Three guys, parttime, show up AHA web site

originally paid to the first writers maybe.

but the retort from those who defend the site is that the law is equally complex...or even more so. I can buy those thoughts and I really wonder what's with legislators that can't just keep things simple. We've all seen the cartoons and heard the jokes about how a team of engineers can take a simple concept and come up with a complex solution as noted here

Real Engineers will make four sets of drawings (with seven revisions) before making a bird bath.

but this one from the link struck me. It relates perfectly to your posted news piece.

2. EXTENSIVE REPORT IS BEING PREPARED ON A FRESH APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM - We just hired three kids fresh out of college

Take a simple concept and add a hundred exceptions, each with fifty exceptions, etc.

Of course, it's because legality doesn't allow common sense and intent, or at least most appeal judges don't.

Trying to define every possible case in micro detail obviously results in improbably complex rules.

Also writing to exempt yourself and your best friends (ie, biggest campaign contributors or future employers) while punishing some others makes laws convoluted, unwieldy, and impractical.

I entered my data and came back with results. Its too simple, maybe even likable as a result. But why one insurer the only difference was some "lettering" that generates a higher cost and what makes so different when it's suppose to be under the same "bronze, etc." plan label. One can see that the insurers themselves are making this all the different levels within their own offering if for anything else that more complex. Maybe 1 or 2 differences but having 4-5 differences/offerings, and most would pick the lower cost if on that alone. So again, why would make a X- or Y-version by the same insurer be so different if they offer to cover 50-60-70-80% of costs within those plan levels. The website itself doesn't suggest for the difference but can see already how things get complex.

I see a jumbling of the numbers to provide some consensus here what maybe best to go with. Too bad, it wasn't done in this manner. But heck, I couldn't afford it anyways.

"Hey bud, want buy a pencil or apple"? "I'll work for food and insurance coverage" maybe a sign of the times. -----Willy

similar to finding and signing with a Medicare Advantage plan. If you've not done this I can tell you that it's a very confusing process. Plans offered by the same insurers are offered by regions. You first find all that offer coverage where you live. And, if you like your doctor, you might or not be able to keep your doctor. Your doctor must, first, accept Medicare patients. Not all do. If you have multiple providers, it gets more complicated as you need to filter through all the offered plans to see if your doctors and medical facilities are in their listing. By now you're not enlightened but only more frustrated. I could write more about the experience but will just get my own self agitated.

with apples. It is so complex that you almost inevitably end up over-paying or under-insuring. Either way, the for profit Insurers are covered and their profits assured.

I can't speak knowledgeably about the Government site, and its troubles, and how much is due to CGI's sloppy work, and how much is due to Insurance Companies deliberate excessive complexity, but I'd guess it probably runs 50/50.

If I were applying for ACA Health Care Insurance, I'd expect to endure a simultaneous Root Canal and Colonoscopy without anaesthesia naked in gynaecological stirrups in Macy's window at about 2 in the afternoon, when the maximum number of people have time to stop and stare. There's really nothing else to expect IMO.

So, is that what it's like? If so, I'd put it down to business as usual.

Insurance Companies want as much information as possible before they will give you a price. That's the Companies who want that information, NOT the government. They want to know every little thing that they can then affix a charge to that they can then turn back to you and say, the cost is $875,000 a month, but for you, we'll knock off $5000. For-Profit companies don't want a profit from the overall business any more, now they want a per-transaction Profit. They know they're going to get bitten occasionally when a kid with no family history develops leukemia suddenly. They want to make sure that every other person is over paying for that hazard and guaranteeing them yachts and estates down in Florida or wherever these secretive rich people now go to play and laugh at the chumps who put them there, as became apparent in the Office talk recorded at Enron.

Enron wasn't an exception, except insofar as they got caught. Enron is the paradigm. Something for nothing is inherent in how businesses view their customers. The Companies offer as close to nothing as possible, and insist on being paid handsomely for it. To expect anything else is naive. A Retail electronics firm may compete with others, but in the financial sector, competition is a dirty word.

Rob

build a pot of money early rather than play catch-up later. Unlike the government, they can't pile up decades worth of debt without someone breathing down their necks who is more powerful than they. It's fairly certain the new enrollees who have had coverage denied or restricted due to known health issues will begin to drain the system early. Their insurers, unlike the government, can't print their own money or hand out chits until payday. They face uncertainty like anyone else as to how this plan will take off from the starting line. It's a lot easier when one gets off to a good start and can relax in the stretch rather than needing to find extra speed later.

I think you're correct in suggesting that companies offering the same or similar products get creative in how they compete for business. You can't find the same refrigerator model number at two competing appliance stores. Though both may stock nearly identical items, subtle enough differences exist to prevent true comparison shopping. This isn't anything new but I'm also quite certain that many will think this built in confusion factor will have some politicians anxious to hear public clamor asking for a single payer system. Such knowledge would provide another political angle to capture votes.

Politicians are not above using the same subtle deceptive practices they see in business competition. All the while they claim to be trying to end these practices in the name of consumer protection, I think they are taking notes on which tricks work best so they can use them also.

it works, at least in the business world. CGI is a Quebec based, entirely French speaking, concern whose outward face is fluently bilingual. Apparently they can sell snow to the Eskimos except, of course, what they deliver is Niagara Falls and then walk away, laughing, stuffing their pockets and back packs and Cadillac SUV's and tractor trailers with money saying Freeze It Yourself. They've been doing this for 20+ years now. Businesses in Canada, and the Government, know enough to stay away, that knowledge having been purchased to their cost. Little people like me haven't a clue, but at least I've got friends who know.

Rob