• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Healthcare Dot Gov

From Chris Matthews with a chill up his leg to Obamphones to Fast & Furious to Benghazi to Barakula having to apologize to ten million of his subjects... we’re gettin’ there!
 
I believe I read somewhere that the website dedicated to obamacare was only designed to support 50000 users simultaneously and the cost to make this site was around 92 million I believe.

Knowing that this site is the main site for the healthcare reform that is something that will affect nearly all of its citizens you would think that they would plan for more than 50000 maximum supported users especially at that price tag.

I am being forced to change my healthcare that is provided by my job. I don't have to do much with it, I just have to view the new policies provided and pick which one I want to go with and sign my name.. only thing is, these new policies will cost me more than what I pay now to meet the requirements of this useless reform...

Who still thinks this is a good idea? Who still thinks this is a good investment of government time and money? Who still thinks its alright to fine'tax' someone just because they don't want to have health care, or if they can't afford it even with the new system...
 
SiempreTuna said:
As an IT pro for over 30 years, a major new system rollout having issues is the expectation, not the exception. And the fact that so many people have been doing everything they could to turn it into a disaster can't have helped ;)
Click to expand...

As an IT professional of over 20 years, sometimes a failure is just incompetence. While issues are the expectation, system wide failure is not. This is a government funded endeavor and seemingly, this administration's single minded focus. I'd half expect a mom and pop shop using WIX, to build a better website than this. ;) As for "so many people have been doing everything they could to turn it into a disaster", that is your political views clouding a realistic analysis.

Opponents of the ACA had nothing to do with website design or performance. The site is a disaster because the site is a disaster. If you're told you can keep your plan and you can't keep your plan, it's a lie. And, if you are shopping for something and "Item A" costs 2 to 3 times as much as "Item B" while doing the same thing, you are not going to choose "Item A".

If something is bad, it is not the fault of the people who point it out, it's just bad.
 
As an IT professional for less than 5 years, I would plan on expecting more than 50000 users to be using the national website at the same time in the first few months after launch.. 5 years from now? Sure bump the number down.
 
Personally I think it's ridiculous that there are dissent levels of cover in the first place, everyone should have access to the same level regardless of ability to pay, arrange cover(ie homeless/no internet, phone etc) our nhs is affordable because it is paid out of taxes and everyone gets a certain level of cover(a high level at that!) And I'm pretty certain, as a whole, British people pay less for the nhs cover than the average American pays for their insurance!
 
I have a question, sntaylor- how are your government's budget books? If I recall, its over -100 billion pounds/year or so.

That's not very affordable, though you could argue that that is the entire government expenditure. NHS is, however, a part of it at around 108 billion pounds/year.
 
dibblebill said:
I have a question, sntaylor- how are your government's budget books? If I recall, its over -100 billion pounds/year or so.

That's not very affordable, though you could argue that that is the entire government expenditure. NHS is, however, a part of it at around 108 billion pounds/year.
Click to expand...

As I'm almost certain I have pointed out to you before, the UK spends about half as much on health per capita as the US does, and gets better results.

The UK deficit is similar to the US and Irish ones, it has little to do with healthcare spending as that is not particularly high in a global context, and is positively penny-pinching compared to yours.
 
ElasticNinja said:
As I'm almost certain I have pointed out to you before, the UK spends about half as much on health per capita as the US does, and gets better results.

The UK deficit is similar to the US and Irish ones, it has little to do with healthcare spending as that is not particularly high in a global context, and is positively penny-pinching compared to yours.
Click to expand...

And I do not disagree with those facts- you will not see me defend US deficit (or our government, either). I am merely pointing out that yours, nor ours, nor most countries, have anything near a sustainable budget, and that it won't be long before government spending comes and bites ALL of us in the arse. Greece already had some fun with that, give it a few years and it may be the US next. I'll also never deny that your healthcare system is better than ours as it exists, and better than the ACA's setup. Our healthcare is a mess- a lot of it can be blamed/laid at the feet of insurance companies (not just health- hospital, malpractice, etc), and the government as well (laws protecting Big Pharma, for example).

