On Sept. 5 Test of Obamacare's Website, CMS Staffers 'Secretly Rooted For It To Fail'

[amirm]

The $176 million blew my mind. I heard it on radio driving and thought maybe they made a mistake. It is one thing to pay such dollars for military hardware. The vendor has to go and tool up just to build a few things. But software of this sort? And not have most of that spent on testing???

The scariest part to me is how secure it is. My adobe login leaked when their servers were attacked. I get email from my ISP saying, "we see that your login was one of the ones compromised by Adobe server!!!" Son of a gun... So my email address is there for all to see. What would I do if all of my health info had gotten out the same way? I would have hired the best security team to audit the system and give bounty to hackers to see if they can breach it with dummy data before launching it.

 

[ack]

It's really outrageous. I guess it's called government waste. Reminds me of the movie Contact with Jodie Foster: First rule in government spending: Why build one when you can have two at twice the price

 

[jazdoc]

"Uh, oh" - Obamacare website crashes in front of Sec Sibelius during a photo op

Whoever had the great idea to have their boss to do a live photo op with this website is probably buffing their resume....

 

[amirm]

They should call her "Teflon Kathy!"

 

[RBFC]

Apparently, this huge sum was paid to the Canadian company that's owned by Michelle Obama's college roommate. The WBF fact-checkers will no doubt come up with the details.

Lee

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Apparently, this huge sum was paid to the Canadian company that's owned by Michelle Obama's college roommate. The WBF fact-checkers will no doubt come up with the details.

Lee

One of the smarmiest side effects of a nation so divided is that the sides, completely convinced that they are right and the opposition is stupid/corrupt/evil/fillintheblank seem to think it is fine to lie about them if it works against them.

A VP, not an owner, at the Canadian company in question, CGI, graduated from Princeton the same year Michelle Obama did. There is nothing to indicate they were close friends, much less roommates. When the huge project was put on a compressed deadline it was determined that there were only 4 companies capable of the task. CGI, was one of them, and all of that has been putlic knowledge. Nothing to see here, really, and you missed the best rumor of the batch (don't watch Sean Hannity?): that CGI had donated $47 million to Obama campaigns. The truth? The firm has donated $120k to all US federal campaigns, 52% to Republicans.

Tim

 

[jap]

11/18/13- Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal that talks about "risk corridors" contained in the act. A "risk corridor" is a device that lets the federal government reimburse an insurance company for losses resulting from issuing policies through health care exchanges.

Originally intended to be a safety net for the first three years of the act, the administration decided last week that it would consider expanding the use of them because of the president's decision to let people keep their existing policies for another year.

Rubio said that deep in the Department of Health and Human Services news release about the president's decision was this little gem:

"Though this transitional policy was not anticipated by health insurance issuers when setting rates for 2014, the risk corridor program should help ameliorate unanticipated changes in premium revenue. We intend to explore ways to modify the risk corridor program final rules to provide additional assistance."

Rubio announced in his WSJ article that he would seek legislation to get rid of these "bailouts" of insurance companies.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303985504579205743008770218

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

11/18/13- Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal that talks about "risk corridors" contained in the act. A "risk corridor" is a device that lets the federal government reimburse an insurance company for losses resulting from issuing policies through health care exchanges.

Originally intended to be a safety net for the first three years of the act, the administration decided last week that it would consider expanding the use of them because of the president's decision to let people keep their existing policies for another year.

Rubio said that deep in the Department of Health and Human Services news release about the president's decision was this little gem:

"Though this transitional policy was not anticipated by health insurance issuers when setting rates for 2014, the risk corridor program should help ameliorate unanticipated changes in premium revenue. We intend to explore ways to modify the risk corridor program final rules to provide additional assistance."

Rubio announced in his WSJ article that he would seek legislation to get rid of these "bailouts" of insurance companies.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303985504579205743008770218

Does this mean Senator Rubio opposes extending the eligibility of existing policies which do not meet ACA requirements for another year? Does Senator Rubio suppose that these cheap policies with very weak coverage, that insurance companies sold after the ACA act was passed and before it went into effect in hopes of exactly what's happening -- extending such products beyond the deadline to comply with ACA standards are are going to be sources of the losses that risk corridors are meant to cover? Does he discuss, in his WSJ article, where the idea of these risk cooridors came from and how they came to be written into this horrible sausage of law?

Or was Senator Rubio just looking for half an excuse to use the word "bailouts?"

Tim

 

[jazdoc]

Does this mean Senator Rubio opposes extending the eligibility of existing policies which do not meet ACA requirements for another year? Does Senator Rubio suppose that these cheap policies with very weak coverage, that insurance companies sold after the ACA act was passed and before it went into effect in hopes of exactly what's happening -- extending such products beyond the deadline to comply with ACA standards are are going to be sources of the losses that risk corridors are meant to cover? Does he discuss, in his WSJ article, where the idea of these risk cooridors came from and how they came to be written into this horrible sausage of law?

