The already unpopular Affordable Care Act has disgruntled Americans further because of the continuously glitchy healthcare enrollment site. Democrats who have supported the act will need to defend their decision during mid-term election next year. Enrollment deadline for the healthcare plan is Dec. 15, but because of the website’s glitches, it’s difficult for people to submit or finish their enrollments. For those who are not insured by February 15th of 2014, they will be forced to pay a fine. Congress’s biggest concern is the damage control that is inevitable because of the struggle the website is having. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius is expected to give a statement in the near future about the failing website. Republican Paul Ryan has gone as far as to call for her resignation.
My questions to you are;
Why not push the days back? Americans are clearly angered by the act, and now more so thanks to the malfunctions.
Another thing to note; Democrats are more technologically aware than Republicans in general, will this hurt that image? Will this give Republicans the opportunity to get their technological side to match up to the Democrats'?
And what is the solution to this long term? Does this mean if the government wants to embrace technology, does it need to hire people from, say, Google to get there websites running the way they should?
4 comments:
First of all, unfortunately most Americans aren't angered by the act. According to the latest poll taken this weekend by CNN and ORC, 53% of Americans either support the bill or think it's not liberal enough. It seems that, for now, American's want the Affordable Care Act to be funded and implemented. And while the setbacks probably won't affect the "technologically aware" image of the Democrats, it might affect support for the act if it becomes a big issue to implement. The problem with setting back the date is that the Republicans appear to have lost the confrontation, and people might see a setback as a concession and victory to the Republicans rather than a simple delay because of an implementation issue. I don't think the Democrats will jump for that solution, and I predict they will try to maintain the issues as solvable until it becomes apparent that a setback is necessary.
I agree with Chris and echo his statement that the Act has popular support but further glitches with healthcare.gov may prove to be a major setback to the law and the Democrats.
However, I think that the website glitches are sensationalized to an extreme. Although the website is rather confusing in places and has glitches, it is not even the place where Americans sign up for health care. Every state has its own exchange (and website) where a person actually applies for health care. Healthcare.gov is only a website for information and guidance and perhaps some other functions I have yet to thoroughly explore. That's why even though the site has issues, one could theoretically never visit the site but still get health care through their state's website. California's is coveredca.com.
For whatever strange reason, I've gone through the ACA website and Coveredca.com and plugged in random values to see what kind of health insurance coverage one could receive at what price given certain income levels. Why I couldn't think of anything better to do than this is a separate thing...
Although I agree with Angela that there is a significant number of individuals angered by the act (including some close to me), I believe that most have or will find this health care reform to be a welcome change.
When I explored coveredca.com, I found the side-by-side comparison of all the plans available from all the insurance companies in that region to be very easy to navigate. In addition, this easy comparison forces insurance companies to stay competitive. Kaiser, Chinese Community Health Fund, Blueshield, and Anthem Blue Cross all offered very competitive rates and options. In addition, the Act has provisions besides the exchange and individual mandate such as the one regarding pre-existing conditions that I believe most, but never all, will eventually come to appreciate.
Lastly, Angela's question about who to hire is very interesting. A Canadian firm was hired to make the site. Yes, Canadian (really???). Just recently, President Obama has pulled in computer experts from across the federal government and some contractors to come in and try to fix the solution. What I think is that a Canadian firm should never have been hired for this. It should've been "Made in America." Ultimately, the website really needs a health examination and some good care, and it should be all better. Pun intended.
I agree with Chris that pushing back the date will hurt the Democrats and potentially give Republicans a victory. Yet, I think that it is important to fix any glitches that the website has and make changes because it will reflect poorly on the Act itself. As Brandon mentioned, even though the site is only for information and not for applying for the actual care, it is still important to make sure that the site is run efficiently. Like I just mentioned, glitches will reflect poorly on the Act and give people more reasons to criticize the Act as a whole. But I also think that the website needs to work purely because people should be able to have access to information about something that they have to sign up for.
Unfortunately, faulty and glitch sites seem to be a common theme recently, with the Common Application Online dealing with a considerable amount of criticism in recent weeks. Anyway, it is frustrating that the website for the Affordable Care Act is causing difficulties for people who are trying to comply with new requirements. America’s approval of the Affordable Care Act aside, it would have been wise to consider staggering enrollment deadlines possibly by county or city. This could have possibly increased efficiency in registering citizens because it would have caused less web traffic and chaos. As a final note, it cannot be generalized that Democrats are more “technologically aware” than Republicans. One’s outlook on technology is not a partisan matter, but rather a personal lifestyle choice. The technology issues of the website, likewise, are not a partisan issue, but rather the issue of whoever was in charge of designing and running the website.
Post a Comment