Reply With Quote
It was all about the movie! It wasn't 9/11 terrorism it was the MOVIE!!!
But I thought the reason why the website broke was because it was so popular!!!!!
It was all about the movie! It wasn't 9/11 terrorism it was the MOVIE!!!
But I thought the reason why the website broke was because it was so popular!!!!!
ObamaCare Fine Print: 'Personal Info Could Be Shared With Authorities'
Aside from the technical glitches plaguing the ObamaCare exchanges, there's some fine print on these government websitesthat has some people concerned.
As reported by The Weekly Standard, an individual who signs up is asked to check a box, agreeing to terms and conditions of the privacy policy, like you would see when signing up for a bank account or a credit card.
But the fine print contains this line: "we may share information provided in your application with the appropriate authorities for law enforcement and audit activities."
The Fox and Friends hosts asked Judge Andrew Napolitano what's going on here. He said this appears to be an "outrageous invasion of privacy" that is prohibited under the Cons ution.
- See VIDEO at: http://andrewnapolitano.com/articles....4LLUeGsc.dpuf
in the category "make life as difficult as possible"
Obamacare Struggles Even Worse In States That Resisted It
In Washington, D.C., (population 632,000), the drive to enroll the uninsured into health coverage under President Barack Obama's health care reform law is backed by the city government, federal funding and more than 200 local workers helping people apply for benefits.
In Prince William County, Va., (population 430,000), 30 miles south of the U.S. Capitol, there's pretty much just Frank Principi.
"People are sick, and people are sick of having to pay large amounts of cash, or forgo paying a bill at all and going into bankruptcy," Principi, 52, said during an interview at the clinic on Wednesday. Principi estimates that about 100 people asked for information on Oct. 1 alone, the day the exchanges opened. Incoming phone calls are up more than 10 percent, he said.
. Fewer uninsured people are expected to get coverage in places like Virginia, which is doing next to nothing to help its residents sign up, than in places like the District of Columbia, which embraced the law's goals.
Principi believes his patients will brave the extra hassle. "The families that we're helping? They've never had health insurance in their lives," he said. "Getting affordable health insurance for them and their families is a huge, huge relief from the stress, the anxiety, the pressure of not knowing what's going to happen when your child gets sick. These folks are willing to wait."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4086910.html
but will they vote Dem for helping them out with ACA and to punish Repugs for ing up ACA in their state?
America, World Champion Kludgeocrats
Beneficiaries of Medicare Left Confused by Exchanges
Medicare beneficiaries can sign up for private health plans starting Tuesday, but federal officials fear that many of them, out of confusion, might go to the new federal insurance exchange.
In fact, people with Medicare generally cannot buy insurance through the exchange. Policies sold there duplicate many benefits provided by Medicare, and it is illegal for insurance companies, agents and brokers to sell such polices to people known to have Medicare, federal officials said Monday.
More than one-fourth of the 52 million Medicare beneficiaries are in private managed care plans known as Medicare Advantage, and the Obama administration is giving these insurance companies a fresh infusion of federal money.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/15...exchanges.html
Repugs' UNFUNDED Medicare Advantage is blatant corporate welfare, costing taxpayers 10%+ more than Medicare.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-15-2013 at 04:19 PM.
Yo bouton, you're needed back over at DailyKos to crack some heads. You've got a blogger who's gone off the reservation.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...nthly-premium#
Obamacare will double my monthly premium (according to Kaiser)
by Tirge Caps
MON SEP 30, 2013 AT 01:36 PM PDT
My wife and I just got our updates from Kaiser telling us what our 2014 rates will be. Her monthly has been $168 this year, mine $150. We have a high deductible. We are generally healthy people who don't go to the doctor often. I barely ever go. The insurance is in case of a major catastrophe.
Well, now, because of Obamacare, my wife's rate is gong to $302 per month and mine is jumping to $284.
I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any ing penalty. What the kind of reform is this?
Oh, ok, if we qualify, we can get some government assistance. Great. So now I have to jump through another hoop to just chisel some of this off. And we don't qualify, anyway, so what's the point?
I never felt too good about how this was passed and what it entailed, but I figured if it saved Americans money, I could go along with it.
I don't know what to think now. This appears, in my experience, to not be a reform for the people.
What am I missing?
I realize I will probably get screamed at for posting this, but I can't imagine I am the only Californian who just received a rate increase from Kaiser based on these new laws.
UPDATE: Updated the le per some requests. I appreciate all the helpful comments. I am now on baby duty but will go through these later for more information. I can't keep up with all the comments right now.
I really do appreciate the helpful comments. Peace all. Peace out.
Repugs cut funding. See above.
under resourced just isn't people, it's high volume servers.
Wrong. They had three years and a large budget.
From wine's article. thanks btw, man.
At least 115,000 people have completed applications through the state-based health insurance exchanges in the first two weeks of Obamacare enrollment, according to data made public by the states.
