienced time outs, 404 pages, broken form fields, pages that don't finish loading, one time I was sent to a timeout page in Spanish for some reason, another time I reached a rep on chat and he couldn't answer a simple question and pawned me off to phone support. Just now I received this error "We have a lot of visitors on our site right now and we're working to make your experience here better. Please try to login after sometime. Thanks for your patience!"
Three weeks after the launch and they don't have the site stabilized. A site they had YEARS to build. A site they poured HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars into. This is the epitome of government ineptitude. They've spent more on this site than LinkedIn and Spotify have combined, and LinkedIn is one of the most trafficked sites on the Internet (#6 in the United States).
This website was supposed to be this magical place where we could all quickly and easily sign up for healthcare. It's turned out to be a disaster. Pelosi must have designed the site, because you have to sign up before you can even browse the available plans. I design websites and can tell you how horribly planned and implemented this site is -- and bringing in a tech surge will only cause MORE problems, because the new people will inevitably break code the old team wrote.
Only 30 people from Wyoming have signed up through the website so far. It also registered 40,000 innocent people as SEX OFFENDERS by accident.
It's currently ranked 276th on the Alexa charts, just a few spots behind infowars.com. It's getting less visitors than Alex Jone's crazy conspiracy site and it can't handle the traffic. Anyone arguing that this website isn't a huge disaster is deluded. It will eventually get better, but there's no excuse for how horrible the implementation of the core component of the ACA has been, and speaks leagues to the incompetence of those in charge of putting this in place.
Emphasis mine.
About a week ago I was able to peruse plans in my state (which uses healthcare.gov) as a guest. I didn't need to create an account or give any personally identifiable information. I was just interested in the rates for whatever new plans the carriers in my state might be offering, not in any of the subsidy info, and it was readily available.
The problems are not solely related to volume. You should take some time to educate yourself before making a thread you can't defend.
There's nothing to defend. I didn't say the issues were SOLELY volume...I said that AN issue is volume. Further no one is saying that the site is doing well. I'm more than willing to admit the administration needs to get it's act together and get this worked out ASAP. All that I'm saying is that the ACA isn't exclusively a website. Signing up is still possible through other venues and the site will eventually work as intended.
You should take some time to review what you intend on criticizing before you spout off like a pre-pubescent teenage girl with her panties bunched up.
It's just as irresponsible for anyone to declare the ACA a failure when no one, including you, can determine if the program will actually be solvent. You're absolutely right that solvency is a measure for which the program will be evaluated, and that will take time. We're years away from being able to declare the ACA a success or failure. Sure the website is a dismal failure, but that doesn't say anything about the law.
Emphasis mine.
About a week ago I was able to peruse plans in my state (which uses healthcare.gov) as a guest. I didn't need to create an account or give any personally identifiable information. I was just interested in the rates for whatever new plans the carriers in my state might be offering, not in any of the subsidy info, and it was readily available.
I don't think it will take "years" to determine solvency. The government has estimated 7 million sign-ups in the first year, a number that government actuaries have determined to require at least 40% of those sign-ups to be young and healthy. In other words, anything short of 7 million sign-ups could automatically put pressure on the system. If fewer than 40% of the less than 7 million signups are young and healthy, the problems are exacerbated substantially. If ACA does not meet those thresholds, it's reasonable to conclude that a top-heavy system will cause insurer losses relatively rapidly. Do you think private insurers will stay in the exchanges if they are seeing repetitive losses? If they bail, who will provide insurance? This is a hyper supply-demand market, even with government subsidies.
The law, as written, is premised on young people signing up for insurance instead of electing to pay the fine. Nothing.....repeat nothing....compels a young person to sign up for insurance. And if they don't, then ACA teeter's into the abyss.
Are you comfortable with this kind of gamble? Is that what you consider to be good stewardship of your tax dollars?
One of the diagnostics were clear that the servers couldn't process the volume.
What would you call that?
I call it insane that they didn't do load testing on a new web application prior to a major rollout. Anyone with as much as a bachelors in computer science knows that is an integral part of any rollout.
I would also call it terrifying that we are going to rely on an administration for health care when they can't even get a website up and running for over $600 million (something many developers do in their free time for no cost at all)
One of the diagnostics were clear that the servers couldn't process the volume.
What would you call that?
"One of the diagnostics were clear..."
I would call that twisted grammar.
Sorry, but I find that I can not give much credence to someone who doesn't seem to know the difference between "we're" (as in "we are") and "were".
Those are only two of the many things that leaped out at me as I was trying to make sense of your posts.
As one who used to write programs in BASIC, I can well imagine that the programs you write have problems if you write them as you post here. Computers are very literal little buggers, what you write is all they see, they don't read between the lines.
Proofreading before hitting "submit reply" is a wonderful thing.
I did, and corrected quite a few typos.
"One of the diagnostics were clear..."
I would call that twisted grammar.
Sorry, but I find that I can not give much credence to someone who doesn't seem to know the difference between "we're" (as in "we are") and "were".
Those are only two of the many things that leaped out at me as I was trying to make sense of your posts.
As one who used to write programs in BASIC, I can well imagine that the programs you write have problems if you write them as you post here. Computers are very literal little buggers, what you write is all they see, they don't read between the lines.
Proofreading before hitting "submit reply" is a wonderful thing.
I did, and corrected quite a few typos.
I used to be a programmer for a fortune 500 company. We had software that simulated any number of simultaneous users at any given point that we ran the new site through before anything went live. That is a common part of any best practice when writing a site. It is by far one of the easier tests to do on a new site. It is literally nothing more than pointing the software to your test environment, enter the number of simultaneous users, and let it run overnight.
The fact that they obviously didn't even do something as basic as that is insane. How does that instill any measure of confidence in this administration that they can't figure out what every college freshmen CS major knows?
If the government would just spend more money on it I'm sure it will get better.
Yep. That seems to be the Governement's solution to every problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