Or was Senator Rubio just looking for half an excuse to use the word "bailouts?"

Tim

As millions of Americans have had their policies cancelled (or to use the approved White House speak 'transitioned') and with millions of more cancellations to come, ACA defenders now are claiming that the existing policies are 'substandard' because they do not meet the requirements of the ACA (whatever they are today).

But all health insurance plans must be approved by the state insurance commissioners and all states have large numbers of mandated coverages which are summarized in this report by the Council For Affordable Health Insurance at:
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/Mandatesinthestates2012Execsumm.pdf



Indeed, the hyper-regulation of insurance policies by the states is behind the crazy idea that health insurance should be purchased and portable across state lines...like every other type of insurance. BTW, note that insurance policies purchased on state exchanges are not portable...

A more important question is who appointed Obama emperor, free to disregard enforcing the law when he finds politically inconvenient (forgetting the inconvenience to his 'transitioned' subjects)? Madison warned in Federalist #62 about the effects of 'mutable policy'

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not for the many.

In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.

But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.

 

[jap]

Does this mean Senator Rubio opposes extending the eligibility of existing policies which do not meet ACA requirements for another year? Does Senator Rubio suppose that these cheap policies with very weak coverage, that insurance companies sold after the ACA act was passed and before it went into effect in hopes of exactly what's happening -- extending such products beyond the deadline to comply with ACA standards are are going to be sources of the losses that risk corridors are meant to cover? Does he discuss, in his WSJ article, where the idea of these risk cooridors came from and how they came to be written into this horrible sausage of law?

Or was Senator Rubio just looking for half an excuse to use the word "bailouts?"

Tim

Tim,

Sorry, I can't answer your questions. Maybe you should send an email to Senator Rubio's office.

I do remember when Nancy Pelosi was asked about the ACA bill, she said, "We have to pass it, to find out what's in it"?

That's the definition of a stool sample.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

Sorry, I can't answer your questions. Maybe you should send an email to Senator Rubio's office.

I do remember when Nancy Pelosi was asked about the ACA bill, she said, "We have to pass it, to find out what's in it"?

That's the definition of a stool sample.

They were rhetorical questions, as Rubio's raising of the issues is disingenuous. He doesn't want the details of this ungodly mess of a law repaired. He, and all of his compatriots, want healthcare reform killed off, so they can come back with a propsal that "fixes" a couple of the most popular features (but puts all of the cost of those fixes on the consumer, none on the providers) and does absolutely nothing to insure the uninsured and control healthcare costs. They are not serious about the issue and everything that comes out of their mouths is suspect. Please don't take this as a defense of ACA: in it's current condition, it is indefensible. But if you think, for a moment, that the right wing of the GOP wants to do anything to improve it and that their criticism is meant to be constructive, you're being naive.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

puts all of the cost of those fixes on the consumer, none on the providers

Tim

How can one actually do that? It's gonna get passed on to the consumer one way or the other.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

How can one actually do that? It's gonna get passed on to the consumer one way or the other.

That's two questions.

How can they keep the most popular parts of the law and not cost the carriers? That's easy enough: Don't allow denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, but allow insurance carriers to charge what they want to cover the pre-existing condition.

It's gonna get passed on to the consumer one way or another? That is a denial of free market economics. It assumes that any expense a company incurrs can be passed straight to the cost of the product. This can only be true if they have no competitors willing to accept a narrower profit margin or able to operate under lower overhead. It assumes collusion or monopoly.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

That's two questions.

How can they keep the most popular parts of the law and not cost the carriers? That's easy enough: Don't allow denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, but allow insurance carriers to charge what they want to cover the pre-existing condition.

It's gonna get passed on to the consumer one way or another? That is a denial of free market economics. It assumes that any expense a company incurrs can be passed straight to the cost of the product. This can only be true if they have no competitors willing to accept a narrower profit margin or able to operate under lower overhead. It assumes collusion or monopoly.

Tim

Not necessarily. These variables are independent of a pass on. They are only constraints. In the energy sector, the pass ons can come in the form of added unbundled charges/fees. They still go in the same pocket regardless. I've not read the ACA law but if it uses a whole bunch of enumerations in its provisions, watch out. On the surface this law reminds me a lot of California's electricity law that caused a whole lot of problems down the road.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Not necessarily. These variables are independent of a pass on. They are only constraints. In the energy sector, the pass ons can come in the form of added unbundled charges/fees. They still go in the same pocket regardless. I've not read the ACA law but if it uses a whole bunch of enumerations in its provisions, watch out. On the surface this law reminds me a lot of California's electricity law that caused a whole lot of problems down the road.

