[And if you have your own experiences to share, and especially screen dumps, please add them in comments or contact me. Either Federal Exchanges, or state exchanges. I'm especially interested in Covered California! Thank you! --lambert]
firstname.lastname@example.org from Maine had a registration #FAIL at step 3. Here's the screen dump:
ObamaCare Clusterfuck: Covered California gives out "consumer" information to insurance agents, even if they didn't ask to be contacted
ObamaCare Clusterfuck: 10% of ObamaCare Federal enrollments could contain coverage-preventing errors
An estimated 10 percent of all enrollments now being made on the federal Obamacare marketplace contain data errors that could delay people from actually getting health coverage, officials disclosed Friday.
And that error rate for enrollments submitted via HealthCare.gov and then sent to insurers before December was an estimated 25 percent, officials revealed.
The rate fell in the past week, officials said, because of repair efforts to HealthCare.gov's, particular the discovery and fix of one particular software problem that was causing an estimated 80 percent of data errors, officials said.*
But both past and present error rates are much higher than 1 percent, the rate which insurers considered to be unacceptable when doing business outside the Obamacare exchanges. And they are raising serious questions about whether significant numbers of people will actually be without insurance Jan. 1 despite believing they have enrolled.
So, you roll up to the hospital in your ambulance thinking you're covered, and what then? Don't worry, we'll straighten out the paperwork later? Why don't I think this will work? Read below the fold...
ObamaCare Clusterfuck: Dan Balz "he said/she said" whitewashes Obama's role in healthcare.gov debacle
This seem to really work (though -- see the image -- why they would say "remove" rather than "reset" or even "start over" I don't know (except I do: It's programmers thinking from their perspective, removing the data, not from the user's perspective, hitting the reset button (meaning the UX/UI people have little power right now))). Read below the fold...
I don't know how I missed this, but obviously the ObamaCare websites are still crap, because if they were any good, Obama would have used them for PR. McClatchy:
Yes, President Barack Obama plans to up for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, dubbed Obamacare.
But no, he like millions of other Americans, has not done so yet.
“I don’t have an update for you on that," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday at his daily briefing. "I know that he will and has said that he will."
When he was asked if the registration could be open to the press, Carney responded: "I'll get back to you."
BWA-HA-HA-HA!!!! I bet he did. Here is the key paragraph from a policy perspective however: Read below the fold...
In light of the continuing problems with Healthcare.gov it is clear Republican governors made an incredibly smart political decision when they opted not to build their own state-based exchanges. If you separate it from the policy implications, on a purely political level it was one of the smartest collective political moves in years.
It should now be obvious to everyone that building an insurance exchange is an incredibly difficult task. ...
By refusing to do the thankless and difficult job of creating such a complex system they managed push all the responsibility back on President Obama and the design of the law itself. Under this scenario the Obama team completely fell on their faces and took Obama’s poll numbers down with them.
And so they did!* As usual, Walker does all right up to a point. And, as always, that point is single payer. Read below the fold...
ObamaCare Clusterfuck: Obama's tech wizards fail to fix the #1 item on their punchlist, the 834s (#FAIL)
Film at 11, but the administration is about to declare the most definitely not relaunched ObamaCare website ("marketplace"), healthcare.gov, a success. Pass the victory gin:
HealthCare.gov will meet deadline for fixes, White House officials say
Administration officials are preparing to announce Sunday that they have met their Saturday deadline for improving HealthCare.gov, according to government officials, in part by expanding the site’s capacity so that it can handle 50,000 users at once. But they have yet to meet all their internal goals for repairing the federal health-care site, and it will not become clear how many consumers it can accommodate [about the lowest baseline you can set] until more people try to use it.
And they also appear to be doing some not-Expedia-like, not-Amazon-like things to make the site "work" that shouldn't come under the heading of repairs. For example, the waiting area: Read below the fold...
At some point, we're going to move from discussion of how bad the ObamaCare website is, to how bad the ObamaCare policies are, but that can only happen after the end of November, when the administration will call a touchdown, after dropping the goal wherever they've managed to move the goalposts. Pass the Victory Gin! Meanwhile, the ObamaCare story is so vast, and has so many threads, that I'm not even sure I've got a handle on it any more, so I'm going to make this post a (longish) compendium of the current state of play. On moving the goalposts:
"The 30th of November is not a magic go, no go date. It is a work of constant improvement. We have some very specific things we know we need to complete by the 30th and that punch list is getting knocked out every week," Sebelius told The Associated Press. ....
The Obama administration has staked its credibility on turning HealthCare.gov around by the end of this month. From the president on down, officials have said the website will be running smoothly for the "vast majority of users" by Nov. 30, but have been vague about what that actually means.
The definition has morphed in the past few weeks. At an Oct. 30 congressional hearing, Sebelius projected "an optimally functioning website" by the end of November. On Nov. 5, Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified that the site would be "fully functioning" by that date.
"We recognize that there will still be periodic spikes, glitches, whatever that people will experience," [Sebelius said on Tuesday].
ObamaCare Clusterfuck: There's the "train wreck," and then there's Garance Franke-Ruta's meta-train wreck
Republicans love to call Obamacare a train wreck.
Of course, calling Obamacare a train wreck is just using a metaphor. But it's a bad one. And bad metaphors are bad news, because they create distorting frameworks for thinking about important issues.
All this could be true, but what Garance Franke-Ruta omits to mention -- whether out of ignorance or malevolence, we just can't know -- is that the "train wreck" metaphor was first applied to ObamaCare by none other than Max Baucus, the putative author of the bill (the real authors being the health insurance industry in the person of Liz Fowler, the Wellstone VP who was his chief of staff before leaving for the White House, and then exiting through the revolving door to K Street, where she lobbies for Big Pharma). Read below the fold...
ObamaCare Clusterfuck: Like I've been saying, ObamaCare and the website debacle are a teaching opportunity for single payer
Nancy Folbre provides a fine example in the Times. I'll quote her conclusion, which I think should have been the lead:
A single-payer insurance system, whether based on an extension of Medicare or on the Canadian model, promises many profoundly important benefits. Right off the mark, it promises simplicity.
Why should it have been the lead? Because it speaks to the ordinary
consumer citizen, to whom the case for single payer must be made. (Yes, I know the Times demographic skews way away from the poor schlubs like us, but you want the Times demographic regurgitating a lead will propagate as widely as possible.)
The rest of the article is pitched to policy makers and influencers and NPR-believers, but not the worse for that: Read below the fold...
[W]hile the IRS is in charge of enforcing the individual mandate, Health and Human Services will handle applications for people who want to be exempted. Millions are likely to apply for those exemptions, including the 5.2 million low-income people who live in states that did not expand Medicaid.
“The IRS is in an unenviable position because the data is coming from HHS, and I wouldn’t be very confident they’ll do much better here than on their other tasks,” said Brian Haile, a health policy analyst with the tax firm Jackson Hewitt.
Remember the good old days when we could at least protect ourselves by avoiding web sites with potential security problems? Well, as of now, those sites are mandated...at least for people requiring subsidies.
Imagine that. Kaiser Health News:
Many doctors are disturbed they will be paid less -- often a lot less -- to care for the millions of patients projected to buy coverage through the health law’s new insurance marketplaces.
Some have complained to medical associations, including those in New York, California, Connecticut, Texas and Georgia, saying the discounted rates could lead to a two-tiered system in which fewer doctors participate, potentially making it harder for consumers to get the care they need.
If you're Walmart running a clinic, that's not a bug. It's a feature. Anyhow, what's wrong with a two-tiered system? The poor deserve to suffer! Read below the fold...