First, apologies to my readers for the diversion from the usual fare, but I’ll point out that this entry is covered under the masthead in the category of “recent news” and there’s a relevant WUWT category.
Since like many of you, I’ve been forced to sign a document (at my radio station where I employed part-time) that confirms I’ve been given another document that advises me of my Obamacare rights, and of course being in tune to the news, I’ve been wondering if the claims about the Obamacare websites are as bad as claimed.
I read an article in the Pittsburgh Tribune “Sebelius visit fails to reassure as health care website glitches persist” that said:
Sebelius, who is making similar trips to cities across the country to spread the word about the website, told the audience of about 100 people that Healthcare.gov was “open for business.”
“Believe me, we had some early glitches,” said Sebelius, who was introduced by Rooney, a backer of the law. “But it’s getting better every day.”
So, I decided to find out myself. I went to http://healthcare.gov and chose my state, California. What follows is a record of what I actually got. I never made it past step 1:
Try it yourself: https://coveredca.com/shopandcompare/
NOTE: To be accurate, the website security certificate will work if the “www” is used as prefix, but not the link above sans www. By following the link from the Tribune article, with no other changes on my part, I ended up with the sans “www” connection, which they didn’t get a proper security certificate for. One wonders how many other “glitches” exist in basic security on these websites.
Even when you go in with the “www” there are problems. In Firefox I get this:
UPDATE: Reader Ben points out that it gets a failing grade from an SSL grading service, SSL Labs:
Source: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=coveredca.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Obama couldn’t get any help from his buddies Sergey Brin or Larry Page? #DoNoEvil
Well it has to be said that if they can’t make it through “Web Design for Morons” without a screw up, you probably shouldn’t let them manage your medical issues…..
At least the websites only cost $500 million more than originally budgeted. You have to allow for some second rate parts to be used for such a bargain basement price!
Wow. Yeah.. don’t think I want to enter my info in there… It might be worth to not have insurance and pay a penalty so you don’t have someone steal your personal information.
This reflects my experience with Government run web sites in the UK. They usually don’t work as well as commercial ones although they catch up after a few years.
One of the persistent themes in the UK is that very expensive government IT systems are proposed, their specifications are changeed, literally 100s of times, during construction, then they don’t work properly and are finally abandoned.
When Obamacare was still a bill before Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously said, “We’ll have to pass the bill in order to see what’s in it.” (My grandfather’s generation had a saying about this sort of situation, involving a pig and a cloth sack.) Now that it is law, our Dear Leader apparently is still reluctant to allow us to see “what’s in it.” Perhaps they’re afraid that, if we could see the contents, hospitalization rates would spike as millions of Americans clutch their chests (and their wallets) and collapse.
“Believe me, we had some early glitches,” said Sebelius, who was introduced by Rooney, a backer of the law. “But it’s getting better every day.”
But she has not been able to tell us how many people have successfully signed up. A reasonable person could guess that the answer is zero or near zero.
One might say that your Obamacare experience was Obamanable.
[snip – policy violation multiple/fake identities “Fred” aka “justsomeguy31167” aka “Brad Kurtz” – mod]
[snip – policy violation multiple/fake identities “Fred” aka “justsomeguy31167” aka “Brad Kurtz” – mod]
A couple of points- First, I guess Ted Cruz’ stance was redundant since its impossible to implement the ACA by the end of March 2014 as required by law- There’s no way the government can enforce penalties on everyone who didn’t sign up within the required time frame.
Second, calling it “Obamacare” gives too much “credit” to the president. He didn’t have any actual hand in the law other than encouraging the house and senate to pass some healthcare “reform ” legislation.. It should be the “Pelosi-Reid lat’s pass it to see what’s in it” measure.
Its a government website – be happy it didn’t hijack your browser and install bondage porn links on your computer.
Alan D McIntire says:October 13, 2013 at 4:52 am
I think we’ll have to wait on how they handle the lack of sign-ups, since they never own any problems, ie. it was probably techs left over from the Bush admin….
Secondly, I thought ‘Obamacare’ was an oxymoron, he obviously does not.
I think the true problem is a lack of computing capability. The US government should’ve borrowed the super computer NCAR uses to predict tomorrow’s weather 3,000 years into the future. Then these ObamaCare sites would’ve worked like a dream. It’s just a question of computing power and money. Lotsa and lotsa money. More money. Stupendous amounts of money.
Looks like they fixed it. The telling thing is that their Entrust certificate’s start date was 10/1. So it took them a few days to figure out how to get it and install it. Or before some numbnut it management policy allowed them to install it.
That is normal behaviour for browsers when visiting https sites that use third party SSL certification authorities.
Anthony, I work in the NHS here in the UK. I gather Obamacare is similar. Believe me it does not work! The NHS has treatment free at the point of delivery, so we have citizens of the EU flocking here to use the service. The service is abused and has no value (people only value something if they have to pay for it directly in the first place) and is top heavy with overpaid managers, deputy managers etc, etc. Because it is run by the government it is highly inefficient, the government can no more run an efficient healthcare system than they can build cars, provide railways, telephone services or an airline like they tried to do in the 1960’s and 70’s
Like Communism it is a good idea in theory, but terrible in practice!
I wonder how many HIPAA rules HHS is breaking with this lack of protection for PHI (protected health information)?
Alan D McIntire
October 13, 2013 at 4:52 am
says:
‘There’s no way the government can enforce penalties on everyone who didn’t sign up within the required time frame.’
I hate to say this, but I wouldn’t bet on that. For instance, in Illinois law, a handicap parking placard is assigned to an individual, not a car, nor necessarily a licensed driver. But Chicago police will routinely issue parking tickets to automobiles parked in handicapped zones if the placard doesn’t match the car owner. That’s done without knowledge of whether the placard owner was in that car so the legal penalty is initiated without probable cause. I would say that’s clearly done by the city to cover its revenues. Chicago’s broke. Chicago’s current mayor, Rahm Emanuel, was Obama’s Chief of Staff. Oh, did I forget that Rahm’s brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, a controversial medical ethicist, was Obama’s medical policy advisor.
Understand that the basis for all insurance, no matter what type, is to manage financial risk. It is always up to an individual to assess the risk and purchase the appropriate level of insurance to balance what risks are tolerable and which are not against the cost of that insurance. It is an individual decision and has always been a voluntary purchase. (Now here is where you get the vehicle insurance is mandatory argument but you are not required to drive a vehicle so you still retain the right to choose.) The tyranny of Obamacare is that it takes away your right to decide for yourself if you need to pay for health insurance. You will be required to purchase health insurance just because you are alive and that tyranny is enforced by the most abusive agency of our government, the IRS, the modern day Gestapo. By the way, the advertised first year tax/fine of only $95 for those who choose not to participate is another lie. It is $95 or 1% of your gross income, whichever is HIGHER and then it increases every year.
I am less concerned with the crappy Obamacare websites than I am about the fact that Obamacare is the law of the land.
I decided to give it a go at the CA site even though I am from AZ. I was able to get quotes without entering personal data. It is going to be extremely expensive. Hope AZ is not that expensive. I was hoping to retire, but I wanted to see how Obamacare panned out to see if i should just stay working or not. Looks like retirement wont come sooner but rather later. I hate Democrats.
Unlike Anthony, I have employer paid health insurance through my husband’s job, but I still thought I would see how it worked out to try to get into the system to compare. Or just to try to get into the system. The fourth time I tried, I was able to set up an account. I never actually got a screen telling me I was in my state’s system (run by the feds); all I got after setting up an account was a screen telling to wait patiently again. How much personal information do they glean by knowing my oldest niece’s first name? All I can think is this is a scam from the start.
The problems will be fixed. The issue isn’t the incapacity to function; even in England and Canada, the systems can be made to provide care to most. The real issue, and the reason it is so hotly defended by this administration, is that it removes to government the liberty of the individual of his own health care. If you have no right to select your own health are then what individual right do you have?
“One of the persistent themes in the UK is that very expensive government IT systems are proposed, their specifications are changeed, literally 100s of times, during construction, then they don’t work properly and are finally abandoned.”
A close member of my family was a chief software programmer for the company charged with creating the National Health Service computerised super-system under the Blair Govt.
He told me around ten years ago that it was a disaster and would never function: Ministers were constantly moving the goalposts with conflicting and demands and further amendments, but would never allow a new start from scratch for financial reasons. The result was of course that malfunctions and instability were built into the system meaning it would never work properly. Nevertheless, money continued to be poured into the bottomless pit, and when they attempted to roll out the system it proved pretty well useless.
The truth is that politicians do not have the skills to create such systems but being egoists who think they know it all, will not listen to those who do. And having more ego than brain power, they seem unable to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors