Government says Obamacare site improved, but problems continue


The White House said yesterday that it has achieved its target of improving the HealthCare.gov Web site so that it works "smoothly for the vast majority of users."

Officially, the portal is now operating over 90% of the time vs 40% at some points in October, the loading time is much faster, the error rate has dropped to 0.75% from 6%, and the site can handle 50,000 users at the same time.

However, the latter claim hasn't been tested in the real world, and some in the government reportedly aren't certain the site will hold up.

The back-end systems continue to be a problem, with one result being that while some consumers believe they've bought coverage from insurers, the latter don't have any records of the transactions. One detail that the government didn't provide was how many people are completing all the enrollment steps.

The next deadline is the middle of this month, by which time consumers need to have signed up for coverage that starts on January 1.

More on Obamacare.

Relevant company tickers: AET, HNT, HUM, UNH, WLP, MOH.

ETFs: XLV, XHE, VHT, FXH, IHF, IHI, IYH, PTH, RYH, PSCH, RXL, RXD, XHS.

From other sites
Comments (2)
  • rambler1
    , contributor
    Comments (1019) | Send Message
     
    The way it's going nobody who didn't have insurance will just pay the fine. The only ones who might get screwed are people who's insurance was cancelled & have no choice. Although as one of those people I might just go without insurance for the 1st time in my life.
    2 Dec 2013, 07:33 AM Reply Like
  • DWD Investing
    , contributor
    Comments (13201) | Send Message
     
    If you go to the ACA calculator, you find two things immediately:

     

    (1) The cost is based on GROSS income.
    (2) The cost is prohibitive for anyone making over 55K a year.

     

    (1) So, if you own your own business, and you make 100K a year, but take home only 30K, which is pretty standard for many businesses, you end up paying the full price and get no
    government subsidy.

     

    (2) The cost of the bronze or silver plan average for a single male 52 years old is 500USD per month. That's almost an entire house payment per month extra. At the same time, you make only 30K a year.

     

    Conclusion, for the above people, the ACA is completely and incontrovertibly unaffordable.

     

    The good thing is that the only way you pay a fine is if you put more money into your taxes at the end of the year than you owe. The IRS can tap that extra money to pay the non-insured fine. If you don't show that the IRS owes you end of the year money, they cannot penalize you.

     

    The plan is great for anyone making less than 15K a year or in poverty. Then you get real universal care. You don't pay anything. Well, you still need to pay deductibles, which if you are in poverty, you can't. So what we have currently is exactly the same thing we had before--people working and making 50K a year can't afford health care, and poor people who already got Medicaid have healthcare like they always did, except now they have deductibles they can't pay either.

     

    The difference? Now poor people who were covered under Medicare/Medicaid have a government subsidy that pays insurance companies instead of state and federal health care systems.

     

    Good job Mr. President. Your net effect on health care is an increase in tax dollars for the same coverage we already had.

     

    Bottom Line? Backup the truck to insurance companies and buy all you can. They not only have their hand in the cookie jar, they own it.
    2 Dec 2013, 03:23 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs