A “Fix” for Obamacare

Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky wrote in their optimistically titled Wall Street Journal article, “Healthcare.gov’s Flaws Found, Fixes Eyed,” that, among other things,

By Thursday morning, a new tool that allows users to preview plans without registering appeared on the site with little fanfare.

I’ll come back to that.  First, though, here’s a bit of the backstory on that claim, also from Weaver and Rasdnofsky’s article.

Much of the problem stems from a design element that requires users of the federal site, which serves 36 states, to create accounts before shopping for insurance, according to policy and technology experts.  The site, HealthCare.gov, was initially going to include an option to browse before registering, but that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said.

The upshot of this decision (which was made not for technical reasons but so that a purely politically determined deadline for the Web site’s rollout could be met) was that at any point along the sequence of steps involved in account generation, a failure—a “glitch”—could halt the entire process.  Those bottleneck points include

  • software for collection of user information
  • software transferring data to a system used by Medicare’s Enterprise Identification Management
  • software sending data to a separate party’s system for confirming new users’ identities
  • a government identity-checking system

As an aside, it’s important to note that these technical problems would have been there waiting to bite a poor user after he made his choice and moved actually to buy a policy, albeit somewhat mitigated by the reduced number of actual buyers compared to the larger number of shoppers.

The foolishness of deciding to not bother with this standard, economy-wide shopping sequence has been noticed by folks besides me:

“People should be able to get [insurance] quotes” without going through the technical hurdles upfront, said Jay Angoff, a former director of the federal office overseeing the development of the marketplace, also known as an exchange[.]

When was the last time you went to Walmart to check prices and the door greeter required you to fill out an account application form—and be approved for that account—as a condition of gaining entry to the store?  Or Amazon?

Anyone?  I didn’t think so.

But that’s all fixed as of last Thursday, was it?  Not so much.  Below are a couple of screen shots of my attempt to shop before opening an account yesterday (Sunday, three days after this “fix” was rolled out).

On selecting the shopping path from the opening page of the version of HealthCare.gov set up in Texas, I was met with a few questions designed to characterize my demographic so the Fed’s exchange could know for what sort of policies I was eligible.  So far, so good.  This screen shot is what greeted me on hitting NEXT after answering the demographic questions:

Yep.  No policy options, no attempt to refine my status, just many statements of “You might consider this search, you ought to learn about that,” and so on.  So I tried to consider and to learn: I selected the “How can I get lower costs…” at the bottom of the above screenshot, and the next screenshot is what I got in response:

Yep, again.  No policies with coverage descriptions and premiums charged.  More stuff about what to learn, things to consider.  It’s important to note that this is a long page, with a long list of things I ought to consider or to learn about, all based, ostensibly, on that demographic information I provided at the start of this parade.  Scrolling to the bottom of the page, this is what I got:

In case the link is hard to read, it says [emphasis added], “apply for coverage, compare plans, and enroll.”

I still have to apply first, and see coverage options and prices second.  Two weeks into the Obamacare Purchase Program failure.

This is the capability of a Federal government that insists it knows better than we do how to manage our health care and our health insurance.

This Is

…what President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, UT) and other Democrats want to shut down our government in order to protect:

California: 58,000 will lose their plans under Obamacare. …exodus from the…state’s Obamacare exchange: Aetna, UnitedHealth, Anthem Blue Cross (which left the Obamacare exchange for small businesses,t too)

54% of Californians expect to lose their coverage….

Missouri: Patients of the state’s largest hospital system—13 hospitals—will not be covered by the largest insurer on Obamacare exchanges, Anthem BlueCross BlueShield.  Anthem’s 79,000 Missouri patients may seek subsidies on Obamacare’s exchanges, but they won’t be able to see any doctors in the BJC HealthCare system.

Connecticut: Aetna…won’t offer insurance on the Obamacare exchange: “We believe the modification to the rates filed by Aetna will not allow us to collect enough premiums to cover the cost of the plans and meet the service expectations of our customers.”

