
Healthcare.gov crashes on the last day before deadline - deepakjc
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/31/healthcare-gov-crashes-on-the-last-day-to-enroll-before-the-deadline/
======
joshontheweb
How exactly is this fine supposed to be enforced? Simply added to your taxes?
For the record I think it's BS that I get fined for not giving my business to
companies that I don't trust and are incentivized to screw me over. Signing up
for Obamacare isn't signing up for health care, it's signing up insurance
against grossly overpriced healthcare. Lets fix the problem, not play the
insurance companies game.

~~~
mcdougle
I've heard from CPAs that have studied the law that Obamacare mostly seems to
just be a series of taxes disguised as a healthcare law.

~~~
greendata
I would add it's a series of taxes directed at the self-employed. If you work
for a large company or for the state/federal government you'll have insurance
already. If you're unemployed, you'll qualify for a subsidy or medicare.

The self-employed are already paying double in medicaid and social security (I
know employers pay half for the employed but it still discourages self-
employment).

------
001sky
_Technical problems due to scheduled maintenance is to blame_

'Scheduled maintenece' is either one hell of a euphamism or a most cynical
Dark Pattern.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Yep. Why would anyone "schedule maintenance" on the day of the deadline?

------
tomasien
For anyone wondering, the Obama administration has already built in a system
for letting people who tried to sign up in the next couple days but didn't
complete an application sign up without a fine in preparation for this. I'm
sure it won't handle all cases and seems odd given how strict they said the
deadline would be, but just for clarity of debate I wanted that out there.

~~~
JonFish85
Real Response: It's not so much a system as a "we're really not going to
enforce this deadline for most people." It's not much of a system, it's more
of a "we'll look the other way for some amount of time".

Snark Response: The Obama administration built a system for buying health
insurance, and here we are... Presumably this system will work better?

~~~
hga
" _a system for buying health insurance_ "

Except they didn't, as we usually view ecommerce sites. It sends (often
erroneous) signup info to insurers, and it's between you and them to arrange
payment.

------
3minus1
It looks like it was down for 8 hours total, 5 of which were scheduled.

~~~
ctdonath
Scheduled a major prolonged system outage the day before a major deadline?
WTF?

 _Good morning, London. It is 6 am, the fifth of November 2019 and this is the
voice of Fate. The new day brings good news and bright prospects from
overseas, where negotiations with New China are moving in a positive
direction. Last night 's scheduled demolition of two deteriorating landmarks
went off without a hitch. Spokesman for the Interior ministry said both
structures were severely damaged and judged to be a danger to the unsuspecting
public. Plans for new landmarks are well underway._ \- Prothero,
_V_for_Vendetta_ (Government commentary spinning unexpected destruction as
"planned".)

------
bananas
This is normal for any systems of this type. The online tax returns system for
HMRC in the UK does the same thing every year. People need do it earlier.

------
radmuzom
If you wait till the last day, you are probably willing to pay the fine.

~~~
emidln
Fining people for failing to properly utilize a system that has never
consistently worked is asinine. I imagine it won't be long after the first
fines that they are challenged in court.

~~~
ctdonath
Fining people for failing to purchase a product is asinine. There's more
precedent for requiring people to buy guns (and fining them if they don't; see
Militia Act of 1792), but imagine the outrage if every able-bodied male 17-45
were required to buy an M16 and a case of ammo at their own cost (about
$1000).

~~~
bmelton
An M-16 costs _far_ more than $1,000, and is not available for purchase by the
average citizen. Between the 1934 National Firearms Act, which prohibits the
sale of fully automatic weapons to those who do not submit themselves to an
extended (months' long) background check and pay an additional $200 tax stamp,
and the 1986 National Firearms Act, which make all fully automatic firearms
manufactured post-1986 non-transferrable to citizens means that the fair
market value of an M16 is something closer to $15,000-$20,000, and that's for
a used model that's at least 25 years old.

If those acts were repealed, I agree that the suggested MSRP for an M16 would
be ~$1,000-$2,000.

~~~
hga
I don't believe you're showing you get the point (while making a lot of good
tangential points). I seem to remember that government's cost for buying a M4
is something like $600 in quantity, but I forget if that was Colt's price
before they lost the contract to FN like they lost the M16 contract (the Army
buys the former, the Marines, who are still riflemen, the latter with its much
longer barrel necessary to achieve bare minimum performance with normal
military ammo).

So presumably in an arming the militia regime, our cost would be lower than
the 1-2K you postulate, probably even lower due to massive quantity. With of
course subsidies to help the poor ^_^.

(Beginning modified, for bmelton not surprisingly does get the point.)

~~~
bmelton
Oh, I got the point, but historically, it went the other way around. It was
the government's duty to provide firearms to the militia for those that didn't
have them themselves.

That said, your sub-point is humorous, but overlooks that if modeled after the
ACA, subsidized M16s would be available for near free, while non-subsidized
M16s would be ~$4,000-$5,000, if you're in too high a tax bracket.

