A long and detailed assessment of the present technical problems of the Obamacare exchange website.

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

A long and detailed assessment of the present technical problems of the Obamacare exchange website.

It is worth the long read. The author appears to have asked the right questions of a lot of the right people, and appears to have approached the issue honestly. Key quote:

In a couple of ways, then, the severe user-interface problems at the front end of the federal exchange has actually had some advantages from CMS’s point of view, because by keeping enrollment volume low it has kept some other huge problems from becoming instantly uncontrollable.

But that low volume is mostly a very bad thing for Obamacare, of course, since the viability of the exchanges depends on a certain size and demographic mix which cannot be attained unless these problems are resolved very quickly. I couldn’t get enrollment numbers from any of the people I spoke with, but I was told that the uptake model that HHS built (using CBO projections) to predict how the exchanges would work made a low-end estimate that just under half a million people would enroll nationwide by October 31st, and that enrollment would then accelerate dramatically between November 15 and December 30th. The October 31 target, which was thought to be modest, now looks essentially impossible to reach, but their bigger worry is that period in November and December.

If the problems now plaguing the system are not resolved by mid-November and the flow of enrollments at that point looks like it does now, the prospects for the first year of the exchanges will be in very grave jeopardy.

As I said, read the whole thing. Whether you support or oppose Obamacare, this article appears to give an honest appraisal of the present situation, which is not good.



  • If memory serves, Obamacare was supposed to provide some 30 million uninsured Americans with health insurance. That was the big selling point. The law demands that most everyone have coverage by 1 January, 2014. It appears increasingly unlikely that that goal is going to be anywhere near fulfilled.

    Question: What is the point?

    This is such BS on a massive scale that it’s hard to know where to start. Tens of millions of people (including this blog) pointed out the problems, but were shouted down by the ‘true believers’.

    If someone voted Democrat, they own the problem.

  • joe

    Biggest scam in American history!

  • Ron Simmons

    But that is precisely the point … When the exchanges fail, only the federal government (aka single payer) will be able to provide health care. I doubt the ACA was designed to fail immediately, but it becomes the happy (to its designers) consequence.

  • As a foreigner, this chart appears incredibly bizarre to me.


    Why are employers “responsible” for the health care of their employees?

    Best answer I’ve ever heard: historical accident of the tax code.

  • Edward

    “Why are employers ‘responsible’ for the health care of their employees?”

    There has long been a call for all employers to provide health care insurance for their employees.

    Well, you see, in the developing “nannystate” of the US, our ruling class have projected their own inadequacies onto We the People, believing that we are too stupid/immature/childlike/whatever to take care of ourselves. After all, look at all the women who get pregnant out of wedlock and become wards of the state (federal or state governments). They clearly were not mature enough as teenagers to be left on their own, and their parents were not adequate at keeping them from getting pregnant. Our ruling class thinks, therefore, that no American can care for himself, much less his family.

    Since — the ruling class and other liberals think — employers have infinite amounts of money (another projection: because the federal government can print — and is printing — huge sums of money, employers should have bottomless pockets full of money, too) they can obviously afford and should be required to provide for expensive health care insurance.

    This, of course fails to cover the unemployed (and other wards of the state), so for our own good, the rest of the overbearing Patient “Protection” and “Affordable” “Care” Act was created and coerced upon us, despite no poll of the public showed that it was wanted by a majority of the public (polls have consistently shown that more people didn’t want it than wanted it, and now they are showing that a majority don’t want it at all). It is all for the greater good.

    If I sound facetious or sarcastic, I am not. This is actually how liberals, whom I live among, think.

    A little history:
    Employer-paid health insurance began during The Great Depression, after President Franklin Roosevelt froze wages. In order for employers to entice people to work for them, they started offering benefits above monetary compensation (otherwise, why work when the government will pay you not to?). Healthcare insurance was one benefit that an aircraft manufacturer offered, and it worked so well that other companies followed. Thus, the momentum of such benefits remained ever since, to the point where the “benefits package” is a major consideration when choosing between job offers.

    This is how a temporary government interference with business can become a major problem for decades (or perhaps centuries). (E. g. Paris still washes its streets every night, despite a complete lack of horse poop.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *