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
Last week a reported 51,000 people successfully signed up. At that rate, it will take a mere 124 years to sign up 330 million Americans. No wonder they needed the additional 16,000 IRS people.
ObamaCare is a lot like the Eagles’ Hotel California: We are programmed to receive. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. Cheers –
Leviathan, meet Atlas shrugging.
The real plan is chaos and in result, single payer one Government healthcare. Like I stated above, I’d just soon have Putin as President as the total fraud that we have now. At least I know what Putin is going to do, Obama is nothing but a total lying *&^%$&)^*&))&
I saw an interesting survey….a majority was opposed to Obamacare, but approved of the Affordable Healthcare Act.
And a doc I know said she had a patient who wanted to ‘keep the government out of my Medicare”
Doug says:
October 14, 2013 at 10:26 am
It is the patient’s Medicare. The money came from him or her, paid into the system since 1965.
All the “government’s” money comes from taxpayers, except for the quarter or more of federal spending that is fiat money made up out of thin air by the Fed, ie over a trillion of our four trillion dollar “budget”. This inflation of the money supply amounts to gigantic taxation without representation, & allows Obama to rule extra-Constitutionally, without the need to go to Congress & deprives the House, ie the people, of the power of the purse.
A major distortion in our U.S. healthcare market is the problem of the pre-tax benefit when health ins is purchased through an employer. Many people have noted many inequities in the U.S., healthcare system, but this is far worse than any others.
To encourange women to enter the workforce in WWII, a federal law was developed: if an employer wanted to offer health insurance as part of the compensation package, it could pay for the health insurance permium with pre-tax dollars.
No one ever talks about this major inequity. It served its wartime purpose, but has greatly distorted the health insurance market ever since.
Large employers have an unfair advantage. It is much easier for a large employer to host a human resources division, and thus be more strategic in hiring decisions – advertising for applicants, interviewing, checking references, and so on. So, overall in business, a large employer can attract a better quality of employee relative to a smaller employer.
This has nothing to do with healthcare. Until you figure out that, along with the best employees, the large employer has the opportunity to hire those who might have the lowest healthcare burden. You can get a better health insurance deal if your workforce is relatively healthy.
A larger employer can manage to carry on without any given employee. So, a larger employer can more easily get rid of an employee with high healthcare costs – before that person drives up the overall premium.
Finally, the large employer is in a better position than a small employer to negotiate healthcare premiums. No health insurance provider wants to lose the business of a company with 10,000 employees. Ten employees? Who cares.
This is the situation we are now in: small employers cannot compete well. This leaves many working people uninsured. Costly employees get fired.
Now, when your healthcare choices are decided by your employer, your employee tendency will be to want more and more each year, but not want premiums to rise. This can be done by allowing premiums to rise modestly for all employees. You as employee ask for low copays or no copays, your employer negotiates with the health insurance provider, the health insurance provider negotiates with groups of providers, and the employee gets his or her low copay, etc.
The employee has little incentive to limit health care consumption – the premium is modest, and is a sunk cost, while copays are low. Finally, the employee never sees any actual costs – so the amployee cannot see how he or she is dirving costs up with consumption.
A professional completes professional education, then looks for a career. Start my own business? Start a small business? Or work for someone else. A single mom ponders: work for a small employer down the street so I can be close to my kids’ school, or go for the distant large employer?
The good deal that a large employer has on health insurance shifts where people might otherwise work. This inhibits productivity. People get tied to jobs largely to sustain health insurance.
There is a quick and easy fix to this imbalance: end the pre-tax-dollars-for-health-insurance law.
Throw all of us into the market individually. Make the health insurance companies serve us as individuals.
Give us individuals the tax break: all my premiums and all of my healthcare expenses, properly documented, should be entered in a couple lines on my tax return.
Health insurance companies would have to attract each of us with rates, instead of ignoring the bothersome solo insurance shopper.
Now, how do we get enouhg people paying in to health insurance to make it function as “insurance,” classically, ought to?
There are many schemes. Obama nmay have a simple one that works: healthcare tax. Along with everything else our taxes cover, our taxes cover healthcare for those with no health insurance. This is the status quo: we all pay federal taxes, and that supports Medicare and Medicaid. County taxes support indigent care.
For any of us with documented health care coverage, we get some kind of break on this redistribution-of-wealth-specifically-for-healthcare tax.