Because many of the states have released less than two full weeks of data, the true number of applications filed is likely higher. Still, even if all this enrollment were compressed into just one week, rather than spread out across two, the rate of enrollment so far is low enough that if you extrapolate it out it, the health-insurance exchanges would see only 2.76 million people enrolled at the end of the six month open-enrollment period. That number falls well short of the 7 million the administration has announced as its first-year enrollment goal and reflects the lack of enrollment reported through the federally-run exchanges, which cover 34 states, as well as troubles at the state exchanges.
Thanks for strengthening my argument, Fuzzy.
it took 2 years for MA enrollment to approach a steady maximum.
There's still 5 months left for enrollment, and 2 months left until Dec 15 if you want coverage to start 1-1-14.
Exchanges aren't the only way to enroll. People can sign up directly with insurance companies, for which I haven't seen any numbers.
A huge part of the problem with the enrollment software, state or federal, is the kludge-o-cratic complexity of ALL health insurance. ACA is a victim of the health insurance/health care kludgeocracy like all of us.
pharmacies already sell who prescribes and buys drugs to marketers.
CIA/NSA secretly provide illegal snooping data to law enforcement that is absolutely forbidden from exposing the source of the data.
Fox trolls like Napo never seems to be outraged when Repugs do this stuff.
Why do you continue to say this, when you know it isn't true? He calls out BOTH sides.
http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/i...care-exchanges
Wow, 27 year olds are really getting hosed. I wonder how they feel now having voted for the first black President because they thought it would be cool.
Does ACA set the insurance rates?
http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/i...care-exchanges
Wow, 27 year olds are really getting hosed. I wonder how they feel now having voted for the first black President because they thought it would be cool.
Do they states have insurance commissions that approve/block hikes in insurance?
Any possibility that the insurance companies are exploiting the ACA flux to screw their customers?
Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are
10/14/2013 @ 11:39AM |952,177 views
Avik Roy, Contributor
A growing consensus of IT experts, outside and inside the government, have figured out a principal reason why the website for Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchange is crashing. Healthcare.gov forces you to create an account and enter detailed personal information before you can start shopping. This, in turn, creates a massive traffic bottleneck, as the government verifies your information and decides whether or not you’re eligible for subsidies. HHS bureaucrats knew this would make the website run more slowly. But they were more afraid that letting people see the underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans would scare people away.
HHS didn’t want users to see Obamacare’s true costs
“Healthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering,” report Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal. “But that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said.” Why was it delayed? “An HHS spokeswoman said the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies.” (Emphasis added.)
As you know if you’ve been following this space, Obamacare’s bevy of mandates, regulations, taxes, and fees drives up the cost of the insurance plans that are offered under the law’s public exchanges. A Manhattan Ins ute analysis I helped conduct found that, on average, the cheapest plan offered in a given state, under Obamacare, will be 99 percent more expensive for men, and 62 percent more expensive for women, than the cheapest plan offered under the old system. And those disparities are even wider for healthy people.
That raises an obvious question. If 50 million people are uninsured today, mainly because insurance is too expensive, why is it better to make coverage even costlier?
Political objectives trumped operational objectives
The answer is that Obamacare wasn’t designed to help healthy people with average incomes get health insurance. It was designed to force those people to pay more for coverage, in order to subsidize insurance for people with incomes near the poverty line, and those with chronic or costly medical conditions.
But the laws’ supporters and enforcers don’t want you to know that, because it would violate the President’s incessantly repeated promise that nothing would change for the people that Obamacare doesn’t directly help. If you shop for Obamacare-based coverage without knowing if you qualify for subsidies, you might be discouraged by the law’s steep costs.
So, by analyzing your income first, if you qualify for heavy subsidies, the website can advertise those subsidies to you instead of just hitting you with Obamacare’s steep premiums. For example, the site could advertise plans that cost “$0″ or “$30″ instead of explaining that the plan really costs $200, and that you’re getting a subsidy of $200 or $170. But you’ll have to be at or near the poverty line to gain subsidies of that size; most people will either not qualify for a subsidy, or qualify for a small one that, net-net, doesn’t make up for the law’s cost hikes.
This political objective—masking the true underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans—far outweighed the operational objective of making the federal website work properly. Think about it the other way around. If the “Affordable Care Act” truly did make health insurance more affordable, there would be no need to hide these prices from the public.
Subsidy verification created a traffic bottleneck
Comparable private-sector e-commerce sites, like eHealthInsurance.com, allow you to shop for plans and compare prices simply by entering your age and your ZIP code. After you’ve selected a plan you like, you fill out an on-line application. That substantially winnows down the number of people who rely on the site for network-intensive tasks.
