Why is the Obamacare web site crashing so much? The “Chicago Way”

October 15, 2013
"Train wreck"

“Train wreck”

That’s a question many have been asking, including speculation that, due to faulty design, the site is effectively attacking itself.

However, there’s another, albeit related cause for why people are having such a horrific experience with the site. Writing in Forbes, Avik Roy reports on a growing consensus that the the principal reason is the site is trying to hide the true costs of the policies it’s selling:

“Healthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering,” report Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal. “But that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said.” Why was it delayed? “An HHS spokeswoman said the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies.” (Emphasis added.)

As you know if you’ve been following this space, Obamacare’s bevy of mandates, regulations, taxes, and fees drives up the cost of the insurance plans that are offered under the law’s public exchanges. A Manhattan Institute analysis I helped conduct found that, on average, the cheapest plan offered in a given state, under Obamacare, will be 99 percent more expensive for men, and 62 percent more expensive for women, than the cheapest plan offered under the old system. And those disparities are even wider for healthy people.

Roy then asks the logical question: why create a system that raises the price of coverage?

Because, silly. It’s all about the wealth redistribution:

The answer is that Obamacare wasn’t designed to help healthy people with average incomes get health insurance. It was designed to force those people to pay more for coverage, in order to subsidize insurance for people with incomes near the poverty line, and those with chronic or costly medical conditions.

But the laws’ supporters and enforcers don’t want you to know that, because it would violate the President’s incessantly repeated promise that nothing would change for the people that Obamacare doesn’t directly help. If you shop for Obamacare-based coverage without knowing if you qualify for subsidies, you might be discouraged by the law’s steep costs. (Link added.)

In other words, Healthcare.gov demands to know your income information first so that it can calculate what, if any, subsidy you’re eligible for, in an attempt to both tempt you and shield you from sticker shock. But this then leads to “traffic congestion” as the site processes data from you and thousands of other users and then tries to verify what’s been input. And that, in turn, leads to the now-infamous site crashes.

Thus, base and deceptive political considerations were put ahead of seeing that Americans got at least a functional web site for their $634 million. We shouldn’t be surprised, though; it’s the Chicago way.

There’s much more, so be sure to read it all.

RELATED: At Hot Air, Allahpundit discusses on a health industry expert calling for the whole healthcare.gov site to be taken down for a month to fix the myriad problems. Heckuva job, Mr. President.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

But of course: Access to open air Flight 93 Memorial in rural Pennsylvania blocked off

October 15, 2013

If we had an honest press, instead of lapdog media courtiers, the White House pulling crap like this –turning the Park Service into a partisan police– would be headline national news.

My Obamacare experience

October 15, 2013

Not mine of course, but fellow Californian Anthony Watts’. You might find his adventures with the “Covered California” web site of interest. Bear in mind that California enthusiastically signed up for Obamacare and runs its own web site, which is *supposed* to be a better experience than the Federal site. Reality, though…

Watts Up With That?

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…

View original post 165 more words