News Questions Congress should ask Sibelius.

[Locrian]

Now, they still can't afford to see a doctor since, there is a deductible and they can no more afford it under the ACA than they currently can.

If your income is low enough, there are reduced cost-sharing plans available.

However, I do share some of your worries, just with more cynicism. There are ways for the poor to reduce their cost sharing, but what about everyone else? I'm surrounded by people living in $300k houses with $60k in vehicles in their driveway that don't have $3k in savings - or at least claim that $3k in deductible expenses would be unbearable.

Insurance is a financial tool. Most US citizens are have little or no understanding of personal finance. The first can only work if we fix the second.

 

[SteamKing]

The politicians who whelped this monstrosity known as the ACA appear not to understand personal finance, either. But then, they don't have to, since they made a separate deal to keep themselves and their staffs off the exchanges.

The following story illustrates how the ACA is effectively turning formerly law-abiding citizens to considering if not outright law-breaking, at least non-compliance with ill-conceived legislation, which IMO further erodes the willingness of average citizens to abide by the rule of law. This state of affairs does not bode well for the future.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_YOURE_CANCELED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-02-09-44-38

 

[SteamKing]

The Secretary of HHS received a key technology document this week which should help start to resolve some of the problems with the healthcare.gov website:

 

[Locrian]

Hah, yea, I saw that, too. Funny stuff.

She looks like she's going to bite them.

 

[Locrian]

But then, they don't have to, since they made a separate deal to keep themselves and their staffs off the exchanges.

Well, let's be clear about how this worked.

The way the law functions, congress and their staff would never have been buying off the exchange if it weren't for very specific legislation that singled them out to have to - other largish, self-funded groups do not have to buy on the exchange. This exception was made to try to scare off Democrats, but the reality is that buying off the exchange doesn't hurt them any; they'd still be using taxpayer money and they'd be able to afford the platinum PPO plans (or whatever is best). Furthermore, some staff members would certainly be getting taxpayer funded subsidies to buy off the exchange, which seems pretty silly.

Having congress maintain their own self-funded plan so expenditures can be tracked - like almost every other large employer and government group out there - makes a lot more sense.

 

[SteamKing]

Legislation aside, there apparently were some specifically vague features contained in the ACA which have received an interpretation in Congress' favor by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM):

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/opm-proposes-obamacare-fix-for-congress/

All-in-all, another shabby deal just like all the exemptions granted by the Administration.

 

[Vic Sandler]

It is unfortunate that the website failed the first day.

This is the 33rd unfortunate day. The 5 day self imposed time-frame for returning my call to the Advanced Resolution Center has passed without a return call. I would call the 1-800 number as I was instructed to do, but as any good tester, I first went to try the site to see if it would allow me in. I got the gray screen of death. The site has crashed. I see no point in calling them under these conditions, so I will hold off until they recover from the crash.

(the website) has never crashed.

http://news.yahoo.com/healthcare-gov-suffers-outage-as-sebelius-testifies-that-it-s-never-crashed-181641521.html

This is getting very old, Vic.

Another day older.

"Whatever."

 

[edward]

This is the 33rd unfortunate day. The 5 day self imposed time-frame for returning my call to the Advanced Resolution Center has passed without a return call. I would call the 1-800 number as I was instructed to do, but as any good tester, I first went to try the site to see if it would allow me in. I got the gray screen of death. The site has crashed. I see no point in calling them under these conditions, so I will hold off until they recover from the crash.


http://news.yahoo.com/healthcare-gov-suffers-outage-as-sebelius-testifies-that-it-s-never-crashed-181641521.html


Another day older.

If your bicycle had a broken chain I wonder how many times a day you would keep trying to ride it?

 

[Vanadium 50]

If he gets fined for not riding a bicycle, perhaps many times.

 

[Vic Sandler]

If your bicycle had a broken chain I wonder how many times a day you would keep trying to ride it?

If the shop was charging for repairs by the hour, I'd probably pop my head in once or twice a day to see how they were doing. Wouldn't you? Your bike is working well, so you'd probably stand there laughing at me every time I walked away disappointed.

 

[Vic Sandler]

It is unfortunate that the website failed the first day.

This is the 34th unfortunate day. On Monday, when I called the 1-800 number, they said I would get a call back from the Advanced Resolution Center in 2 days but that I should wait until Friday (4 days later) 9 pm, before I call the 1-800 number back to find out why I hadn't been called. When I called back on Friday to tell them that I hadn't been called by the ARC, they said it was supposed to be 2 to 5 days and I should give them until Saturday 9 pm. This Sunday morning I called them to tell them I hadn't been called and they said it's supposed to be 2 to 5 business days and I should wait until Monday 9pm. So, irrespective of problems with the website, there is a problem with the script given to the 1-800 representatives. Also, the Advanced Resolution Center doesn't operate on the weekends even though the deadline draws nearer with each day, weekends included.

"Whatever."

This is getting very old, Vic.

Another day older. Make that two days.

 

[Vic Sandler]

If your bicycle had a broken chain I wonder how many times a day you would keep trying to ride it?

Life imitates life. My car went into the garage yesterday. The power steering doesn't work, and the battery idiot light is on. Being as it went into the shop late Saturday, they won't be able to look at it until Monday morning. They don't have any loaner cars for me. I need the car by noon on Monday. Do you think I should call Monday morning to get a sense of what's happening, or should I wait for them to call me. This is the same quandary Obama faced on Oct. 1. Obama and Sebelius both waiting for the other to call.

Here's some light entertainment to watch while Obama works on his next signature achievement, the Affordable Transportation Act.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY-IlU

 

[edward]

Be sure to remind us that tomorrow is the 35 unfortunate day.

 

[Vic Sandler]

Be sure to remind us that tomorrow is the 35 unfortunate day.

After all this time, you've joined the nay-sayers who are rooting for the ACA to fail?

 

[SteamKing]

Obama is not dating Sebelius. She works for him. Obama is within his rights to call on his subordinates at any time day or night to find out what is happening with his 'signature' legislative achievement. That he did not do so and that his administration spokespuppets currently are busy manufacturing excuses indicates a serious lack of understanding of what the functions of the chief executive are. If you are large and in charge but you go around saying 'I didn't know about this or that problem', then you've picked the wrong people to delegate to and you are avoiding your responsibility to be current on what is going on.

OTOH, Sebelius knew that the successful launch of healthcare.gov was going to be one of the most important goals of the administration. If she didn't know about these problems, then that is her failing as the cabinet member who is now in charge of one-sixth of the US economy. It never bodes well when there is no accountability in any organization, government, military, or private, for whatever reason. If Sebelius felt she was not up to the task of running HHS, she should have resigned immediately. That Obama has not asked for her resignation shows a shocking lack of responsibility on his part.

 

[Vic Sandler]

If she didn't know about these problems, then that is her failing as the cabinet member who is now in charge of one-sixth of the US economy. It never bodes well when there is no accountability in any organization, government, military, or private, for whatever reason. If Sebelius felt she was not up to the task of running HHS, she should have resigned immediately. That Obama has not asked for her resignation shows a shocking lack of responsibility on his part.

My take is slightly different. As a result of a test done a few days before the rollout someone knew that the website couldn't handle more than a few hundred logins. The person who ran that test had an obligation to tell their superior and on up the chain of command. The first person to break that chain bears a great responsibility. That doesn't necessarily mean Sebelius herself, but that person can and should be identified and very publicly fired. Why haven't they been?

 

[SteamKing]

Sure, the minion should get the chop. But that's not the end of responsibility. People are put in charge of organizations to GET THINGS DONE. They can't simply wait for the bad news to get to them first, they must have procedures and people in place to keep them positively informed about critical developments in the functioning of their organizations.

It's like being a commander in charge of a military unit. His orders are to attack the enemy and take an objective. Now, if the attack fails because the soldiers ran away, the commander can't excuse the failure of the attack on crummy soldiers and expect to keep his job. The commander gets fired too, because it was his job in the first place to make sure his troops were properly equipped and motivated to succeed. And if the general who ordered the failed attack allows the unfortunate commander to keep his job, then the general has failed to do his duty as well.

The best run organizations don't depend on just the bottom-up flow of information: the leadership must take active steps to insure that the proper information about the functioning of the organization is reaching the top. Obviously, the larger the organization, the harder it is to do this, but it must be done, nevertheless. Sure, you can put anyone with a pulse in charge of something, but that will not guarantee good results.

Before the ACA, HHS was responsible for spending approx. one quarter of the federal budget. Next was the Social Security Administration, and third was the Dept. of Defense. With the enactment of the ACA, the office of the Secretary of the HHS by law is now in charge of making the day-to-day decisions required to administer the ACA, including making various interpretations of the law and formulating policy and regulations to carry out its provisions. The effects of the ACA are too broad and far reaching for the Secretary to simply wait passively for problems to manifest themselves.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There seem to be many cases where information that should be flowing to the President is not: the ATF scandal, the IRS scandal, the DoE Solyndra scandal, the NSA bugging our allies, and I probably missed some. This is worrysome, to be sure. As you point out, in most organizations, there would be a discussion that goes like this: "You didn't know, but you should have. And you should have told me. You're fired".

However, none of this is news. Many examples occurred during the President's 1st term, and he was reelected. So the electorate decided that despite the examples of bad management, President Obama should get a second term. That's democracy.

 

[Vic Sandler]

It is unfortunate that the website failed the first day.

Today is the 36th unfortunate day. Last night the 1-800 representative told me that I should call this morning and they would connect me directly with the Advanced Resolution Center. According to the representative I spoke with this morning the one last night "misspoke." She took down my particulars a second time, entered them into my log, and told me that she would put me on the ARC queue a second time. Now I am to wait 2 to 5 business days for them to call me. I think that the ARC should call me once, just to verify that I am on their queue, and perhaps a second time if they cannot fulfill their 5 day target so they can set a new target rather than push me onto the queue a second time. I also realize that kind of efficiency is rare in a government office.

From one point of view, the problems I am having contacting the ARC are not website problems. But there surely is a connection between the two. I think the large number of people who have problems with the website are swamping the ARC, whose job is to handle them.

I certainly have no bone to pick with the 1-800 call center representatives. They just take down information and read from their script. I am always courteous and matter of fact with them. The one I spoke to today sounded sad. Perhaps she has borne the brunt of too many other callers who she was unable to help and who were not as polite and soft spoken as I am. Because she could read the log of all my calls to the 1-800 number she knew how persistent and frustrated I am and she remarked on it and thanked me for my patience. The next time you shake your fist at some government functionary, remember that they have been all politeness to me, and me to them.

"Whatever."

This is getting very old, Vic.

Another day older.

 

[Vic Sandler]

While the individual components of the front room did undergo security testing, the system as a whole could not be tested because it was being worked on until late in the game. Tavenner testified that was the reason she had to issue a temporary certification. The decision was brought to her level because of the overall magnitude of the project, she said. She said she didn't voice the security concerns to her boss, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, or to the White House office that oversees federal agencies.

http://news.yahoo.com/health-websites-security-prompts-worries-080743026--politics.html
Why hasn't Tavenner been fired? I thought that was the whole idea of falling on your sword.

 

[SteamKing]

You only fall on your sword when you are ashamed that you haven't done your utmost to fulfill your duty. This method of atonement cannot work when people have no shame and/or cannot or will not be fired by their superiors.

 

[Vic Sandler]

Day 44. Over the past week there has been little to report. Every day I submit a "Forgot your password?" request. Every day I get an e-mail with a link to a web page where I can reset my password. Every day the link doesn't work. The difference is a slight change in the link format and content. The Advanced Resolution Center never contacted me although the self-imposed target flew by last night at 9 pm. I intended to call the 1-800 number again and tell them that the deadline passed for a second time. However, I don't see what the point of doing that would be. The ARC is broken and the 1-800 people have no way of contacting them except to put my name on the queue. Maybe my name is slowly percolating to the top and they will eventually contact me. Maybe if I call the 1-800 number they will reinsert my name into the queue at the bottom and remove it from near the top. Fear of such a ridiculous outcome prevents me from calling. Not that calling has done me any good in the past.

I have come to the conclusion that I will need to buy insurance on the open market and bypass the website thus foregoing my subsidy. I think that's what a lot of people will do. Especially if you have a serious illness that is currently covered by 'bad' insurance which pays the bills and you are being dropped. Such people will die if they don't find a way to solve their own problem and of course, they will find a way. It won't be the ACA. When it comes time to pay the $95, we'll just pay that too.

