Barack Obama held a press conference in the White House press garden on Monday, October 21, to address major technical issues that have plagued the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) website, www.healthcare.gov/. The president’s detractors have used this rash of recurrent computer glitches as evidence that the ACA is doomed to crash. Critics have even suggested that these technological challenges are his “Hurricane Katrina.” In reply, Obama has pointed to the fact that many people have accessed the federal healthcare website since October 1st in order to register for health insurance. The sheer number of people enrolling in plans has led to significant delays in enrollment and subsequent login; it seems being logged off the website in the middle of applying for coverage has been a common experience. Obama asked for patience from the American people and was determined to resource hardware experts to increase server capacity and software engineers to resolve programmatic issues. As he emphasized, “Nobody is madder than me about the fact that the website isn’t working as well as it should, which means it’s going to get fixed.” The last price tag to rectify the website through what Obama called a “tech surge” approached $400 million.
Realistically, websites do not always rollout smoothly. New businesses, especially entrepreneurial ventures, seek to publish their website as quickly as possible in order to generate income and create interest, or “buzz” as Douglas W. Hubbard calls it in his book Pulse: The New Science of Harnessing Internet Buzz to Track Threats and Opportunities. Unfortunately, in their efforts to establish their online presence, that is “go live,” some companies fail to resolve issues with their websites and these websites’ communications with their respective servers. Only after end users have engaged a website, at times maximizing its capacity for traffic, are software glitches and hardware challenges discovered. PC users who use Microsoft products know this experience well from their encounters with Windows 8, the Internet Explorer platform, 404 errors, or regular patch maintenance.
This way of launching websites does not excuse commercial enterprises from blame, it only explains the reality. In an ambitious effort to deploy the ACA website, comprehensive testing seems to have been non-existent or rather limited. The Washington Post indicates that the government knew perfectly well what they were releasing would be flawed. Compounding the problem, when it comes to the ACA website, is that we are talking not about an optional service that people have to engage, but one that is required by law. There is an urgency then in enrollment and, thus, the demand for a website easy to access, understand, and navigate free of any bugs. If a citizen is uninsured after March 31, 2014, tax penalties can accrue and would be applied when 2013 income tax returns are filed. A person may qualify for an exemption to the ACA’s mandate to purchase qualifying health insurance, but otherwise a financial penalty may apply.
As is well known, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) offered a substantial critique of the ACA concerning conscience rights and religious freedom. However, given that the ACA was enacted as law (the recent government shutdown notwithstanding), without the full support of the USCCB, the Roman Catholic Church can still, and undoubtedly will, continue to challenge some of the demands the ACA is making of Roman Catholic healthcare institutions. At the same time, drawing from its wisdom of social teaching, the Roman Catholic Church can proffer a critique on some of the aforementioned technological problems associated with this recently launched, clunky ACA website.
There are two immediate concerns that emerge about the ACA website that need consideration in light of Roman Catholic Social Teaching:
1. Access. We who regularly engage the computer and enjoy the easy availability of our technology devices can overlook too easily that there are people in the United States, not to mention the global community, who are digitally handicapped. That is, either they do not have regular access to a computer or they are not keen on how to use the computer. It is not that they are Luddites, but rather that their fiscal budgets do not allow for a computer purchase or even a smart phone. While it may be hard to believe, there are some Americans who merely have a landline.
In a study in September 2013, Kathryn Zickuhr from the Pew Internet and American Life Project published the report “Who’s Not Online and Why.” Zickuhr summarized her findings:
As of May 2013, 15% of American adults ages 18 and older do not use the internet or email. Asked why they do not use the internet:
– 34% of non-internet users think the internet is just not relevant to them, saying they are not interested, do not want to use it, or have no need for it.
– 32% of non-internet users cite reasons tied to their sense that the internet is not very easy to use. These non-users say it is difficult or frustrating to go online, they are physically unable, or they are worried about other issues such as spam, spyware, and hackers. This figure is considerably higher than in earlier surveys.
– 19% of non-internet users cite the expense of owning a computer or paying for an internet connection.
– 7% of non-users cited a physical lack of availability or access to the internet.
