I’m not going to take this on as a design or front‐end‐development critique, because it will add nothing to the conversation. Plus, politics are my style man.
What I know from the web development community is that there are scaling issues when it comes to front‐end performance, but nothing that cannot be corrected fairly easily. And I for one found it promising that the site was built using responsive design, though I’m not so certain I’d enjoy signing up for healthcare through a mobile phone.
The back end, on the other hand, has been a bit of a disaster for a plethora of reasons, but primarily because the entire system is reliant upon the robustness of antiquated systems; from the descriptions of the issues it appears the entire structure was not adequately tested for the projected user load, but the fact that it failed under strain is not surprising. But I’m done rehashing these points.
“If you like your plan, you can keep it…”
What makes the entire affair an unmitigated disaster is what it ultimately means for consumers and citizens–it means increased costs. This was not an unexpected consequence of the rules that were implemented.
What some were not expecting to see was their existing insurance plans being phased out in an effort to offer plans that meet the requirements of the PPACA. The law required existing plans to essentially remain unchanged in order to maintain a grandfathered status; because this rule included maintaing the cost structure from year to year, this became impossible in practice. The result is a doubling of cost to the consumer as unnecessary coverages are tacked on. You in fact, do not get to keep your plan no matter how much you love it.
If you’re one of the unlucky few to lose your current coverage, and are pushed into the exchange system, you’ll be confronted by much higher coverage costs than you’re used to.
Couple these two points with the exchange system failures and you have the potential for major disruptions in coverage for many consumers. Will that lead to decreases in coverage in complete opposition to the reason the law was touted to begin with? I expect it in the short run.
We should be decreasing costs
If we want health inflation to stay low and health care costs to be less of an anchor on advancement, we should want more Americans making $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 to spend less upfront on health insurance, rather than using regulatory pressure to induce them to spend more. And seen in that light, the potential problem with Obamacare’s regulation‐driven “rate shock” isn’t that it doesn’t let everyone keep their pre‐existing plans. It’s that it cancels plans, and raises rates, for people who were doing their part to keep all of our costs low.
Precisely right. Aside from the mandate, the fact that every regulation in the new law screamed increased costs for consumers was a giant red flag that proponents of the legislation either ignored completely or denied were even issues.
In spite of the fact that we want as many people as possible to be covered, this was never a good solution. The website is another example of how much of a shit‐show the entire thing was.