I'm just pointing out that you, us, and a LOT of other countries are all on a spending train to nowhere good (what makes me laugh is the number of people over here who cry foul on US Government spendings and then pick at programs that are <1% of the federal budget)
 
dibblebill said:
And I do not disagree with those facts- you will not see me defend US deficit (or our government, either). I am merely pointing out that yours, nor ours, nor most countries, have anything near a sustainable budget, and that it won't be long before government spending comes and bites ALL of us in the arse. Greece already had some fun with that, give it a few years and it may be the US next. I'll also never deny that your healthcare system is better than ours as it exists, and better than the ACA's setup. Our healthcare is a mess- a lot of it can be blamed/laid at the feet of insurance companies (not just health- hospital, malpractice, etc), and the government as well (laws protecting Big Pharma, for example).

I'm just pointing out that you, us, and a LOT of other countries are all on a spending train to nowhere good (what makes me laugh is the number of people over here who cry foul on US Government spendings and then pick at programs that are <1% of the federal budget)
Click to expand...


Well yeah sure, you can't keep on running a large deficit. Efficiencies have to be made. The thing is, however, that the state supervising and regulating healthcare is more efficient. Becuase healthcare costs are lower here, there is more scope for taxation and such, whereas in the US people already have higher outlays due to exorbitant health costs.

You can't really argue against universal healthcare provision from that perspective, it's more efficient this way. However charging for extras? Making patients pay nominal charges for some things? Well while I wouldn't like that, within a universal system these are perhaps ways to reduce public spending. But that is not what is what is being discussed here.
 
Rather than answer the question asked of me, I'll just add to elastic ninjas replies....

A key thing which makes ours a helluva lot cheaperis less people involved trying to make a quick buck. For your model insurance companies are in the middle trying to make a profit on top of paying out for claims, then the hospitals are run more so as businesses and are often(I am aware it's not all, and most of my knowledge of American hospitals are from here and tv shows!) Also trying to make a profit, or at least, are wary of losing any money.

Whilst over here, hospitals are funded by the government, they are the middle man like your insurance companies, and they are at least meant to work for us, not make a profit for individuals(though Tory privatisation is an issue here....)

Neither system is perfect, and sadly never will be even close to that. However the nhs is an institution I'm immensely proud to fund through taxes regardless of how often or little I require to use it, anyone in this forum could come here on holiday and use our hospitals with no charge, the way it should be! No extra worries about wether insurance cover will pay for this or that or any extras like medication. We can even get paracetamol prescribed if required!

Budgets etc are also a different subject completely and personally I'd say that much of those issues are due to privatisation...such as the royal mail being sold off recently when it was starting to make a profit, I mean wtf, take that profit and start paying off the deficit etc, duh!
 
All you need to do to see how we manage our deficit is look at the damned USPS... Removes any hope of efficient government in the US
 
A 'fix' from a hostile Congress could undermine health care reform, not improve it.

Consciously or not, congressional Republicans have tacitly admitted that their best hope in undermining Obamacare isn't focusing on a broken website, but the health plan cancellations. That's why some of the House oversight hearings that were ostensibly held to dissect the problems with the website instead centered on the president's broken promise. That's why top GOP senators have said that they're not worried about the website being fixed.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-real-obamacare-problem-and-why-it-can-be-fixed
 
excellent strawman argument

rather than focus on the glaringly obvious failures of the regime... lets focus on what tactics the republicans are using to point out the glaringly obvious failures of the regime
 
VidaLingua said:
After all the bashing, I decided to take a look at the site. It has a nice design and I didn't experience any lagging.
Click to expand...

well as long as it has a nice design and it didnt take long for the pictures to load what is everyone complaining about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom