The editors of the Chicago Tribune, long skeptical about the PPACA, note:
The computer problems may be fixed in weeks or months — although as the nation learns more about the extent of those computer problems, there's far less confidence that a fix will come soon ... or ever. But the problems with Obamacare go much deeper than a few million lines of faulty code and a sign-up system that swallows enrollee applications in a single electronic gulp. The bugs aren't just in the software. They're in the law itself. Consumers are finally seeing insurance rates and plans. In many cases, insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays are rising. Illinois officials said premiums here would be lower than expected. But a Tribune analysis of 22 of the lowest-priced plans showed that those plans required huge annual deductibles of more than $4,000 for an individual — and $8,000 for family coverage. Lower premiums also come with a troubling tradeoff: access to a narrower networks of hospitals and doctors. If people aren't careful in choosing coverage, they may be shocked to find they have to pay much more for out-of-network care to go to their preferred doctor or hospital. Individuals who already have coverage are learning they can't keep it after Jan. 1. They must choose a new health plan, which may come at considerably higher cost than they're paying now.
I suspect that’s the problem that the software developers had to confront. A computer program is a statement of logic and it’s darned hard to write a program that works well when the underlying reality it’s modeling is itself illogical. When the specifications keep changing, as was apparently the case, it’s that much harder.
In due course we’ll see whether the PPACA actually solves the problem it was intended to solve: enabling more people to have health insurance.
I believe a wise, prescient progressive intellectual stated that: “we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it”
Heck of a job there Nancy! Bravo.
I think this lawsuit, Halbig v. Sebelius, is a big issue/unknown as well. If the Administrations loses then I’m not sure what happens to the countless people who will have bought insurance on the federal exchange in reliance upon the availability of the subsidies. Its my understanding that as initially written the subsidies were in the form of tax credits to be claimed on the following year’s tax return. Then by rulemaking, participants were allowed to get premium reductions at the time of payment subject to income verification both at enrollment and on the subsequent year’s tax returns. Unless there is some law that allows the taxpayer to rely on IRS rules later determined to be invalid, there could be a huge tax liability in the future if the lawsuit is lost.
The two ironies here: (1) Most of the computer problems on the federal exchange appear to stem from these issues of the subsidies and income verification. (2) To uphold its interpretation of the ACA, the administration will have to argue that the ACA was not written very well and there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the subsidy-provisions, which entitles the executive to select one.
And if you’re a young person who makes the mistake of enrolling in Obamacare, then go off to backpack through Europe for 300 days, you will be paying dearly for the prospect of NO medical care whatsoever during your travels.