I see such a tax as constitutionally OK: how can we provide for the common defense without a healthy populace? Isn’t a healthy populace a matter of domestic tranquility? Etc.
When our rates go up and down in response to our level of health and our utilization, we each would be more sensitive to consumption of health care resources. As it is now, with employer-sponsored ins, there is no direct effect.
The matter of over-priced medical care would be gone. If not, then price reporting/transparency efforts could fine-tune that problem.
Fianlly, no idiot would any longer be asking health insurance to cover the cost of birth control. It costs $20 per month. If you have healthcare coverage for birth control, idito, you are not getting a good deal; your premium is $20/month higher than it would be, otherwise.
If se xual activity is not worth $20/month out of pocket, you are doing it wrong.
In other words, if healthcare insurance were done at the indiv level, we would get rid of expenses that simply do not fit the insurance paradigm of pooling risk for things that are rare-but-costly.
Genuine healthcare reform would start by getting rid of the employer pre-tax dollar deal.
Sasja L says:
“I know I make myself a target now, but a small fraction of the U.S. defense budget could fund a sensible health care system in the US, where everyone (legal citizens) are allowed to get cheap and efficient healthcare. This without any tax increases or any new one.”
You make yourself a target because you picked national defense. Why conflate defense with health care?
Pick something instead that we don’t need, like the EPA, or the Labor Department, or the Department of Energy, or the Education Department, etc., etc… &etc.
milodonharlani says: October 14, 2013 at 9:36 am
It is far better to have health care everyone can afford. The entire nation benefits from that. Insurance companies have one goal and one goal only, to gain profit. (Oh, I get it, you’re one of the owners/employees and/or a shareholder and/or it’s part of your job benefits…) Who has to pay for it? Of course, the policyholders. If it’s part of your salary, you pay for it anyway …
“I didn’t miss your comment on “economical interests”. It’s simply wrong.”
– It seems to be one of many details that US media “choose” not to publish/broadcast, but are done in other countries, including those in Europe … On the other hand, information are censored here in Europe too …
SasjaL says:
October 14, 2013 at 11:02 am
The nation does not benefit from a system that provides worse health care at greater cost, & wrecks the economy in the process. Obamacare is not “free”. It destroys the economy & kills jobs, without improving health care. Quite the opposite. Its goal is not better health care but more control of the hoi poloi.
Making health care more affordable means first & foremost reining in personal injury lawyers. Our economy cannot afford Obamacare. Most Americans are already paying for our own health care, with employer contributions (everyone paying his or her own in full out of their earnings would be better, or with vouchers for those with lower incomes, preserving their freedom of choice). Retirees have paid for their Medicare. The poor get theirs for “free” (to them), courtesy of taxpayers. The only citizens without health care are those who have chosen to run the risk of doing without, ie the result of a conscious, rational (or not) decision. There are better ways of encouraging their participation than siccing the IRS on them.
Right now everyone in America has access to health care, including illegal immigrants. ERs aren’t the best way to ration it, but that can be fixed without the monstrosity of Obamacare.
It is a good thing for private insurance companies to make a profit. The market should dictate prices, which the public can then decide how to defray for those who can’t afford the going rate. This is far better than having the government run the whole show into the ground.
dbstealey says: October 14, 2013 at 11:01 am
Precisely the type of respond I expected. Many people around the world see the American patriotism as blindfolded. Your response some what verifies it.
It’s not that difficult, read my respond to milodonharlani @ur momisugly http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/13/my-obamacare-experience/#comment-1447636 regarding spending money …
EPA, the Labor Department and the Department of Energy you do need, but demand action against the corruption involved instead …
This speculation is credible, IMO. I was shocked to see how much my coverage under the scheme would be. I won’t participate in the boondoggle. I’ll be eligible for Medicare in two years. I pity younger Americans if this monster isn’t staked through the heart soon.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/14/obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/?partner=yahootix
Tim Ball says:
October 14, 2013 at 8:07 am
Apparently Tim is correct–Forbes is reporting the second-grade glitches Anthony has encountered were put there on purpose:
“A growing consensus of IT experts, outside and inside the government, have figured out a principal reason why the website for Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchange is crashing. Healthcare.gov forces you to create an account and enter detailed personal information before you can start shopping. This, in turn, creates a massive traffic bottleneck, as the government verifies your information and decides whether or not you’re eligible for subsidies. HHS bureaucrats knew this would make the website run more slowly. But they were more afraid that letting people see the underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans would scare people away.
“HHS didn’t want users to see Obamacare’s true costs
http://patriot-8888.newsvine.com/_news/2013/10/14/20961796-obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-how-costly-its-plans-are
.
In other words, the average healthy American would NEVER have supported Obamacare if he had known he’d be gouged. It simply proves Obama lied!
Welcome to 1984, suckers!!
milodonharlani says: October 14, 2013 at 11:15 am
“Obamacare is not “free””
– Nothing is for free … Your country (re-) elected your own president, take the consequences. To reconnect to the old joke that has become more true then ever: “How do you know a politician is lying? – He/she starts talking …”
“It is a good thing for private insurance companies to make a profit.”
– Ok, you are involved in the insurance business … Insurance companies have a tendency to include “fine print” helping them to pay as little as possible.
SasjaL says:
October 14, 2013 at 11:45 am
I’m not in the insurance business. What a ludicrous suggestion.
I’m in favor of freedom & private enterprise, which work. Insurance policies do have fine print, which it pays to read before buying them. For most of my life I’ve gone without health insurance, paying as I went, or bought only very high deductible catastrophic coverage, which is available for much less than under Obamamiscare.
Obama’s putative reelection wasn’t a trial of public opinion on Obamacare. The GOP nominated the only candidate who could not campaign against Obamacare, having instituted practically the same thing in MA while governor, with predictably negative consequences.
Congressional candidates who did run against Obamacare won a majority in the people’s House of Representatives. And in 2010, 63 of those who voted for the monstrosity were defeated, giving the GOP the control it maintains.
SasjaL says:
October 14, 2013 at 11:45 am
It is far more important to throw a lying bum out, even if he’s elected president, than to be accosted with the consequences of his lies.
I’m saddend so many of my countrymen would disagree.
Doug says:
October 14, 2013 at 10:26 am
The Affordable Care Act isn’t affordable (premiums cost more) & doesn’t provide care (nearly as well as private insurance), but it is an act.
Sasja L says:
“Precisely the type of respond I expected. Many people around the world see the American patriotism as blindfolded. Your response some what verifies it.”
You are a fool, Sasja L. National defense is a Constitutional mandate. It is required, where the EPA and other departments are not.
It is interesting that you confuse self defense with patriotism. Any country that stops funding its military will soon regret it.
Maybe you should speak out about Sweden, eh? You folks spend far too much money on your military. Time to stop, and spend your defense money on welfare recipients instead.
You really are foolish. It’s a good thing most folks don’t think like you do. And FYI, we really don’t much care what “people around the world” think. IMHO, America should stop funding the UN and every country in it. If you think giving the world’s hoi polloi NGO’s and QUANGOs free money, you can take over that job. Americans are sick and tired of the freeloaders, who take our money and publicly badmouth us at the same time.
dbstealey says:
October 14, 2013 at 12:21 pm
We can start defunding the UN with IPCC.
SasjaL says:
October 14, 2013 at 11:45 am
Guilty as charged, Sasjal–until 3 years ago I worked for 10 years as the IT guy for a health insurance agency with up to 500 agents and saw the way carriers and drug companies were ECSTATIC over expanded market potential as they became “major players” in this Obamacare boondoggle.
And you’re right–ALL insurance companies want to pay as little as possible.
But with governments, they want to TAX you as MUCH as possible and now with Obamacare, FORCE you to purchase a non-competitive policy they’ll be charging as MUCH as possible, too.
And if you don’t, the IRS has 14,000 “enforcers” so you can expect an unwelcome “visit” if you don’t comply.
Pick your poison.
dbstealey says:
October 13, 2013 at 1:31 pm
MrX says:
“…we Canadians spend less than a penny on the dollar on bureaucracy. In the US, it is 30 to 66cents on the dollar.”
I could probably accept your argument, if you did not throw in that highly questionable statistic. There is no way that Americans pay 30 – 66 times more for bureaucracy than Canadians. No way.
——————– end quote
It’s true. One third to two thirds go to insurance companies. It does not go to any medical services. This is why the lies from the US about the Canadian Healthcare system is so stupefying.
——————– begin quote
You write: “People in the US cross over to Canada because clinics will often treat them without asking for their medicare card.”
So? That only shows that straightforward medical costs are less in the U.S. People on Medicare must be over 65, so the fact that Canadians travel to the U.S. for their medical care says it all: Care in the U.S. has been cheaper and better.
——————— end quote
Canadians don’t travel to the US. If you read what I said, I mentioned that it’s US citizens that cross over to Canada. So your statement makes no sense at all. And when I mentioned Medicare, I was talking about Canadian Medicare (everyone is on it). Care in the US is the most expensive in the world. To say it’s the cheapest is laughable.
@MrX – Learn to use blockquotes. Your post of:
is incomprehensible as to who said (or is saying) what.
richardscourtney,
“Universal provision of health care” is mandatory in the UK, as well as in France. Nobody can opt out, everybody must pay for it. Therefore, it is mandatory.
Mandatory participation is justified as moral duty, whereas some people must pay for others just because others exist, no matter what they do, and how they live. Somebody tells you, what is the rught thing to do, and forces you to do it, pointing a gun at you.
Thus, it is mandatory compassion = fascism. No further discussion is necessary.
I’ve seen several commenters from countries other than the USA make comments along the lines of altruism and helping our fellow man. While I would agree with helping my fellow man or woman, and I do, I would disagree that having the government of any country take money from me and give it to someone else is altruism. Or charity. Or whatever descriptive term you like. There is a name for behavior like that…it’s called theft. If it is wrong for one person to take, it is also wrong for the mob to take, and it is wrong for the organized thieves who work for the alphabet soup of government to take. It doesn’t matter if it is the IRS, EPA, FDA or blah, blah, blah, blah. It is still theft.
What was being done in our country for healthcare is indeed too expensive. We do not get what we pay for. All because every hospital that accepts federal money is required to provide healthcare to everyone who walks through the doors. Who has not had the experience of waiting in line behind the illegal immigrants who will not pay a dime for what they receive, only to pay double for what we do receive ourselves? But we can’t mention that the system has been broken by those who are licking up the cream and leaving the skim milk for the rest. (at $16 / Gallon of course).
pbh
milodonharlani says: October 14, 2013 at 12:00 pm
Well, as you defend insurance companies in a way that indicates that you actually are involved, so I find it difficult to interpret it any other way. Also, not everybody have the capabilities to read what’s included in the “fine print“, due to different reasons including long time ongoing deteriorations of the education system … Would you like to help all those people?
I’m also for freedom and private enterprise, but within certain limits. There are numerous examples of legal abuse in branches where economical services exist, not forgetting the insurance industry. But, that’s not to how I think how private enterprises should work, but it’s the way it works in all too many cases. (One case is already too many …)
It all begins with one of the mortal sins – Greed …
@SasjaL – just out of curiosity, how many people turn down raises? How many people shun any compensation for their work?
Just curious how many are innocent of that mortal sin, greed.
Alexander Feht:
I admit to complete bemusement at your post addressed to me at October 14, 2013 at 1:29 pm.
Your post seems to assert that universal health care in the UK and France is “compassion”. If so, then you are plain wrong.
There may be some people in the UK who think the NHS is mandated “compassion” but if they exist then they are so few in number as to be cranks. The British population almost without exception – there are a few cranks who dissent – consider the NHS to be a necessary provision for a healthy and effective populace which is available as and when they individually need it. Some people also have private medicine usually by means of personal medical insurance. This enables them to seek treatment as and when they want instead of on the basis of overall needs, but if their treatment is long-term then their private medical provider off-loads them to the NHS. There would be public revolt at an overt attempt to dismantle the NHS.
Your reference to fasc1sm in the context of the NHS is so mistaken as to be laughable.
I appreciate it is not possible to fully understand a culture of others, and I am reading this thread in attempt to learn of US culture. Perhaps you could try to understand something of British culture because your equation of “compassion” with universal health provision demonstrates a total lack of understanding of British culture. And the idea that we embrace fasc1sm is completely mistaken: we are more left wing – NOT more right wing – than Americans.
Richard
SasjaL says:
October 14, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Plainly you’re not in favor of political liberty & private enterprise. Political & economic freedom are flip sides of the same coin.
I do not defend the insurance industry any more than I do any other private enterprise. Governments should not do what is better done by the people themselves, ie making their own medical & as many other important decisions as possible, voting their pocket books as well as their ballots.
Under Obamacare, HHS bureaucrats & IRS goons will be deciding what the people & the doctors & other professionals with whom & businesses with which they contract should.