I haven't read the details of the law, either, but I think we both overstated our case. I would agree that there are circumstances under which additional operating costs are passed directly to the consumer, but it's not a given either. The free market is not always free, or even a functional market. But more often than not, supply and demand actually does have an impact, and increased operating costs do not necessarily mean an automatic increase in consumer price.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

I'll go and look for the Bill. Acts are much tougher to follow.

 

[jazdoc]

They were rhetorical questions, as Rubio's raising of the issues is disingenuous. He doesn't want the details of this ungodly mess of a law repaired. He, and all of his compatriots, want healthcare reform killed off, so they can come back with a propsal that "fixes" a couple of the most popular features (but puts all of the cost of those fixes on the consumer, none on the providers) and does absolutely nothing to insure the uninsured and control healthcare costs. They are not serious about the issue and everything that comes out of their mouths is suspect. Please don't take this as a defense of ACA: in it's current condition, it is indefensible. But if you think, for a moment, that the right wing of the GOP wants to do anything to improve it and that their criticism is meant to be constructive, you're being naive.

Tim

1. Coverage is not equivalent to care. Indeed, there is good peer-reviewed literature that patients with Medicaid have worse outcomes than the unisured. Perhpas we should have been suspicious that Obamacare was really wasn't about care, they would have hired 15,000 health care professionals instead of new IRS agents
2. Obamacare barely makes a dent in the number of uninsured. According to the CBO, 30 million will remain uninsured in 2016; http://www.californiahealthline.org...ill-be-uninsured-in-2016-under-aca-study-says
3. Obamacare bends the cost curve upwards. Ths was reported by the CBO prior to the bills passage:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans/
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040212-606490-obamacare-adds-17-trillion-in-debt.htm

If you are going to be suspicious, shouldn't it be the folks who promised to cover the uninsured, reduce costs, let you keep your insurance and doctors if you like them?

Unfortunately, there is nothing constructive to say about Obamacare because it is inherently flawed with contradictory incentives that make it unworkable. Good intentions are not enough, results matter. Everyone sees the problems in our system, unfortunately, the designers of Obamacare don't understand the underlying causes of the problems; so how can we expect them to come up with viable solutions? They are akin to physicians who only see symptoms but are unable to make diagnoses.

 

[jap]

They were rhetorical questions, as Rubio's raising of the issues is disingenuous. He doesn't want the details of this ungodly mess of a law repaired. He, and all of his compatriots, want healthcare reform killed off, so they can come back with a propsal that "fixes" a couple of the most popular features (but puts all of the cost of those fixes on the consumer, none on the providers) and does absolutely nothing to insure the uninsured and control healthcare costs. They are not serious about the issue and everything that comes out of their mouths is suspect. Please don't take this as a defense of ACA: in it's current condition, it is indefensible. But if you think, for a moment, that the right wing of the GOP wants to do anything to improve it and that their criticism is meant to be constructive, you're being naive.

Tim

I agree that it's an "ungodly mess of a law."

I don't think Obamacare is a total failure; it can always serve as a bad example.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

1. Coverage is not equivalent to care. Indeed, there is good peer-reviewed literature that patients with Medicaid have worse outcomes than the unisured. Perhpas we should have been suspicious that Obamacare was really wasn't about care, they would have hired 15,000 health care professionals instead of new IRS agents
2. Obamacare barely makes a dent in the number of uninsured. According to the CBO, 30 million will remain uninsured in 2016; http://www.californiahealthline.org...ill-be-uninsured-in-2016-under-aca-study-says
3. Obamacare bends the cost curve upwards. Ths was reported by the CBO prior to the bills passage:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans/
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040212-606490-obamacare-adds-17-trillion-in-debt.htm

If you are going to be suspicious, shouldn't it be the folks who promised to cover the uninsured, reduce costs, let you keep your insurance and doctors if you like them?

Unfortunately, there is nothing constructive to say about Obamacare because it is inherently flawed with contradictory incentives that make it unworkable. Good intentions are not enough, results matter. Everyone sees the problems in our system, unfortunately, the designers of Obamacare don't understand the underlying causes of the problems; so how can we expect them to come up with viable solutions? They are akin to physicians who only see symptoms but are unable to make diagnoses.

Yeah I imagine there's good peer-reviewed literature that the poor have worse outcomes than the young, too. Now go look at the demographics of Medicaid recipients and the uninsured. And trust me, it's not just the republicans I'm suspicious of. I look at the whole lot of them with suspicion.

Tim