Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Healthcare.gov crashing because backend doomed in the requirements stage

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 57 posts

Re: Healthcare.gov crashing because backend doomed in the requirements stage

#21

Post by jamroom »

powertower wrote: post #10

> In my case, even the most expensive plan for our family in the State of Maine, where we live, is half the cost of what we are currently paying, exclusive of any subsidies. The elephant in the room is that this is not the typical case - http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/25/double-...

Just want to add another data point, that here in Washington State, a comprehensive plan for my family is going to be around $600 less per month under Obamacare than what I can get right now. This is without any subsidies of any kind, so while I know it is just 1 extra data point, I consider myself a "typical case" (3 dependents, 1 pre-existing condition).

I can say that the Manhattan institute's numbers (what the Forbes article is based on) for Washington appear to be incorrect (based on just my experience though), as they list a premium for a 40 year old man to be currently $181. I've been buying individual health care for myself and family for the last 8 years, and maybe back in 2006 it was about that price. A "comprehensive" plan in Washington would easily set me back ~$1300 per month for my family of 5 - under Obamacare the same (or even sightly better) plan would be around $750. I currently only carry a "catastrophic" coverage plan, and even with a $7500 deductible it's still $600 per month.

So for me I'm looking forward to Obamacare.

Re: Healthcare.gov crashing because backend doomed in the requirements stage

#22

Post by lukasb »

chimeracoder wrote: post #17
powertower wrote: post #10

> In my case, even the most expensive plan for our family in the State of Maine, where we live, is half the cost of what we are currently paying, exclusive of any subsidies. The elephant in the room is that this is not the typical case - http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/25/double-...

> The elephant in the room is that this is not the typical case - http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/25/double-... . It still boggles my mind that people are surprised by this. Mathematically, including people with pre-existing conditions will mean either that those people are required to pay for the (expected, not actual) costs of their own care, or that other people will be required to pay for those…

The effect that you're ignoring is that insurance premiums have a hefty amount of margin built into them, and the ACA produces a collective bargaining effect that gives insurers an incentive to offer a competitive price on the exchange.

Re: Healthcare.gov crashing because backend doomed in the requirements stage

#23

Post by ebiester »

chucknelson wrote: post #20

Wow, this particular excerpt from the article is stretching things a bit too thin: "Clearly there are problems with the government’s IT procurement processes, but if the same level of dysfunction had been present in the software behind Obama’s political campaign (as it was, apparently, behind Romney’s) the President would have never been reelected." Really? I doubt the campaign websites were the deciding factor. Anyw…

The software in question was the software used to determine the best media buys, the volunteer organization software, and similar that was known to be part of his advantage.

Re: Healthcare.gov crashing because backend doomed in the requirements stage

#24

Post by nightpool »

chucknelson wrote: post #20

Wow, this particular excerpt from the article is stretching things a bit too thin: "Clearly there are problems with the government’s IT procurement processes, but if the same level of dysfunction had been present in the software behind Obama’s political campaign (as it was, apparently, behind Romney’s) the President would have never been reelected." Really? I doubt the campaign websites were the deciding factor. Anyw…

See http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/built-... and http://awsofa.info/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5542368) as well as http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/inside... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4764864) for comparison.

Re: Healthcare.gov crashing because backend doomed in the requirements stage

#25

Post by powertower »

jamroom wrote: post #21
powertower wrote: post #10

> In my case, even the most expensive plan for our family in the State of Maine, where we live, is half the cost of what we are currently paying, exclusive of any subsidies. The elephant in the room is that this is not the typical case - http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/25/double-...

Just want to add another data point, that here in Washington State, a comprehensive plan for my family is going to be around $600 less per month under Obamacare than what I can get right now. This is without any subsidies of any kind, so while I know it is just 1 extra data point, I consider myself a "typical case" (3 dependents, 1 pre-existing condition). I can say that the Manhattan institute's numbers (what the Fo…

The problem here is that for some people's coverage to be lowered, impoverished people to be covered, and pre-existing conditions paid for, a bunch of young and healthy individuals (without families) are now required to sign up for insurance. And the cost of that insurance for those healthy individuals is now 2-4x more expensive than it would have been before Obamacare took place (obviously the money has to come from somewhere to balance it all out). *This is of course for the lower and mid level coverage plans, the higher end stuff reduces that margin between the pre and post levels - but not for everyone, and in some cases people are going to pay 15-20% of their TOTAL income for worse plans. And that's going to enrage those people.

Re: Healthcare.gov crashing because backend doomed in the requirements stage

#26

Post by nightpool »

chucknelson wrote: post #20

Wow, this particular excerpt from the article is stretching things a bit too thin: "Clearly there are problems with the government’s IT procurement processes, but if the same level of dysfunction had been present in the software behind Obama’s political campaign (as it was, apparently, behind Romney’s) the President would have never been reelected." Really? I doubt the campaign websites were the deciding factor. Anyw…

See http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/built-... and http://awsofa.info/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5542368) as well as http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/inside... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4764864) for comparison.

Re: Healthcare.gov crashing because backend doomed in the requirements stage

#27

Post by skwirl »

chucknelson wrote: post #20

Wow, this particular excerpt from the article is stretching things a bit too thin: "Clearly there are problems with the government’s IT procurement processes, but if the same level of dysfunction had been present in the software behind Obama’s political campaign (as it was, apparently, behind Romney’s) the President would have never been reelected." Really? I doubt the campaign websites were the deciding factor. Anyw…

They aren't talking about the campaign websites. Both campaigns had complex internal software systems to help target field worker campaign activities, get out the vote efforts, monitor and respond to turnout data on election day, etc.

According to various reports, the Obama campaign was hugely successful in this endeavor [1] while the Romney campaign's election day voter turnout system was a disaster [2].

[1] http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/software-deve...

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-project-orca-disaster-...

Re: Healthcare.gov crashing because backend doomed in the requirements stage

#28

Post by coldcode »

drakaal wrote: post #16

I didn't see anything that meant it was doomed from the requirements stage. This was more of an Obama love fest and defense of ObamaCare than a technical article describing who the backend was doomed. For what this cost to build it could have been much better, much simpler, and handled the scale gracefully. Yes privacy concerns keep it off the elastic cloud. (not a point mentioned in the article) Yes authenticated us…

The primary contractor has had plenty of large gov projects including some for Medicare and SS. Of course so have all large consulting firms and they fail often as well. What the issue is isn't clear from random musings. Unless someone who worked on the project at a high enough level can explain all we have is guesswork.

Re: Healthcare.gov crashing because backend doomed in the requirements stage

#30

Post by jamroom »

powertower wrote: post #25
jamroom wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just want to add another data point, that here in Washington State, a comprehensive plan for my family is going to be around $600 less per month under Obamacare than what I can get right now. This is without any subsidies of any kind, so while I know it is just 1 extra data point, I consider myself a "typical case" (3 dependents, 1 pre-existing condition). I can say that the Manhattan institute's numbers (what the Fo…

The problem here is that for some people's coverage to be lowered, impoverished people to be covered, and pre-existing conditions paid for, a bunch of young and healthy individuals (without families) are now required to sign up for insurance. And the cost of that insurance for those healthy individuals is now 2-4x more expensive than it would have been before Obamacare took place (obviously the money has to come from…

Of course - that's the whole reason for the mandate. Similar to social security, there needs to be a pool of people paying into the system that are not using it. I don't agree with you that the plans will be worse though - maybe in some states, but certainly not here in Washington.
Post reply on HN