Having unfettered access to an optimized ACA website is a matter of distributive justice, central to the Christian theological tradition. The ethical principle of distributive justice is defined as that which society or a responsible body owes to its individual members, taking into consideration their proportionate needs, resources available, and a commitment to the common good. In this case of the ACA website, distributive justice further calls the government to accountability in creating the ACA website relatively free from bugs, which presently is not the case. To give credit where it is due, the ACA website does promote distributive justice in that it is available in seven other languages in addition to English. The ecclesial leadership at the Second Vatican Council saw this access as intimately connected to human dignity:
There is a growing awareness of the sublime dignity of human persons, who stand above all things and whose rights and duties are universal and inviolable. They ought, therefore, to have ready access to all that is necessary for living a genuinely human life: for example, food, clothing, housing … the right to education, and work… –Gaudium et Spes, #26
2. Education. President Obama has suggested that those without access to the internet could use the 800 number available. The president also announced that trained “navigators” are available for assistance in understanding the website, its array of plans, the signing-up process, and for registering appeals. Given that there is a segment of the population that is disconnected or with limited connection to the Internet, the phone agents and the navigators are going to be quite busy, as they should be for government serves as a positive force the promotion of human dignity, extension of human rights and the sustainability of the common good. The US bishops in their 1986 document Economic Justice for All, highlighted this positive moral function of the government:
Government…does have a positive moral responsibility in safeguarding human rights and ensuring that the minimum conditions of human dignity are met for all. In a democracy, government is a means by which we can act together to protect what is important to us and to promote our common values (no. 18)
If we were to think about working on the ACA website or calling the 800 number for assistance, it initially could overwhelm us. Even after attempting to understand the complexity of the website, perhaps after watching the instructional and promotional videos, a prospective insured might find her/himself quite bleary eyed. As the website is developed and telephone operators are trained, both need to be clear in their presentation and honest in their options. It cannot be a dizzying maze similar to the complexity of attempting to understand the series of annual updates associated with federal and state tax return forms. If that goal is realized, government could be cast easily as fraudsters peddling their wares using technology and telephony.
The ACA website is broken. As long as all or a part of it remains problematic, overall trust in healthcare reform will be threatened. The website needs to be fixed and in a manner whereby the patches applied and the software engineering restore confidence in the promise that the ACA holds for national coverage despite economic background. In the interest of equal access and clear education, citizens need to demand this overhauling of the ACA website. In his homily for the September 16th eucharist, Pope Francis said that being an idle citizen is not an option for Catholics, with an overture towards all people of the world. The pope preached that a person cannot say:
I have nothing to do with this, they govern. No, no, I am responsible for their governance, and I have to do the best so that they govern well, and I have to do my best by participating in politics according to my ability. Politics, according to the Social Doctrine of the Church, is one of the highest forms of charity, because it serves the common good. I cannot wash my hands, eh? We all have to give something!
Everyone has something to contribute to the promotion of the common good. In the case of the faulty ACA website, we can add our voices to the chorus of people calling for access for all to the ACA website sans any glitches and a clear presentation of choices.
Patrick Flanagan is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at St. John’s University in Queens, New York. Patrick’s research interests lie in studying the relationship between information technology and theological ethics, giving special attention to the import of Roman Catholic social teaching as a critical resource for assessing this intersection.
I read this but have not closely examined it. I think you make your point well. One thing that left me
uncomfortable was using the term “digitally handicapped.” While the term makes sense to one who is digitally savvy, its use here doesn’t set right with me.
I often think of a “handicap” as something beyond one’s control. While that describes some who are “digitally handicapped,” others are digitally illiterate or digitally non-functional by choice. Being labeled “handicapped” might not resonate with them, and leave them feeling further disenfranchised. (Someone who does not want to learn how to drive may not consider him/herself handicapped, even though s/he has refused to learn how to use a tool necessary for most, but not all, in our society.) If I were someone who chose not to be digitally “linked in” I think being called “handicapped” would be off-putting. So while it may be accurate, would the term be further alienating to people already struggling with access? Is there a similar term?
I know this isn’t important to your argument, but it stood out. In general, I find myself trying to look at the word
“handicapped” from the standpoint of the person so labeled. It seems the last people you would want to alienate are those without access.
