Now that the filibuster is gone for nominees it's time for the head of HHS to fall on her sword. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

 

I don't know where that breakdown would have started. Did the law state when procurement would begin? Was it an issue with a lack of adequate funding and legislative flexibility?

 

"Buck stops here" and all that, but where this exactly went wrong really should be evaluated, not just a couple of top-level managers losing their jobs.

I don't know where that breakdown would have started. Did the law state when procurement would begin? Was it an issue with a lack of adequate funding and legislative flexibility?

 

"Buck stops here" and all that, but where this exactly went wrong really should be evaluated, not just a couple of top-level managers losing their jobs.

This paragraph caught my eye this morning.

And why was the development was so rushed? Lots of reasons, I'm sure, but reporting from multiple sources suggests that one of the big ones points straight back to the White House: Obama and his aides delayed issuing some of ACA's final rules and specifications during the 2012 election season because they were afraid of Republican blowback. As a result, contractors didn't start coding the site until early 2013, leaving only eight or nine months to complete the job. If that work had started even a few months earlier, it's pretty clear that the site would have been at least tolerably usable by the October 1 rollout deadline.

What ACA rules would have delayed the general coding of the website? I wish he'd link to those multiple sources to see what, exactly, the delayed rules were and how they may have impacted implementation of the website.

 

Also that is the article that drove me to make that post!

The fact the website is largely working pretty well now is a pretty good argument that the problem wasn't 'government' or the concept itself, but that it should have been started 3-6 months earlier and then the roll-out would have essentially been fine.

No, no, no. This was executive and administrative incompetence, period. I agree it is not an indictment solely of government, but the way the government does many things played a big hand here.

 

I am not among those who say all things government are bad, or anything close to that. But this one is indeed a good example of problems caused by typical government thinking. The way the contracting process went, the way the rules were changing up to the last minute, the obvious lack of communication internally... this falls under corporate/executive control and government patterns.

 

Government procurement is god-awful and it obviously played a big role in this process. It appears to have been managed poorly internally. But that still doesn't mean generic "government never does anything right!" or "see! the ACA is doomed to failure!" arguments any less silly. Executive and administrative incompetence, especially as they relate to IT projects, isn't limited to government though.

 

Executive and administrative incompetence, especially as they relate to IT projects, isn't limited to government though.

 

haha true. I've seen some big time non-government IT disasters.

I haven't had a problem the entire time I've used the thing

I haven't had a problem the entire time I've used the thing

cue the Duke "you're stealing my money" and a "parasite to society" rant.

I haven't had a problem the entire time I've used the thing

 

It had very big problems, which they've outright admitted.

 

Are you honestly THAT biased that you're pretending it's always worked just fine?

It had very big problems, which they've outright admitted.

 

Are you honestly THAT biased that you're pretending it's always worked just fine?

 

No. It clearly wasn't working for people.

 

I'm just noting that I could never replicate the problems and I was using the federal website because Illinois inexplicably didn't make their own.

 

My worst experience so far is with the insurance companies themselves, trying to figure out what certain services and drugs will cost on their plans. On the bright side, all indications are that I will be paying half as much for those things in exchange for a ~10% increase in premiums and unchanged deductible

So it keeps getting better. Blue Cross first told me that my current plan was ending and I needed to sign up for a new plan, which would be about a 15% increase. Then they say I can keep my current plan for another year. Great.

 

Just got a rate increase on my current plan if I keep it. Basically my 2-month premium becomes my monthly premium, the rate is more than doubled.

So it keeps getting better. Blue Cross first told me that my current plan was ending and I needed to sign up for a new plan, which would be about a 15% increase. Then they say I can keep my current plan for another year. Great.

 

Just got a rate increase on my current plan if I keep it. Basically my 2-month premium becomes my monthly premium, the rate is more than doubled.

 

Hey, it's your responsibility to pay more so that others can have insurance.

My rates stayed the same from last year, including the employer match. But I have a pretty deluxe plan to begin with.

Mine went up, and the benefits went down. And my wife WORKS for an insurance company.

I've heard insurance companies can be pretty s***ty in that regard.

When is the deadline that we have to have insurance by before the fine kicks in? My wife has still heard nothing from her employer on whether they are going to offer insurance next year or not.

My rates stayed the same from last year, including the employer match. But I have a pretty deluxe plan to begin with.

 

Federal civilian plans range from $370/month to $1560/month. Employer(government) pays 75% of premiums for plans at or below $1250/month and a fixed subsidy of $940 for anything above that. Premium increases for 2014 ranged from $1/month to $66/month.

 

My particular family plan is $1245/month and increases $2/month for next year.

 

It's a great opportunity to raise prices. It will be interesting to see what this does for the profits for insurance companies.

When is the deadline that we have to have insurance by before the fine kicks in? My wife has still heard nothing from her employer on whether they are going to offer insurance next year or not.

According to press reports, March 31 is the deadline as of n ow.

My plan was extended at a huge increase in rate, but I then went to the exchange where a 10 dollar increase on my old monthly premium gets me a much better plan, including half the cost on my monthly prescriptions and zero dollars for generics. Lower deductible too.

I like how we're making adjustments as this is implimented. I know that some politicians were blasted when they first said that we'll see what pops up and fix it accordingly. But so far there have been prudent adjustments in timeline and rules that seem to be fixing some of the biggest problems. Americans have always been adaptable and innovators.

The individual mandate is being (partially) delayed

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care...r-some-20131219

The individual mandate is being (partially) delayed

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care...r-some-20131219

I like how Obama picks and chooses what part of the law he wants to enforce.

I like how Obama picks and chooses what part of the law he wants to enforce.

This is definitely annoying but 99% of it comes out of them screwing themselves with the website for several months, so those delays I get. Still wish Sebelius's job was replaced as a consequence though.

This is probably the one "change" or delay where they have the clearest authority to do so. There are arguments over the legality of the employer mandate delay and the "you can keep it" delay, though.