November 15th, 2013
03:40 PM ET
8 months ago

Engineers: HealthCare.gov better, but initial problems persist

Washington (CNN) - The front end of HealthCare.gov is working better, but many problems identified in the days after its launch persist, according to a team of Web engineers.

Media Temple is a private web-hosting company that analyzed the public-facing side of the site days after its disastrous October 1 launch, and again this week for CNN.

FULL STORY

Filed under: Health care • Obamacare
soundoff (34 Responses)
  1. Sniffit

    "President Obama does not have the authority to unilaterally change a law. So a Republican submits a law to legally chang the ACA in the exact way that the President wants to do and the majority of his own party vote no in the House, they intend to try to vote it down in the Senate, and if that fails President Obama intends to veto his own plan. If the President meant what he said, why are Democrats trying to prevent it from being enacted?"

    Why? Because your premise that it's exactly the same is 100% incorrect. It actually contains significant substantive differences that would cause all sorts of detrimental effects for the ACA's implementation, not least of which is that it would completely undermine one of the mechanisms the ACA uses to control costs: letting bunk non-insurance plans die out eventually and preventing them from existing anymore after that point. If that is undermined, it will cause premiums to be higher, which is the result the GOP/Teatrolls want, because they want to be able to turn around and say "see...premiums are higher than expected...we told you so." It's more of the GOP/Teatrolls breaking gov't to "prove" it's broken.

    November 15, 2013 05:00 pm at 5:00 pm |
  2. tom l

    "Their practices of excluding the most sick,"

    That's some solid economic sense you make there, Sniffit. Yeah, let's tell a private company that they must make a contract with someone that they know they will lose money on. That makes sense.

    There was a much easier way to cover people with pre-existing conditions that didn't have to impede on every other American but you want your little Trojan horse so you can get to what you feel is the promised land...single payer. Lord help us if that happens in this country.

    November 15, 2013 05:03 pm at 5:03 pm |
  3. tom l

    I think the dems should go with the slogan: "Thank goodness for us! We know what you need, will call you an idiot for not realizing the junk you buy so we have to come in and save you! We're the democrats!"

    November 15, 2013 05:05 pm at 5:05 pm |
  4. tom l

    @Sniffit

    It contains significant substantive differences that cannot be glossed over unless you're being dishonest and deliberately trying to hide them

    Gosh does that sound like "if you like your plan, you can keep it. Period."

    November 15, 2013 05:08 pm at 5:08 pm |
  5. Dominican mama 4 Obama

    To bad we could not inpeach Obama and take all his beifits
    -------------------------------------------------
    You gotta be able to spell it before you can do it babe.
    Next!

    November 15, 2013 05:16 pm at 5:16 pm |
  6. Data Driven

    I said to Just,

    "Boy, this whole "we're too dumb to know what's best for us" meme has really taken off with you guys, hasn't it? I've been reading that here from you, Tom L., and some others all week long."

    Tom L. says:

    "I think the dems should go with the slogan: "Thank goodness for us! We know what you need, will call you an idiot for not realizing the junk you buy so we have to come in and save you! We're the democrats!"

    QED. I win the Internet!

    November 15, 2013 05:21 pm at 5:21 pm |
  7. Sniffit

    "It contains significant substantive differences that cannot be glossed over unless you're being dishonest and deliberately trying to hide them

    Gosh does that sound like "if you like your plan, you can keep it. Period.""

    How so? It's not the same as what Obama is doing administratively. That cannot be denied. And the differences are significant and substantive because they would result in severely undermining the cost control mechanisms in the ACA. That also cannot be denied. You're just flailing and making a snarky comment because you have no substantive answer to the points I've made. And pretending I didn't make one is not a response.

    November 15, 2013 05:30 pm at 5:30 pm |
  8. Sniffit

    "That's some solid economic sense you make there, Sniffit. Yeah, let's tell a private company that they must make a contract with someone that they know they will lose money on. That makes sense."

    You clearly haven't the background in insurance to have this argument. The entire point and premise of insurance is spreading the risk. Trying to narrow the focus onto each individual customer and whether that one particular customer is profitable to have goes against the very purpose of insurance. Trying to turn every single customer into a profit source and to have only customers who are capable of being turned into profit sources IS WHY THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY IS BROKEN AND CAUSING THE PROBLEMS IT IS CAUSING WITH OUR HEALTH CARE COSTS AND INDUSTRY.

    November 15, 2013 05:34 pm at 5:34 pm |
  9. Sniffit

    "There was a much easier way to cover people with pre-existing conditions that didn't have to impede on every other American "

    Aaaw, right after attempting to blame us for demagoguery, you engaged in it. Nice hyperbole. 3% of Americans who fall into the 'clear loser" category of losing their plan and having to pay more to insure themselves is not "every other American."

    November 15, 2013 05:36 pm at 5:36 pm |
1 2