The federal government’s decision to force people to apply before shopping, Weaver and Radnofsky write, “proved crucial because, before users can begin shopping for coverage, they must cross a busy digital junction in which data are swapped among separate computer systems built or run by contractors including CGI Group Inc., the healthcare.gov developer, Quality Software Services Inc., a UnitedHealth Group Inc. unit; and credit-checker Experian PLC. If any part of the web of systems fails to work properly, it could lead to a traffic jam blocking most users from the marketplace.”
Jay Angoff, a former federal official at the agency that oversees the exchange, told the Journal that he was surprised by the decision. “People should be able to get quotes” without entering all of that information upfront.
Weaver and Radnofsky say that the core problem stems from “the slate of registration systems [that] intersect with Oracle Iden y Manager, a software component embedded in a government iden y-checking system.” The main Healthcare.gov web page collects information using the CGI Group technology. Then that data is transferred to a system built by Quailty Software Services. QSS then sends data to Experian, the credit-history firm. But the key “iden y management system” employed by QSS was designed by Oracle, and according to the Journal’s sources, the Oracle software isn’t playing nicely with the other information systems.
Oracle hotly denies these claims. “Our software is the identical product deployed in most of the world’s most complex systems…our software is running properly,” said an Oracle spokeswoman in a statement.
‘It’s awful, just awful’
Robert Pear and colleagues at the New York Times have a piece up today detailing the serious problems with the federal exchange, problems that may get worse, not better. They confirm what we already knew: that the Obama administration refused to delay the implementation of the exchanges, despite the well-known problems, because they were afraid of the political blowback. “Former government officials say the White House, which was calling the shots, feared that any backtracking would further embolden Republican critics who were trying to repeal the health care law.”
As I do ented last week, IT and insurance experts have been saying for at least eight months that implementation of the exchanges was going badly, that as early as February officials were warning of a “third world experience.” The Times’ sources are just as blunt. “These are not glitches,” said one insurance executive. “The extent of the problems is pretty enormous. At the end of our [conference calls with the administration], people say, ‘It’s awful, just awful.’”
“We foresee a train wreck,” said another executive in a February interview with the Times. “We don’t have the IT specifications. The level of angst in health plans is growing by leaps and bounds. The political people in the administration do not understand how far behind they are.” Richard Foster, the former chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said last week that “so much testing of the new system was so far behind schedule, I was not confident it would work well.”
Henry Chao, the deputy chief information officer at CMS who made the “third world experience” comment, was told by his superiors that failure to meet the October 1 launch deadline “was not an option,” according to the Times.
White House knowingly chose to court disaster
Think about it. It’s quite possible that much of this disaster could have been avoided if the Obama administration had been willing to be open with the public about the degree to which Obamacare escalates the cost of health insurance. If they had, then a number of the problems with the exchange’s software architecture would never have arisen. But that would require admitting that the “Affordable Care Act” was not accurately named.
The White House knew that its people on the front lines, people like Henry Chao, were worried that the exchanges would get botched. They saw the Congressional Research Service memorandum detailing that the administration has missed half of the statutory deadlines assigned by the law. But they were more afraid of the P.R. disaster of disclosing Obamacare’s high premiums than they were of the P.R. disaster of crashing websites. What you see is the result.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ns-true-costs/
30 years old, and still screwed up
More Angst For College Applicants: A Glitchy Common App
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/16/235421...chy-common-app
Avik Roy, extreme right winger at Manhattan Inst propagandizing in Murdoch rag WSJ. credible
So the govt sabotaged healthcare.gov?
Rick Perry Is Actually Encouraging Texans To Enroll In Obamacare
After years of trying to undermine the Affordable Care Act, Texas lawmakers are suddenly embracing President Obama’s signature domestic policy accomplishment. On Thursday, the Texas Tribune reported that the state is shuttering a state-based health care program and encouraging Texans to sign-up for coverage in the federally-run health care exchange.
it undermines Gov. Rick Perry’s (R-TX) entire health care philosophy and contradicts the GOP’s claim that states are best suited to take care of their uninsured populations.
Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign, for instance, Perry supported complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act and suggested that states should take the lead in crafting health care policy. “If we can get the federal government out of our business in the states when it comes to health care, we’ll come up with ways to deliver more health care to more people cheaper than what the federal government is mandating today,” Perry said during a 2011 GOP primary debate. Two years later, he appears to have changed his mind.
Update
In June, Perry also signed a Republican-backed bill that requires the Texas Department of State Health Services to inform individuals applying for certain state health services about “private health care insurance coverage and the health insurance exchange.”
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013...oll-obamacare/
Shutdown over, Congress turns to Obamacare 'train wreck'
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...eck-98433.html
I much rather have the Dems trying to make progress and screwing up than the Repugs trying to destroy govt and succeeding.
Healthcare.gov will get fixed but the $3T+ and the many 100Ks lives dubya and head wasted in Iraq and Afganistan are gone forever.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