 

[SteamKing]

As long as you are covered on Jan. 1, 2014 and remain covered thru Dec. 31, 2014, you won't be assessed a fine (tax). It doesn't matter if you obtain coverage thru the healthcare.gov website or if you purchase on the open market (or what's left of it). All health policies sold after Jan. 1, 2014 must be ACA compliant, regardless of where they are purchased.

The only advantage of using healthcare.gov was to check if you qualified for a subsidy for purchasing insurance, and then get the subsidy by signing up thru the website. Don't worry, the same wonderful policies available on the website (with high premiums and high deductibles and questionable acceptance by doctors and hospitals) are available on the open market, because, by law, it is now ILLEGAL to offer you any better deals.

 

[Vic Sandler]

Day 45. This is right out of the pages of Kafka. On Oct. 28, I called the 1-800 number. They were not able to help me, but they did put me on the queue to get a call from the Advanced Resolution Center. They asked me if I wanted to be called on my cell phone and I said yes and gave them my cell phone number. They gave me a choice of times to be called and I chose 6 pm - 9 pm. They told me I should get a call in 2 days, but not to be surprised if it took 4 days. They told me that if the ARC called and I didn't answer, they would call me a second time and keep trying until they got a hold of me. Finally, they said that if I didn't get a call in 4 days, I should call back to the 1-800 number. After 4 days I called back and they said 5 days. After 5 days I called back and they said 5 business days. After 5 business days I called back and they said since it was after 9 pm, the ARC was closed. The next day I called and they told me that they could not contact the ARC directly. They entered me on the ARC queue a second time. The good news is that when they did that, they did not bump my name from the earlier enqueuement.

Yesterday was the deadline for the 5 business days after the second enqueuement. Today, when I returned home at 4 pm, there was a message on my home phone (they were supposed to call me on my cell phone after 6 pm). It said that they were calling me pursuant to my Oct. 28 enqueuement. They were sorry they missed me, but if my problem is not already resolved, I can call the 1-800 number. I have 30 days in which to do so. Even though the 1-800 agent had already told me that they can't contact the ARC, I called anyway. They took down my identification information so the ARC wouldn't have to and after a 5 minute conversation they connected me directly with the ARC. The ARC had me on elevator music for about 20 minutes. Then the ARC agent answered the phone and asked me for my identification information. Then I told him my issue. He said that he was aware they were having technical problems and there was nothing he could do for me. End of conversation.

 

[SteamKing]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to get back to you anytime soon. There are indications that the Nov. 30 deadline to get healthcare.gov functioning may pass without getting the bugs resolved.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...healthcare-gov-meet-its-november-30-deadline/

Even if the Software Fairy decides to bring Obamacare any early Christmas present, you'll be joined by many more potential healthcare policy shoppers who have received termination notices in the interim, at least a million of whom live in California.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013...-having-insurance-cancelled-due-to-obamacare/

 

[Vic Sandler]

My last post was incorrect, today is day 45. Now when they send me the 'forgot your password' e-mail, the link in it is clickable. It takes me to the same error message page, but there is a different error message this time. "Important: We can't process your request."

Today Obama said if you liked your insurance before it got canceled because I didn't happen to like it myself, and if the plan is still able to be offered, because some states have made such plans illegal and I can't control that, and if the evil company is still willing to offer the evil plan, and they inform you that they are evil and their plan is evil, and if they remind you that if the website worked, or the 1-800 number worked or if the navigators worked or if the paper applications worked, you would be able to replace their evil product with a good one that costs more because it's a better plan, then you can keep your insurance. Period.

 

[SteamKing]

For at least the next year or when Obama's promise expires, whichever comes first.

 

[Borg]

Todays' announcement of a one year delay finally shows that someone is finally starting to tell the president the truth about how long it will take to fix. Still, I expect that it will take longer than that. Keeping the politicians out of the development cycle will go a long way toward being ready within that year.

What concerns me more than anything is the data security issues which are beginning to emerge. The complete failure of the system to handle the number of users gives me no confidence that data security was handled any better. Up until now, the main security has been the inability of anyone (including hackers) to access the site. Fixing those issues will be harder to resolve since they now have to be integrated into an existing set of software systems that are spread across multiple government agencies that aren't effectively communicating with each other.