I like the “down in the trenches” approach to applying moral theology in a real world context: technology justice and political life. Pope Francis shows he is unafraid to swim in the waters, not of where healthy meets happy, but in the rough seas of already but not yet. That’s where the people are : finished but mostly unfinished disciples. Those who are still with the church need encouragement mixed with clear guidance. And someone to turn to when the road to glory gets rocky. I’ve run out of metaphors. Technology is here to stay…the Church is at her best when she guides us from where we’re at to where we wanna go.
After reading this blog, 2 things come to mind. The big prep for Y2k being one of them. I was on a team called Y2k disaster recovery for my company. We prepared for a solid year, trying to come up with every scenario possible that could go wrong when the year turned to 2000. I wonder in the governments haste to get this program up and running if they had a team dedicated to a possible “disaster” upon roll out of the ACA website? It makes sense to me that they should have.
The second issue that I see here is that the ACA is clearly most beneficial to the elderly and the poor. Two segments of our population that either have little means or no desire to access a computer. The elderly either do not trust computers or do not know or want to know how to work them. The poor as stated in your blog do not have access to computers so readily. I guess my question to the government is this, why was there no team to think ahead of the game and see into the future what domino effect this rollout would bring?
While I agree that the ACA website should be held to a very high standard in terms of its functionality, I also feel that to some extent the website’s crashes and glitches were inevitable. For that reason, I cannot express the same level of outrage that other critics of the website are demonstrating. I consider myself somewhat tech savvy and I have closely followed the launch of several large online platforms (from computer games to websites and large businesses). I have yet to see a much-anticipated, internet-driven platform that launches without glitches, slowdowns, and server crashes. While various stress tests are available to calculate how much the system can handle, it appears that the sheer volume of users simply cannot be simulated (at least not to 100% accuracy).
Does that excuse the government for the ACA website’s failure? Absolutely not. For a nationwide requirement, the government has a duty to provide a functioning website along with an intuitive interface. This is especially true given Professor Flanagan’s concerns relating to the “digitally handicapped.” While there are several reasons for a person to be without a computer with internet access, none of those remove the handicap placed on that person. In today’s world, we are able to access unlimited amounts of quality information from around the globe at the touch of a button. With a few simple keystrokes, we are able to communicate our thoughts (as I am doing now) to anyone who is interested enough to read them. Do we all need a computer? No. But to be without one (intentionally or not) is a handicap.
So, if there are United States citizens who do not have a reliable internet connection, the government must be available to provide these citizens with the means to access the ACA website. The fact that the website cannot be accessed reliably at this point is a sign of failure. The fact that many people without internet access may not even realize that signing up is a requirement of law is yet another failure. The difference between my view and those of the harshest critics is simple: while the ACA website’s launch was, to some
extent, a failure, we could have all seen that failure coming. Perhaps we should not be outraged by the
failure itself, but outraged by the somewhat apathetic response on the part of the government. As Patrick Flanagan states in his post, we need to come together and call for a glitch-free website with an easy-to-use interface. We should also be coming together to call for a more proactive government that makes sure its citizens receive the plan they need. Otherwise, these people will be in the same boat they were in before.
In today’s society, Internet Technology is definitely a “must have” in order for one to be able to function optimally in the world. With reference to ACA website, we find that if the ACA webpage does not function optimally, without glitches, it could leave many people with serious issues. For example “If a citizen is uninsured after March 31, 2014, tax penalties can accrue and would be applied when 2013 income tax returns are filed. A person may qualify for an exemption to the ACA’s mandate to purchase qualifying health insurance, but otherwise a financial penalty may apply.” It is almost required for one to use the internet in order to remain free from penalties. One could argue that access to the internet is a basic human right in present times.
But what about the people without “access” to technology and “education” as to how to use the technology? they are not equal with others in the general society.
This leaves many people at a disadvantage. I find that the author raises a good points as to the extent of this problem, and a possible solution. the average person can get involved by raising their voice. The catholic church and CST definitely pinpoints major problems(access and education) and a possible solution with this digital divide. Citizens have a role to play in society in order to contribute to the promotion of the common good. Engaging in politics is one of the highest forms of charity according to the social doctrine of the church, because it serves the common good.
I agree with the other commentators; the website’s crashes and glitches were inevitable. But I am disappointed that these issues have not been resolved after several weeks. While I recognize that the situation is a complex one, I think the author’s solution is valid — we as citizens need to demand an overhauling of the ACA website.