healthcare.gov: not ready for prime time??

Before Oct. 1st, I seem to remember reading that the ACA site was having problems, glitches...normal stuff to some extent....but something that should have been fixed before something like this was rolled out.

So, in addition to all the scary things we've been hearing, from credit checks, to huge premiums, huge deductibles and little paid coverage, we know learn that the site wasn't ready and that the glitches could go on for months

They should have tested it.

Not only was the site still experiencing substantial problems Wednesday, a week after launching, but the White House had reportedly been aware for months that the HealthCare.gov website had flaws and might not be ready to launch. Yet officials insisted on the Oct. 1 roll out anyway.

Robert Laszewski, a consultant with clients in the healthcare industry participating in the new exchange, said insurance companies were complaining “loudly” that the site had experienced problems before the launch. “People were pulling out their hair,” he told The Washington Post Wednesday.

www.foxnews.com...

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


The actual healthcare.gov site stability is the least of Americans worry. I welcome the glitches as it will stop as many Americans as possible from making the biggest mistake of their lives.

Now, all arguments aside for the greater good of what Obamacare does or does not offer, it only stands to reason that if you are going to selectively mandate that business can be offered a one year exemption of implementation then it only stands to reason by anyone standards that should also carry over to every day citizens no?

I mean, if it isn't ready which it's obviously not, why not delay the entire thing for a year? Unless it's a big sham and the only way it can continue to operate once people realize that, is that it already enrolls so many "poor" Americans that repealing it would be disastrous to the average American. Hmmmmmm

They should shut it down with the other parts of non essential government IMO.

I am beginning to wonder if they didn't want it to foul up to begin with. Roll it right out there and put a toe in the water to get the general feel for what the public was feeling about it. If it made a huge uproar they have this excuse to fall back on and can change things (costs, deductibles, etc.) to make it less of a "mess" and roll it right back out "all fixed up and shiny".

I don't know. If I were going to do it, that would be the way I would do it. A sort of exit route if you will.

reply to post by Helious


I couldn't understand the big hurry either, especially in light of other sections that were exempted.
And, now that we see some of what is expected of Americans......the more I wonder the true intent.

I've taken to calling it HIB...for Health Insurance Bailout...but there seems more nefarious methods may be involved.

DontTreadOnMe
reply to post by Helious

 

I couldn't understand the big hurry either, especially in light of other sections that were exempted.
And, now that we see some of what is expected of Americans......the more I wonder the true intent.

I've taken to calling it HIB...for Health Insurance Bailout...but there seems more nefarious methods may be involved.

Don't feel bad, nobody I have talked too can understand the hurry either. Speculation always runs wild around this sort of legislation but in this case, we are talking a fundamental and unprecedented shift with this specific "act". It wouldn't of hurt anyone to apply the same consideration to individuals as were applied to corporations as far as the delayed implementation and in point of fact can only hurt not to do so.

That being the case, any hope I had at all of this being some form of legitimate legislation to benefit Americans as individuals was crushed and I quickly regained my senses to see what this law was written and drafted to be and it is not now, was not before and will never be for the benefit of Americans.

TIme will prove my statements to be quite accurate, I am convinced of that.

Greetings,

I don't think the state did this as a lark or mistake.
It wasn't carelessness or bad planning IMO.
The establishment has been too meticulous in its manipulation of the public and its opinion that I do not for one second believe this wasn't EXACTLY what they wanted.
They want confusion.
They want uncertainty.
They want fear.
Unlike any other animal on this planet, fear has a unique effect on humans.
It makes us valuable to the state.

-Amitaba-

Kangaruex4Ewe
They should shut it down with the other parts of non essential government IMO.

I am beginning to wonder if they didn't want it to foul up to begin with. Roll it right out there and put a toe in the water to get the general feel for what the public was feeling about it. If it made a huge uproar they have this excuse to fall back on and can change things (costs, deductibles, etc.) to make it less of a "mess" and roll it right back out "all fixed up and shiny".

I don't know. If I were going to do it, that would be the way I would do it. A sort of exit route if you will.

edit on 10/9/2013 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)

Funny you should mention that


Head fake! Is Healthcare.gov only an empty shell MOCKUP of a working Obamacare exchange?

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...##ixzz2hHvzrQFd

As the days of glitches, snafus, down-time and critical errors mount up, evidence is mounting that the Healthcare.gov Obamacare exchange is not actually a fully-formed online application. More and more, it appears to be a mockup of a health care exchange enrollment system.

Think about it: HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, on live television with Jon Stewart two nights ago, couldn't even answer the question of how many people have enrolled. This is a statistic you would have immediately, in real time, if the database application were actually functioning.

reason.com...

As few as 1 in 100 applications on the federal exchange contains enough information to enroll the applicant in a plan, several insurance industry sources told CNBC on Friday. Some of the problems involve how the exchange's software collects and verifies an applicant's data.

"It is extraordinary that these systems weren't ready," said Sumit Nijhawan, CEO of Infogix, which handles data integrity issues for major insurers including WellPoint and Cigna, as well as multiple Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates.

Experts said that if Healthcare.gov's success rate doesn't improve within the next month or so, federal officials could face a situation in January in which relatively large numbers of people believe they have coverage starting that month, but whose enrollment applications are have not been processed.

"It could be public relations nightmare," said Nijhawan. Insurers have told his company that just "1 in 100" enrollment applicants being sent from the federal marketplace have provided sufficient, verified information.

What happens when insurers don't have enough information to finish processing an application? They have to follow up with the indidivudal and get the extra information, somehow. That means that the supposedly simply process of signing up online will actually require an additional follow-up step. And it probably means that some people who believed they had signed up for coverage will find out next year that their application didn't go throug