Maryland: Aetna and (recently purchased)…canceled plans to offer insurance in the [Obamacare] exchange when state officials wouldn’t allow them to charge premiums high enough to cover costs.

South Carolina: Medical Mutual of Ohio left SC entirely in July due to Obamacare’s “vast and quite complex” new regulations.

New York: Aetna pulled out of New York’s exchange…to keep their plans “financially viable.”

New Jersey: Aetna won’t be a part of the [Obamacare] exchange.

Iowa: Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield…decided not to offer plans in the Obamacare exchange.

Wisconsin: United Healthcare and Humana [will not offer] insurance on Obamacare exchanges.

Georgia: Medical Mutual of Ohio, Aetna, and Coventry left due to Obamacare regulations.

More than a million-and-a-quarter insurees and potential insurees are affected by this Democratic Party action.

Be More Like Europe

Maybe we should, at least in one area.

The Strasbourg-based European Parliament passed an amendment to limit the amount of transport fuel, such as gasoline and diesel, that can be obtained from food and energy crops to 6% of total energy consumed for transport by 2020, from 10% previously. … The new limit is meant to ease concerns about the amount of agricultural land that is turned over to growing crops for biofuel use….

There shouldn’t be any requirement, but this is certainly a step in the right direction.

Corinne Lepage, the lawmaker driving the legislation [says] “Taking indirect land-use change into account is important for the integrity of the EU climate-change policy.”

Because, among other concerns, “food prices could rise if crops are diverted from the dinner plate to the fuel tank.”  Our…environmentalists…need to understand this.  It diverts, here in the US, actual food crops—like corn—from the mouths of our poor to the gas tanks of “environmentalists'” cars.  And it jacks up the costs of food crops that substitute for corn.  And it jacks up the price of food that eats corn—like cows, pigs, and chickens.

Be like Europe.  At least in this.

Who’s Actually Repaying Federal Loans?

Here’s one example.

Under the 2008 Farm Bill, the United States Department of Agriculture is required to buy sugars like refined beet sugar and sell it to ethanol producers if the sugar producers are, in the opinion of the USDA, likely to default on certain Federal loans (this requirement is unchanged by the current Farm Bill modifications wending their way through Congress).

You read that right: the Feds loan sugar producers money, then the Feds buy the producers’ output so the producers can repay the loans.  Federal money—which is to say, our money sent to the Feds as taxes—is loaned to sugar producers in support of an ethanol program that no one wants.  Then, when repaying those loans becomes inconvenient, or even impossible, more of our (tax) money is used to buy the borrowers’ output, providing them with the funds with which to pay up.  The borrowers, courtesy of…Uncle Sugar…use (our) purchase money to pay us back.  We’re screwed two times in one deal.

But wait—there’s more.  In one illustrative case,

[t]he USDA paid about $3.6 million for the sugar, which it purchased from Western Sugar Cooperative, a sugar-beet processor based in Denver, according to a notice posted on the agency’s website Friday.  Front Range Energy LLC, a Windsor, CO-based ethanol maker, paid $900,000 for the sugar, according to the USDA notice.

We’re screwed a third time.

And that’s the purpose:

By buying the sugar, the USDA aims to boost prices to a level where sugar processors will be able to repay $298 million in outstanding federal loans that come due at the end of August and September.

It really is just this barefaced.

I Wonder

…whether this might be doable in the US.  An English gentleman has a solution to those annoying cold calls from someone, or some robot, wanting to pitch you this or collect your personal information for that.

A man annoyed by cold callers has turned the tables by setting up his own premium rate number which earns him money.

Lee Beaumont said he paid £10 plus VAT to set up his personal 0871 line in November 2011 and has made £300 from calls he has received since.

It certainly has had a useful effect from my perspective:

…fewer calls, falling from up to 30 per month last year to 16 so far this month.

Hmm….