If the focus is only on speeding up system response time, there will eventually be people who have their identities stolen because of the ACA site. After all, what's to stop someone from creating an account for someone else right now - other than not being able to log in? You supply some personal info, an email address and you have an account. After that, you could effectively lock them out from being able to create their account (as people have done to themselves here) or even sign them up for an expensive policy that they can't afford.

 

[Locrian]

Today Obama said if you liked your insurance before it got canceled because I didn't happen to like it myself, and if the plan is still able to be offered, because some states have made such plans illegal and I can't control that, and if the evil company is still willing to offer the evil plan, and they inform you that they are evil and their plan is evil, and if they remind you that if the website worked, or the 1-800 number worked or if the navigators worked or if the paper applications worked, you would be able to replace their evil product with a good one that costs more because it's a better plan, then you can keep your insurance. Period.

A good synopsis, but let me add,

• If the evil company can calculate rates, build a filing, file with the DOI in their state, and the DOI approves it almost immediately. . .
• And there's the not-so-small issue of getting plans that are closed reopened internally, benefits adjusted for the new year, managing which members are staying, and ensuring benefits are paid properly and on time.

And to do all this, the evil companies have 47 days. Thankfully, they aren't filled with the childish, grotesquely incompetent losers who are responsible for healthcare.gov, and so they may have a shot.

This move Obama made today was the single most disappointing thing that has happened with respect to the ACA implementation, and that says a lot.

It was a massive abdication of responsibility.

 

[Office_Shredder]

After that, you could effectively lock them out from being able to create their account (as people have done to themselves here) or even sign them up for an expensive policy that they can't afford.

How exactly do you lock someone out from making an account? I just tried making a couple accounts all it required was a different username and email address. I then had to verify my identity by either giving my social security number or answering questions which look like they go through the same system that credit score agencies use to verify identity, so your identity is at no more risk than someone trying to steal it through them it seems.

 

[SteamKing]

The insurance commissioners in Washington state and Arkansas have already announced they will not approve extending coverage on plans where cancellation notices have already gone out.

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/11/14/befuddled-central-planner/

Lest anybody get any ideas, both commissioners are reportedly Democrats.

 

[Vic Sandler]

This move Obama made today was the single most disappointing thing that has happened with respect to the ACA implementation, and that says a lot.

The reason for implementing this dangerous tactic is purely political. He promised we could keep our plans and so Congress, especially the Republican side, wants to hold his feet to the fire on that promise regardless of the disastrous effect it will have on the ACA. I fear it will exacerbate the adverse selection problem to the point that the ACA fails utterly.

 

[Vic Sandler]

How exactly do you lock someone out from making an account? I just tried making a couple accounts all it required was a different username and email address. I then had to verify my identity by either giving my social security number or answering questions which look like they go through the same system that credit score agencies use to verify identity, so your identity is at no more risk than someone trying to steal it through them it seems.

I had assumed that once I created an account with my SS#, I would NOT be able to create a second one with the same SS#. Was I wrong? What kind of screwy db table designer doesn't make SS# a unique field?

edit
Ha. I tried a new username with the old e-mail address. It created a new account for me, but I can't log into it either. It fails nine ways till Sunday long before ever asking for my SS#.

Thanks for this little bit of entertainment. I knew that I wasn't the only one having problems, but I was unaware of how bad it was for people that have a login and password. I will play with this a little every day and report on my adventures.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I had assumed that once I created an account with my SS#, I would NOT be able to create a second one with the same SS#. Was I wrong? What kind of screwy db table designer doesn't make SS# a unique field?

I didn't put in my SS# I answered the identity questions so maybe that's the difference.

 

[SteamKing]

The reason for implementing this dangerous tactic is purely political. He promised we could keep our plans and so Congress, especially the Republican side, wants to hold his feet to the fire on that promise regardless of the disastrous effect it will have on the ACA. I fear it will exacerbate the adverse selection problem to the point that the ACA fails utterly.

Support for passing the ACA in the first place was garnered, in part, based on Obama's assurances that people could keep their doctors and their health plans if they liked them. Now, when it has become obvious that these assurances were never intended to be kept, especially after the law was passed and implementing regulations were drafted, the notion that it is somehow unseemly to hold the president to his word is quite astounding. Given all the mishaps, back-tracks, and clap-trap associated with this misbegotten enterprise, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the ACA was designed to fail all along, and to use that failure to move to a single payer health care system.

 

[Vic Sandler]

the notion that it is somehow unseemly to hold the president to his word is quite astounding.

I didn't say that it was unseemly to hold him to his word. What I meant was that he is keeping a promise (something politicians rarely do) at the expense of killing his own law slowly (something politicians rarely do). He could search for solutions that would work, but has decided instead to bow to political pressure to do the wrong thing. He shouldn't have said it. I get that. But he also shouldn't keep his word this time.

 

[SteamKing]

He's bowing to political pressure because some of the Democrats in the Senate are up for re-election next year and they are feeling the heat from their constituents. Anything Obama can do to quell any incipient revolt by congressional democrats goes a long way to defuse a looming electoral disaster for these unfortunates.

The recent government shutdown occurred because the Senate didn't want to approve any modifications to ACA which were added to the funding bills coming from the House. Well, that battle may have temporarily deferred the situation until it became clear that it would be unlikely that the exchanges would be functional in time to allow coverage to be obtained by a significant number of Americans before Jan. 1, 2014.

What is the greater calamity here? That Obama might have to swallow his pride and admit that the ACA cannot be administered fairly at present and might have to be delayed or modified further, or that the lives of millions of Americans are thrown into turmoil and uncertainty because the government broke the health insurance industry? Remember, we are seeing the adverse effects of the ACA playing out in the individual health insurance market here recently; more subtly and less noticeably, similar adverse effects are at work on employer-furnished health plans, and the full import of these effects won't be known for several years at least.

 

[Borg]

How exactly do you lock someone out from making an account? I just tried making a couple accounts all it required was a different username and email address. I then had to verify my identity by either giving my social security number or answering questions which look like they go through the same system that credit score agencies use to verify identity, so your identity is at no more risk than someone trying to steal it through them it seems.

I haven't tried to enter any data into the system but based my comment on what Vic has been documenting.

I had assumed that once I created an account with my SS#, I would NOT be able to create a second one with the same SS#. Was I wrong? What kind of screwy db table designer doesn't make SS# a unique field?

edit
Ha. I tried a new username with the old e-mail address. It created a new account for me, but I can't log into it either. It fails nine ways till Sunday long before ever asking for my SS#.

Thanks for this little bit of entertainment. I knew that I wasn't the only one having problems, but I was unaware of how bad it was for people that have a login and password. I will play with this a little every day and report on my adventures.

I didn't put in my SS# I answered the identity questions so maybe that's the difference.

These two comments are part of the problem. Vic was locking himself out and you were able to create multiple accounts. What's the proper way to handle account creation and the inevitable problems that people have with lost accounts, misunderstanding of how to apply and fraud?

I've been working with large websites for the last 10+ years. I can make some good guesses about the code and its management based on the user experience, the way that failures occur and what the system does during a failure. I'm sure that what Vic is seeing and what is coming out in the news is only the tip of the iceberg. I am especially horrified by the restrictions that were placed on communicating with other agencies.

Another thing that I've been watching is Jeffery Zients. Shortly after he was tasked to help fix the site's problems, he stated that "By the end of November, HealthCare.gov will work smoothly for the vast majority of users". He has been working on it for three short weeks, made no public statements during that time and suddenly the president announces a one year delay. I'm guessing that Zients' found out just how bad it was implemented and informed the president that it would take much longer to fix.

 

[russ_watters]

By the end of November, HealthCare.gov will work smoothly for the vast majority of users". He has been working on it for three short weeks, made no public statements during that time and suddenly the president announces a one year delay. I'm guessing that Zients' found out just how bad it was implemented and informed the president that it would take much longer to fix.

What am I missing here? I though the one-year delay was just on the requirements for private policies that were resulting in cancellations? I thought that had nothing to do with the website?

 

[Borg]

What am I missing here? I though the one-year delay was just on the requirements for private policies that were resulting in cancellations? I thought that had nothing to do with the website?

Ah, you're right. I didn't read closely enough. I'll have to wait for a future press conference to announce that delay.

In any case, I still think that the problems are much deeper than anyone is letting on.

