Architectures

There's a fundamental rule that software engineering professionals apply to system architectures—if the functional elements are properly conceived and designed and the information structures are strong, the system can be adapted and extended without serious incident. That doesn't mean the adaptation and/or extensions will be easy, but they will be doable.

If, on the other hand, the fundamental system architecture is weak, if the functional elements are poorly conceived and designed and the information structures are flimsy, and adaptation or extension will be fraught with error and disappointment. The system will invariably fail.

After watching this president repeatedly and unilaterally (unlawfully?) delay/modify/circumvent elements of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), it's apparent that even he recognizes that the fundamental system architecture of the legislation is deeply flawed. Worse, any attempt to adapt or extend it is doomed to failure.

The Obamacare mess is the poster child for those who argue that big government should not get deeply involved in something as important as healthcare for the masses. Sure, the federal government runs Medicare—an entitlement that is rife with fraud, abuse, waste, and mismanagement, not to mention a program that is stressing the national budget and careening toward bankruptcy in the next decade. Instead of learning from the failings of Medicare, it looks like the "designers" of the ACA tried to emulate it—warts and all.

Sure, Obama's supporters argue that it's the GOP's "obstructionist" policies that have magically caused legislation to fail. Unfortunately for them, this is just another example of magical thinking. The ACA was conceived, designed, and implemented solely by the President's own party. They had every chance to do it right, to design a solid architecture without compromise with or intervention by the GOP. With unbeatable majorities in both the House and the Senate, they got exactly what they wanted—exactly. Even worse, they had four years—four years!!—to get it right before the law went into effect on January 1st.

John Podhertz comments:

ObamaCare apologists are at the ready with excuses and explanations: Republican obstructionism slowed things down. The constitutional challenges slowed things down. Resistance from GOP governors slowed things down.

Come now. The administration had untold numbers of federal employees and more than 1,300 days to do what it had to do inside its own shop to prepare. The law didn’t go into effect for 500 days after the Supreme Court refused to put it out of its misery in June 2012.

The simple fact of the matter is, it couldn’t get things to work because ObamaCare is unworkable. It’s a jury-rigged mess that needs about 300 moving gears to mesh perfectly for it to function at all. It’s pretty clear that it never will. (And, yes, I feel sorry for the millions of people the law has already harmed, and the tens of millions more that it’s set to harm.)

The question is whether we’re going to spend decades layering new systems on top of the kludge or whether we’re going to be sensible about this and throw the whole thing out. And start anew.

Obamacare is unworkable because its architecture is deeply flawed. The only rational solution is to tear it down and start anew—this time with bipartisan ideas and a simpler, decentralized and less intrusive law that actually benefits the people who must live under its dictates.

Update:
-----------------

Historian Victor Davis Hansen looks back at recent history:

Does anyone remember that the Affordable Care Act was sold on the premise that it would guarantee retention of existing health plans and doctors, create 4 million new jobs and save families $2,500 a year in premiums, all while extending expanded coverage to more people at a lower cost?

Only in Orwell's world of doublespeak could raising taxes, while the costs of millions of health plans soars, be called "affordable." Is losing your existing plan and doctor a way of retaining them?

It's sad that Obama's trained hamsters in the media don't ask these questions, over and over again, until this administration answers them adequately.