mwasser

Random aside: I think it is amazing that first you found this commit + posted about it, then that I saw your post about it on HN.. was kinda ridiculous process to have to agree to the CLA, but I was pleasantly surprised by the automation + instantaneous approval...

- the person who made said commit :-)

High is the premium for 12 months + annual max out of pocket. We included it so people who know they'll have a lot of expenses can pick a plan based on what they'll likely pay that year rather than just the premium.

We can only sign people up that are in one of the 36 states on healthcare.gov -- otherwise we rely on our partners to help get people signed up

We're what is called a 'Web-Based Entity'. This means we have been given the right to integrate with hc.gov on the backend.

We do as well! Coverage networks (physicians) and actual costs are at the top of our minds. Check out sorting by 'worst case' -- while this isn't actual medical costs, if you have one or more chronic conditions, this is likely the cost you'll pay rather than just the premiums. Physician networks are harder, but we are working on it!

I completely agree!

We'd love to be able to find this data per-plan, but its not currently easily discoverable for the states without exchanges.

We're hoping to find deductible data in time for these plans as well as more data that would help people differentiate plans such as number of providers in-network nearby.

This is what we saw as well. The main idea was that it still takes a number of clicks to get there at all. We wanted to provide an interface that significantly lowered the time to seeing the data and then provided the other details.

Thanks for pointing this out!

We currently include the plans from all counties in a particular zipcode rather than limiting to a specific county, but we should probably ask a user to specify their county if there's ambiguity. I'll get on adding this.

As for the data itself, it's current as of two weeks ago which is already slightly stale. This said, the data will only be as updated as the Healthcare.gov data from https://data.healthcare.gov/dataset/QHP-Individual-Medical-L...

Data comes from https://data.healthcare.gov/dataset/QHP-Individual-Medical-L...

Thanks for the bug report- In theory I just pushed a fix for it. Could you confirm it's working for you now? If it's still there, could you let me know what zipcode you are using?

Thanks for pointing this out, we've fixed the bug and you should be able to find Arkansas plans now.

Yeah -- the story behind it is intriguing. Also, the states that have their own exchanges use central services provided by the federal gov for subsidy eligibility.

I do think we will see states release data back to the federal gov for ease of use in time. NM and ID already has done this and other states seem to send their raw data to individuals when asked -- suggesting the data can be centralized (e.g. when we reached out to CA for data, they quickly provided their data to us).

Love it! What's the objective of the project?

The types of recommendations in the report have similar themes to some of the features of Cloudyn/ UptimeCloud. However, the Raveld Score is a completely free product. We do not intend to monetize the score itself. The plan is to use the contacts generated by the score to refine our additional products so that they specifically fit the Raveld Score users' needs. This functionality and value go far above the Score itself.

Thanks for the feedback! This is an area I've gone back and forth on. Originally I didn't want to accept a user/password as I realized many wouldn't trust this. Without allowing it, I was worried I'd lose people that have never used API keys before. The hope of the video link below the 'Let me have it' button showing how to make read only keys was that people would trust that they could give me a set of keys that allowed restrained access. In addition, the read only keys created could be deleted immediately afterwards if it was of concern.

Any thoughts on how I could better communicate this + build trust with users in this setting?

I'm unfamiliar with the HTC/HPC space but I'd highly suggest running with just a few micro windows instances with some kinda dummy job to verify they work well enough for your purposes. For what I've tried to use them for (website + database type of demo machines) they've been just about unusable/ way too unresponsive to get much done. Linux micro are good enough for most stuff I need but not windows ones.

While not that big a charge relatively speaking -- you'll need to include EBS as well since micros only have EBS - EBS space (10c/GB/month) -- I'd imagine 10GB minimum per machine though AWS provided instances have 30GB. - Est: (10,000 machines * 10GB * $0.10) / 30.4 (avg days in a month) = 328.95 - EBS IO (who knows? depends on what you do) -- rate is 10c/ 1 million IO ops.

If you're looking to experiment -- I think the best answer is talk to AWS support as this isn't a normal case that is allowed by AWS accounts.

Check out http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/faqs/#How_many_instances_can_I_run....

To quote it: " You are limited to running 20 On-Demand or Reserved Instances, and running 100 Spot Instances per region. Cluster Compute Eight Extra Large instances are limited to running 8 On-Demand instances per region and Cluster GPU Quadruple Extra Large instances are limited to running 2 On-Demand instances per region (Currently cc2.8xlarge and cg1.8xlarge instances are only available in US East (N. Virginia)) "

However, these are the default limits -- AWS will up your account limits by quite a bit if you just ask. This said, max I've ever seen AWS approve was 400 on-demand instances per one region (I think this means 2800 instances total over 7 regions... never saw if the limit applied to all regions). Also, likelihood of having a 10000 spot instance request fulfilled is probably near zero if I were to guess even if they let you make a request that big without first clearing it with them.

I take it you're also familiar with the cost of running that? The absolute minimum you could possibly be charged using small instances is $1,200 -- partial hours are rounded up.