[Raebie]

"One key worry is based on the fact that what they’re facing is not a situation where it is impossible to buy coverage but one where it is possible but very difficult to buy coverage. That’s much worse from their point of view, because it means that only highly motivated consumers are getting coverage. People who are highly motivated to get coverage in a community-rated insurance system are very likely to be in bad health. The healthy young man who sees an ad for his state exchange during a baseball game and loads up the site to get coverage—the dream consumer so essential to the design of the exchange system—will not keep trying 25 times over a week if the site is not working. The person with high health costs and no insurance will. The exchange system is designed to enable that sick person to get coverage, of course, but it can only do that if the healthy person does too. The insurers don’t yet have a clear overall sense of the risk profile of the people who are signing up, but the circumstantial evidence they have is very distressing to them."

[Gaffer]

My overarching question about all this agonizingly fruitless analysis of a system that cannot even begin to barely function at any level beyond ‘the few’, is why does the media, academia, health profession, concerned citizens, et al feel it necessary to analyze something that is no more advanced than the pretty pictures my 4 year old grand daughter gives me?

[repentant_pundit]

Within the next 3 months, the 0baMao regime will blame the insurance companies for this train wreck.

And without Congressional approval, the regime will unplug the exchanges and impose a new tax (on all of us who pay taxes) for a new Universal Single-Payer coverage.

Maybe they’ll call it SiPa-Care. It will operate like Medicare, and will increase the national debt in similar fashion.

When SiPa-Care creates a rationing mess, how will they blame the GOP for that?

[upchuck]

From the article:

One key problem, which to date has been the most prominent in public, has to do with a late-in-the-game decision to require users to go through a complex account-creation process before even reaching any coverage options. Administration officials apparently went back and forth several times on this question, and the ultimate decision required the creation of a series of patches over an already developed site in a very short time.

For folks not familiar with web site design, consider this analogy:

You've had an architect design a one story house. The builder has built it per the specs. The house lacks only interior painting and floor coverings to be move-in ready.

You approach the architect and ask, "How much trouble would it be to add a second story?"

That is very similar to what happened with healthcare.gov.

[blueunicorn6]

So, the people who have the most to benefit from this have been working hard to get it while the ones who are going to have to pay for it seem to be dragging their feet. Who’d a thunk it.