 

[Vic Sandler]

Day 46. This morning I tried again. Office_shredder said to change both the username and the e-maill address. Last night I only changed the username. This morning I changed both the username and the e-mail address. It made no difference in the behavior. I get an e-mail telling me the account was created. The e-mail has a link that takes me to a page where I can log in with the username and password that I provided. When I do, it takes me to the following:

Terms & Conditions

So that HealthCare.gov remains accurate and available to you and all other visitors, we monitor network traffic to identify unauthorized attempts to upload or change information or otherwise cause damage to the web service. Use of this system constitutes consent to such monitoring and auditing. Unauthorized attempts to upload information and/or change information on this website are strictly prohibited and are subject to prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and Title 18 U.S.C. Sec.1001 and 1030.

To continue, you must accept the terms and conditions. If you decline, your login will automatically be cancelled.

Below this there are two buttons one says "Decline", the other says "I Accept". I have been meditating on why there is a difference in syntax between these two choices when my time would be better spent wondering why they are threatening me with prosecution so early in the game. Clicking the "I Accept" button has no discernible effect. After clicking it, I logged out and back in, but it took me to the same Decline/I Accept page.

One possibility is the db table that holds login information is hosed. That's why I can't reset my password, that's why the decline/accept page doesn't work. Any page that writes to or updates any field in that table is subject to failure. Maybe reads too.
Another possibility is that the connection to the db is not working. Maybe it can't handle more than small number of connections at the same time.
Yet another possibility is that several tables are intertwined in such a way that a lock on a record in one table prevents the smooth operation of records in other tables. My money is on this one.

 

[Borg]

Vic, it's hard to say what the databases look like in your case. I think that the more ways that you try, the more screwed up your account will become. Remember that there are multiple databases spread across 10 or more government agencies and private companies. Each of them likely has their own lockout triggers which probably don't have a central unlocking mechanism.

I know that when I check my credit reports each year, the credit bureaus will lock the account permanently if I screw up any of the questions. I then have to request a password be sent to my home so that I can log in. I wonder what happens on the ACA when this happens? Does a failure through the API result in the same kind of lock in the credit bureau database as a failure through their website? If so, how does your info get unlocked and would the ACA site even notify you that it happened? And this is just one of the many databases that the system interacts with.

 

[russ_watters]

Ah, you're right. I didn't read closely enough. I'll have to wait for a future press conference to announce that delay.

In any case, I still think that the problems are much deeper than anyone is letting on.

No prob. I do have a different take on that last bit though: I'd just say the problems are worse than Obama is acknowledging. That shouldn't be surprising; that is just how politicians are. What I don't get is why they are like that. Obama must know that he's making things worse for himself by letting this slow-motion train wreck play out. Why hasn't he pulled down the website to get it out of the media while it is being fixed? Does he need Vic to troubleshoot the website for him?

 

[Locrian]

What am I missing here? I though the one-year delay was just on the requirements for private policies that were resulting in cancellations? I thought that had nothing to do with the website?

The one year delay for canceled policies is definitely related to the exchange, in that the exchange was supposed to be how those people got new policies. If someone thought the exchange could be fixed in the next week or two, allowing the reinstatement of non-ACA compliant plans wouldn't have been allowed.

To put it another way, the administration has known for two years those plans were closing. That was okay with them because they thought those people could get another policy, and thought they would like it. The broken exchange broke that plan.

 

[Borg]

No prob. I do have a different take on that last bit though: I'd just say the problems are worse than Obama is acknowledging. That shouldn't be surprising; that is just how politicians are. What I don't get is why they are like that. Obama must know that he's making things worse for himself by letting this slow-motion train wreck play out. Why hasn't he pulled down the website to get it out of the media while it is being fixed? Does he need Vic to troubleshoot the website for him?

Lol on that. Seriously though I think that most of the failure has occurred at a much lower level and hasn't been filtering up through the chain of command as it should have. Would Obama have handled it any differently? Probably not. With politicians it always seems to come down to a giant game of CYA.

One case in point for why I think problems are occurring at a lower level is the last minute change that the government requested that all users would have to create accounts and log in before they could see their health options. The system wasn't originally designed to work that way and it was already known that there were issues with the site breaking down with too many logged in users. Somebody had a duty to inform the government that their request couldn't be accommodated in such a short time frame and then it would be the government's responsibility to accept that. Instead, a bone-headed, last minute change to the website was implemented that caused the entire system to function even worse.

I don't know if it was the contractor or the government that failed to do their part in this case but I've seen it happen both ways. Once that occurs, the only thing that is usually heard at the higher levels is that all is well. The fact that it seems to have occurred regularly points to a systemic problem in the way that the contract was handled.

 

[edward]

Day 46. This morning I tried again. Office_shredder said to change both the username and the e-maill address. Last night I only changed the username. This morning I changed both the username and the e-mail address. It made no difference in the behavior. I get an e-mail telling me the account was created. The e-mail has a link that takes me to a page where I can log in with the username and password that I provided. When I do, it takes me to the following:


Below this there are two buttons one says "Decline", the other says "I Accept". I have been meditating on why there is a difference in syntax between these two choices when my time would be better spent wondering why they are threatening me with prosecution so early in the game. Clicking the "I Accept" button has no discernible effect. After clicking it, I logged out and back in, but it took me to the same Decline/I Accept page.

One possibility is the db table that holds login information is hosed. That's why I can't reset my password, that's why the decline/accept page doesn't work. Any page that writes to or updates any field in that table is subject to failure. Maybe reads too.
Another possibility is that the connection to the db is not working. Maybe it can't handle more than small number of connections at the same time.
Yet another possibility is that several tables are intertwined in such a way that a lock on a record in one table prevents the smooth operation of records in other tables. My money is on this one.

If you try to bounce in and out of Pay Pal , changing user names and passwords, you only get three tries, then they block you out entirely until you fax proof of your identification.

They do so because it has the appearance of fraud, or a fraudulent attempt by someone to gain access to your account. At least that part of the ACA website is apparently working.

You shot yourself in the foot by repeatedly trying to gain entry when you knew the website was not working. So now I am wondering how many other people are doing the same thing?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Vic, with regards to the Accept/Decline button, that button did not work for me in google chrome. I had to switch to Internet Explorer to get it to work - this seems to be at least partially a chrome issue for me, as in the past month there have been four or five different websites that I've encountered where I have trouble clicking on things in chrome and have to switch to another browser.

 

[Vic Sandler]

If you try to bounce in and out of Pay Pal , changing user names and passwords, you only get three tries, then they block you out entirely until you fax proof of your identification.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Surely there are legitimate reasons why a person would have more than three Pay Pal accounts, each with a different user name and password. Anyway, I used a different username, password and e-mail. These and my first and last names are the only five pieces of information they had to go on. From that information, how were they able to ascertain that I already had a different account?

They do so because it has the appearance of fraud, or a fraudulent attempt by someone to gain access to your account. At least that part of the ACA website is apparently working.

You don't seem to grasp the mind-numbing incompetence of the website creators. If they were trying to block me out entirely, I'd have gotten my insurance by now.

You shot yourself in the foot by repeatedly trying to gain entry when you knew the website was not working.

Don't blame me, I did nothing wrong. The website is working. 27000 people got through. By what means was I to know that I would not be number 27001?

 

[Vic Sandler]

Vic, with regards to the Accept/Decline button, that button did not work for me in google chrome. I had to switch to Internet Explorer to get it to work - this seems to be at least partially a chrome issue for me, as in the past month there have been four or five different websites that I've encountered where I have trouble clicking on things in chrome and have to switch to another browser.

Actually, I was using Firefox. However, I took your advice and used IE. I got past the Accept/Decline page and a few pages further. With my heart in my mouth, I told them my SS# even though that should have triggered a security alarm. It did not. However, a few pages more it clammed up at the Privacy Policy page. It has a button labeled "Save & Continue". Clicking that button has no visible effect and I am at a standstill. Later, I will try getting past that point using other browsers.

A button that only works on some browsers is yet another reason to question whether the money for this website was well spent. There are differences between browsers and even between different versions of the same browser. The technology to make a web page that runs on all of them exists and is straightforward to implement. But I don't think that technology is necessary for a button.

 

[Vic Sandler]

I went to the site and entered my username. Then I entered the wrong password. Of course, I did not get in. It redrew the login page blanking out the username and password fields. I reentered my username and used a different wrong password. I did this 5 times with different wrong passwords, none of them similar to the correct one nor to each other. It never revoked permission for me to try again. The 6th time, I entered the correct password and got in. Does Pay Pal work like that too?